You are on page 1of 435

Plan: The United States federal government should normalize economic relations with the Republic of Cuba.

1AC Solvency
Lifting the embargo would substantially improve relations throughout the world and spur the economy. Trani 6/23 --- permanent member Council on Foreign Relations Eugene P. Trani, President and University Distinguished Professor at Virginia Commonwealth University, Graduate of the University of Notre Dame (Trani: End the embargo on Cuba, Times Dispatch, June 23, 2013, http://www.timesdispatch.com/opinion/their-opinion/columnists-blogs/guest-columnists/end-theembargo-on-cuba/article_ba3e522f-8861-5f3c-bee9-000dffff8ce7.html, accessed June 28, 2013, MY) The Soviet support of Cuba lasted right up to the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991. That event shattered the economy of Cuba and many hoped would lead to normal diplomatic and economic relations between the United States and Cuba. But 22 years later, normal relations are still not in the cards.In fact, with the passage of the Cuban Democracy Act (the Torricelli Law) in 1992 and the Cuban Liberty and Democracy Solidarity Act (the Helms-Burton Act) of 1996, relations have become even more difficult. The result is a patchwork of policies that appear to contradict one another and do
not seem to be a sensible and rational policy for the United States to follow.On the one hand, more than 200,000 Americans are now visiting Cuba on American Treasury Department-approved licenses annually. The sight of American Airlines planes dropping off and picking up American citizens at the Jos Mart International Airport in Havana seems at best surprising. My trip, conducted by Insight Cuba, was one such officially approved trip. Further, there are now more than $2 billion of remittances sent by Americans to their Cuban relatives annually. So there are some points of progress in overall Cuban-American relations. At the same time, there

are many significant problems that tend to hurt the Cuban people most at risk in economic terms. The visit of a cruise ship to a Cuban port results in that ship being unable, no matter which flag registry the ship has, to dock in the United States for six months. This policy really hurts the Cuban tourist economy, which could greatly improve employment and job creation across Cuba. If Cuban materials are used in the construction of cars (more than 4% nickel for example), these cars cannot be sold in the United
States, a policy which works against the rise of an automobile-based manufacturing segment of the Cuban economy.The American embargo has had, therefore, very significant impact on different parts of the economy in Cuba. In fact, such varied political leaders as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; George P. Shultz, former Republican secretary of state; and the late former Democratic presidential candidate, George McGovern, have called for the embargo to be lifted and relations to be renewed between Cuba and the United States. Even

polls of Americans show a majority in favor of an end to the embargo and re-establishing of normal relations between the countries. My own trip to Cuba reinforced the call for such actions. We spent four days visiting with many different kinds
of groups in Havana, community projects, senior citizens, a health clinic, youth programs, artist and recording facilities, musical ensembles, historic sites such as Revolution Square and the Ernest Hemingway house and an environmental training facility, and not once did we hear anger toward the United States or the American people.What we heard was puzzlement about the embargo and strong feelings that it was hurting the people of Cuba. In fact, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the absolute poverty rate has increased significantly in Cuba. It was also evident that there is visible decline in major infrastructure areas such as housing. Today,

there seem to be both humanitarian and economic factors, particularly with the significant growth of the non-governmental section of the economy that could factor in a change in American policy. There is also a major diplomatic factor in that no other major country, including our allies, follows our policy. What a positive statement for American foreign policy in Latin America and throughout the world it would be for the United States to end its embargo and establish normal diplomatic relations with Cuba. We would be taking both a humanitarian course of action and making a smart diplomatic gesture. The time is right and all our policy makers need is courage to bring about this change.

1AC Agriculture AdvantageScenario 1 is Economy


First- Status quo prevents agriculture trade with Cuba Griswold 05- Daniel Griswold, director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute (Four
Decades of Failure: The U.S. Embargo against Cuba, 10/12/05, http://www.cato.org/publications/speeches/fourdecades-failure-us-embargo-against-cuba, Accessed: 7/3/13, zs) Cuban families are not the only victims of the embargo. Many of the

dollars Cubans could earn from U.S. tourists would come back to the United States to buy American products, especially farm goods. In 2000, Congress approved a modest opening of the embargo. The Trade Sanctions Reform and Export
Enhancement Act of 2000 allows cash-only sales to Cuba of U.S. farm products and medical supplies. The results of this opening have been quite amazing. Since 2000, total sales of farm products to Cuba have increased from virtually zero to $380 million last year. From dead last in U.S. farm export markets, Cuba ranked 25th last year out of 228 countries in total purchases of U.S. farm products. Cuba is now the fifth largest export market in Latin America for U.S. farm exports. American farmers sold more to Cuba last year than to Brazil. Our leading exports to Cuba are meat and poultry, rice, wheat, corn, and soybeans. The American Farm Bureau estimates that Cuba could eventually become a $1 billion agricultural

export market for products of U.S. farmers and ranchers. The embargo stifles another $250 million in potential annual exports of fertilizer, herbicides, pesticides and tractors. According to a
study by the U.S. International Trade Commission, the embargo costs American firms a total of $700 million to $1.2 billion per year. Farmers in Texas and neighboring states are among the biggest potential winners. One study by Texas A&M University estimated that Texas ranks fifth among states in potential farm exports to Cuba, with rice, poultry, beef and fertilizer the top exports.

Removing the embargo is key to agriculture trade


Copeland, Jolly, and Thompson 11- Cassandra Copeland, Curtis Jolly, Henry Thompson, professors of
economics, business, and trade at the University of Auburn (2011, Journal of economics and business, PDF, Auburn, Accessed 6/27/13, http://www.auburn.edu/~thomph1/cubahistory.pdf, zs)

Cuba has substantial potential to export to the US. Cuba is the largest island in the Caribbean, about as large in land area as Alabama. Two-thirds of the land in Cuba can be cultivated. Cubas
population of 11 million is about twice that of Alabama or about equal to Georgia or the combination of Mississippi, Louisiana, and Arkansas. Cuba is potentially a major component of the regional economy. Cubas major agriculture exports are sugar, citrus, fish, cigars, and coffee. These crops complement US wheat, rice, meat, poultry, cotton, soybeans, and feed grains. Cuba also has mineral deposits of nickel (worlds second largest reserves), cobalt, iron, copper, chromite, manganese, zinc, 12 and tungsten, as well as unexplored petroleum potential. Cuba has no potential to export manufactures but that would develop with foreign investment. Figure 11 reports

US agricultural exports to Cuba in 2006, led by wheat, soybeans, chicken, corn, and rice. Given this demonstrated demand, it is safe to say lifting the embargo will increase demand for US agricultural products. Cuba can compete in only a few international agricultural markets but could supply a niche organic market in the US as suggested by Kost (1998) who projects annual agricultural exports to Cuba of $1 billion of US feed grains with a lifted embargo.

The agriculture industry is key to prevent US economic decline

Pulliam 12 John Pulliam, writer for Galesberg, winner of 2010 AP article contest (Farmers want Cuban
embargo lifted, Galesberg, 7/8/12, http://www.galesburg.com/news/x1271220402/Farmers-want-Cuban-embargolifted#axzz2Y1R3Us3L , accessed: 7/3/13, ckr)

trade relations with Cuba is an important step in furthering Illinois farmers abilities to market their produce, including grains, meat and dairy products, said Tamara Nelsen, senior director of commodities for the Illinois Farm Bureau. Agriculture has been a bright spot in our nations and our states economy during the recent downturn. Improving our trade relations with Cuba will only help to ensure agriculture can continue to strengthen our state and national economies.
Restoring normal While there may be some potential for renewed trade with Cuba if the embargo is lifted, Serven thinks it will help Cuba more than affecting U.S. farmers. As far as being a boon for U.S. agriculture, I dont think that will happen, he said. But its just the fact that were so close.

Strom said the trade embargo has very real effects. For instance, rather than buying rice from Mississippi, which would take three days to get to the island nation, Cuba is forced to buy it from Vietnam, which takes 28 days to ship the nation, about 100 miles south of Florida.
So logistically, the cost would be a whole lot cheaper (for Cuba) to buy food from the United States, just because of transportation costs, Serven said.

Avoiding US economic decline key to global economy. BW 13


(internally quoting Dr. Venkatesh Bala, chief economist at The Cambridge Group, a part of Nielsen Business Wire February 5, 2013 lexis) "North

America is slowly but steadily heading in the right direction," said Dr. Bala. "Compared to a year ago, North America showed progress toward recovery with a six-point year-on-year consumer confidence increase, driven mainly by a three-point increase in a positive job outlook, up from 37 percent to 40 percent year-on-year. With continued weakness in Europe and uneven growth in Asia, it may well be that with a brighter job market, the U nited S tates w ill serve as the
critical engine of improved global economic activity in 2013."

Global economic decline causes nuclear war Auslin 9


(Michael, Resident Scholar American Enterprise Institute, and Desmond Lachman Resident Fellow American Enterprise Institute, The Global Economy Unravels, Forbes, 3-6, http://www.aei.org/article/100187) What do these trends mean in the short and medium term? The Great Depression showed how social and global chaos followed hard on economic collapse. The mere fact that parliaments across the globe, from America to Japan, are unable to make responsible, economically sound recovery plans suggests that they do not know what to do and are simply hoping for the least disruption. Equally worrisome is the adoption of more statist economic programs around the globe, and the concurrent decline of trust in free-market systems. The threat of instability is a pressing concern. China, until last year the world's fastest growing economy, just reported that 20 million migrant laborers lost their jobs. Even in the flush times of recent years, China faced upward of 70,000 labor uprisings a year. A sustained downturn poses grave and possibly immediate threats to Chinese internal stability. The regime in Beijing may be faced with a choice of repressing its own people or diverting their energies outward, leading to conflict with China's neighbors. Russia, an oil state completely dependent on energy sales, has had to put down riots in its Far East as well as in downtown Moscow. Vladimir Putin's rule has been predicated on squeezing civil liberties while providing economic largesse. If that devil's bargain falls apart, then wide-scale repression inside Russia, along with a continuing threatening posture toward Russia's neighbors, is likely. Even apparently stable societies face increasing risk and the threat of internal or possibly external conflict. As Japan's exports have plummeted by nearly 50%, one-third of the country's prefectures have passed emergency economic stabilization plans. Hundreds of thousands of temporary employees hired during the first part of this decade are being laid off. Spain's unemployment rate is expected to climb to nearly 20% by the end of 2010; Spanish unions are already protesting the lack of jobs, and the specter of violence, as occurred in the 1980s, is haunting the country. Meanwhile, in Greece, workers have already taken to the streets. Europe as a whole will face dangerously increasing tensions between native citizens and immigrants, largely from poorer Muslim nations, who have increased the labor pool in the past several decades. Spain has absorbed five million immigrants since 1999, while nearly 9% of Germany's residents have foreign citizenship, including almost 2 million Turks. The xenophobic labor strikes in the U.K. do not bode well for the rest of Europe. A prolonged global downturn, let alone a collapse, would

dramatically raise tensions inside these countries. Couple that with possible protectionist legislation in the United States, unresolved ethnic and territorial disputes in all regions of the globe and a loss of confidence that world leaders actually know what they are doing. The result may be a series of small explosions that coalesce into a big bang .

1AC OFAC Iran Advantage


Plan boosts OFAC sanctions on Iran reallocates resources Johnson, Spector and Lilac 10 - Andy Johnson, Director, National Security Program, Kyle Spector, Policy
Advisor, National Security Program, Kristina Lilac, National Security Program, Senior Fellows of The Third Way Institute, (End the Embargo of Cuba, Article for The Third Way Institute, 9/16/10, http://content.thirdway.org/publications/326/Third_Way_Memo_-_End_the_Embargo_of_Cuba.pdf, Accessed 7/02/13, AW)

Keeping the embargo in place requires that the US government devote time and resources to fighting a Cold War -8 era threat. Senator Chris Dodd argued in a 2005 op ed that the US spends extraordinary resources each year to enforce the sanctions instead of devoting such resources to the fight against terrorism. 4 While the financial resources dedicated to enforcing the embargo may be limited compared to resources dedicated to other causes, lifting the Cuban embargo could put the US in a better position to fight terrorist organizations by freeing up resources currently enforcing the embargo. For example, the Treasury Departments Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), which governs travel and trade between the US and Cuba, is also responsible for maintaining sanctions against truly problematic countries, including Iran and North Korea. OFAC also is responsible for responding to economic threats posed by terrorist organizations and narcotics traffickers. By ending OFACs need to regulate the Cuban embargo, OFAC could instead devote those resources to respond to the current threats posed by rogue states and terrorist networks That revamps sanctions on Iran previous lack of focus and disorganization Maberry and Jensen 13 J. Scott Maberry, J.D, Georgetown University Law Center, International Trade
partner in the Government Contracts, Investigations & International Trade Practice Group, Mark L. Jensen, J.D, Harvard Law School, International Trade associate in the Government Contracts, Investigations & International Trade Practice Group, (OFAC gets hot, bothered on Iran and Cuba: how economic sanctions work today, Report for Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, 5/7/13, http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=8657e6ce454a-4eaf-ba8b-d225ea59ecdd, Accessed 7/9/13, AW) People who practice U.S. economic sanctions law like to talk about how sanctions are policy-oriented, or an engine of U.S. foreign policy. Whereas some laws may be more opaquely political, economic sanctions and embargoes seem to express most bluntly how international leverage works through regulation. And yet, a few recent regulatory developments show that the direction that sanctions take is not always predictable. The U.S. Department of Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) has

A torrent of development in laws and regulations on Iran served as the unsurprising focus of this years OFAC symposium, held on March 19, 2013, in Washington D.C. Among the developments were sanctions imposed on non-U.S. banks, a new executive order related to the purchase of petroleum and petrochemical products from Iran, an expanded scope of the Iran Transactions and Sanctions Regulations to companies owned or controlled by U.S. companies, and a new statute that targets sectors of the economy related to goods and services to Iran, including secondary financial transactions in energy, shipping, shipbuilding, precious metal, and graphite. See our recent posts on Iran here and here. Perhaps the most striking aspect of the Iran sanctions program is its proliferation into not only additional laws and regulations, but also additional regulatory regimes. The Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 ( CISADA), the National Defense Authorization Act for 2012 (NDAA), and Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012 (ITR), have created a polyglot system focused on individual sectors of the economy. OFAC presenters at
had a raucously busy year.

the March symposium gave the sense of

a proliferation of laws that is undoubtedly aimed at accomplishing U.S. foreign policy goals. But the laws are paradoxically both targeted (at industries, vessels, banks) and incredibly expansive in jurisdiction. The system is the embodiment of the powerful yet somewhat disorganized U.S. government piling on everything it can to economically overwhelm Iran. The Iran program also serves as a good case study of how far and wide economic sanctions can be made to reach. If legislation of past years has proved anything, it is that the U.S. Congress appears ready to use any and all means within its legislative authority to sanction Iran. Insofar as Congress is able to map out the reach of the U.S. financial system and economy further, it seems likely that additional sanctions will be applied. OFAC is unique involves allied cooperation your evidence doesnt assume that DoT 05 United States Department of Treasury, (OFAC, Report Written for the Federal Financial Institutions
Examination Council, June 2005, http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/OFACEnforcement/Documents/ofac_sec_frb.pdf, Accessed 7/9/13, AW)

OFAC administers and enforces economic and trade sanctions based on U.S. foreign policy and national security goals against targeted foreign countries, terrorists, international narcotics traffickers , and those engaged in activities related to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. OFAC acts under the Presidents wartime and national emergency powers, as well as under authority granted by specific legislation, to impose controls on transactions and freeze assets under U.S. jurisdiction. Many of the sanctions are based on United Nations and other international mandates, are multilateral in scope , and involve close cooperation with allied governments. OFAC requirements are separate and distinct from the BSA, but both OFAC and the BSA share a common national security goal. For this reason, many financial institutions view compliance with OFAC sanctions as related to BSA compliance
obligations; supervisory examination for BSA compliance is logically connected to the examination of a financial institutions compliance with OFAC sanctions.

Sanctions solve Iran prolif multilateral coalitions international position of strength DeLeon et al 12 - Rudy deLeon, National and International Security, John F. Kennedy School of Government at
Harvard University, Recipient of The Defense Civilian Distinguished Service Award in 1994, 1995, and 2001, National Intelligence Distinguished Service Medal in 2001, Former US Senior Department of Defense Official, Senior Vice President of National Security and International Policy at American Progress, with Brian Katulis, Peter Juul, Matt Duss and Ken Sofer, (Strengthening Americas Options on Iran, Report for The Center for American Progress, April 2012, http://www.americanprogress.org/wpcontent/uploads/issues/2012/04/pdf/iran_10questions_INTRO.pdf, Accessed 7/10/13, AW) *********NOTE: P5+1 is comprised of: United States, Russia, China, United Kingdom, France and Germany******* Indeed, amid

an array of political transitions and military conflicts around the globe, the prospect of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons has galvanized a global debate on how to stop the regime in Tehran from getting the bomb. This debate has spilled over into the domestic politics of the worlds great
powers, becoming a talking point in the 2012 U.S. presidential election and the subject of behind-the-scenes discussion during Chinas transition to its next generation of political leadership at their Party Congress this fall. In the Middle East and Central Asia, Irans nuclear program has implications for the ongoing civil war in Syria, a political transition beset by economic troubles in Egypt, and U.S. and NATO ground combat operations in Afghanistan entering their 10th year. Oil price surges worldwide threaten economic recoveries around the globerecoveries Iran could thwart in a number of ways depending on how it reacts to global pressure to come clean on its nuclear program. Events are quickly producing a decision point: A

concerned Israel

warns the diplomatic community that its window for military options to delay or deny Irans potential weapon is not unlimited due to the progress Iran has made in hardening its nuclear facilities beyond Israeli capability to penetrate them. At the same time, a vigorous roster of nations is tightening the burden of economic sanctions against Iranisolating the countrys already feeble economy , which survives only because of its vast oil reserves. Irana longtime supporter of terrorism, both
directly and through its proxies, with a track record of dissimulation on its nuclear ambitionshas no reservoir of credibility or good will, and its repeated professions that its nuclear program is peaceful deserve no benefit of the doubt. Of course Iran could quickly defuse the crisis and allow the inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency full access to all facilities of interest so it can measure and catalogue Irans capability to produce highly enriched uranium (the essential element required for weapons production), and Iran could come clean on its known nuclear weapons research. As IAEA Director General Yukio Amano affirms , Iran needs to cooperate fully with the [International Atomic Energy] Agency on all outstanding issues, particularly those which give rise to concerns about the possible military dimensions to Irans nuclear program, including by providing access without delay to all sites, equipment, persons and documents requested by the Agency. It is Irans lack of response that fuels concerns about their nuclear ambitions. Importantly, there is a strong bipartisan consensus in America and within the inter national community on this single pointan Iranian nuclear weapon would destabilize the one of the worlds most important oil -producing regions at a critical point in the global economic recovery, would harm Israels security, and would severely undermine the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty. Unfortunately, much of the political debate in this U.S. election year now distracts from these central realities. Today the United States is leading a successful three-year global effort to isolate Iran diplomatically and

implement a broad range of strict economic sanctions targeted at undermining its nuclear program. The Obama administrations initial outreach to the Iranian regime in 2009 did not achieve immediate constructive results, but the demonstration of American good faith forged greater international unity around the problem and served as an important force multiplier for subsequent successful efforts to pressure the regime. Now, as talks with the P5+1 approach, Iran must choose how to respond to the growing global concerns about its nuclear program and make the choice to live up to its international obligations or face increased international isolation. During the 2008 campaign, candidate Obama defended his proposed engagement policy by explaining that were [not] going to be able to execute the kind of sanctions we need without some cooperation with some countries like Russia and China
that...have extensive trade with Iran but potentially have an interest in making sure Iran doesnt have a nuclear weapon. Affirming his goal of tough, direct diplomacy with Iran, Obama acknowledged that diplomacy may not work, but if it doesnt work, then we have strengthened our ability to form alliances to impose tough sanctions. Over the past three years, this is precisely what the Obama administration achieved. The engagement policy has served as an important force multiplier for efforts to pressure the Iranian government. By giving Iran repeated opportunities to meet its international responsibilities, this administration has been able to forge a far stronger and more enduring international coalition to pressure Iran. Far from strengthening the Iranian regime, as some critics have alleged, Obamas engagement effort has in fact further isolated it. The United States and its partners in the P5+1 group are operating from a position of strength that would have been hard to imagine four short years ago. U.S. policy on Iran should not be determined by partisan politics and easy sound bites. Nor will U.S. policy objectives be quickly accomplished. Instead, this crisis requires policymakers and all citizens to challenge their own preconceived notions and make decisions based on facts while preparing fully for all

contingencies. Iran prolif leads to Middle East arms race ensures nuclear war Allison 6 Graham Tillett Allison Jr., Graham Allison is an American political scientist and professor at the
John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. (The Will to Prevent, Harvard International Law Review, Fall 2006, page lexis)

Meanwhile, Iran is testing the line in the Middle East. On its current trajectory, the Islamic Republic will become a nuclear weapons state before the end of the decade. According to the leadership in Tehran, Iran is exercising its inalienable right to build Iranian enrichment plants and make fuel for its peaceful civilian nuclear power generators. These same facilities, however, can continue enriching uranium to 90 percent U-235, which is the ideal core of a nuclear bomb. No one in the international community doubts that Irans hidden objective in building enrichment facilities is to build nuclear bombs. If Iran crosses its nuclear finish line, a Middle

Eastern cascade of new nuclear weapons states could trigger the first multi-party nuclear arms race, far more volatile than the Cold War competition between the United States and the Soviet Union. Given Egypts historic role as the leader of the Arab Middle East, the prospects of it living unarmed alongside a nuclear Persia are very low. The IAEAs reports of clandestine nuclear experiments hint that Cairo may have considered this possibility. Were Saudi Arabia to buy a dozen nuclear warheads that could be mated to the Chinese medium-range ballistic missiles it purchased secretly in the 1980s, few in the US intelligence community would be surprised. Given Saudi Arabias role as the major financier of Pakistans clandestine nuclear program in the 1980s, it is not out of the question that Riyadh and Islamabad have made secret arrangements for this contingency. Such a multi-party nuclear arms race in the Middle East would be like playing Russian roulettedramatically increasing the likelihood of a regional nuclear war. Other nightmare scenarios for the region include an accidental or unauthorized nuclear launch from Iran, theft of nuclear warheads from an unstable regime in Tehran, and possible Israeli preemption against Irans nuclear facilities, which Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has implied,
threatening, Under no circumstances, and at no point, can Israe l allow anyone with these kinds of malicious designs against us to have control of weapons of destruction that can threaten our existence.

1AC Soft Power Advantage


US credibility on the international stage is low now-increased engagement key Duddy & Mora 2013,Patrick Duddy served as U.S. ambassador to Venezuela from 2007 until 2010 and is
currently visiting senior lecturer at Duke University. Frank O. Mora is incoming director of the Latin American and Caribbean Center, Florida International University, and former deputy assistant secretary of Defense, (Western Hemisphere (2009-2013)] 05.01.2013 Latin America: Is U.S. influence waning? 5/1/13 http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/05/01/3375160/latin-america-is-us-influence.html, Accessed July 4, 2013, KH)
Is U.S. influence in Latin America on the wane? It depends how you look at it. As President Obama travels to Mexico and Costa Rica, its likely the pundits will once again underscore what some perceive to be the eroding influence of the

United States in the Western Hemisphere. Some will point to the decline in foreign aid or the absence of an overarching policy with an inspiring moniker like Alliance for Progress or Enterprise Area of the Americas as evidence that the United States is failing to embrace the opportunities of a region that is more important to this country than ever. The reality is a lot more complicated. Forty-two percent of all U.S. exports flow
to the Western Hemisphere. In many ways, U.S. engagement in the Americas is more pervasive than ever, even if more diffused. That is in part because the peoples of the Western Hemisphere are not waiting for governments to choreograph their interactions. A more-nuanced assessment inevitably will highlight the complex, multidimensional ties between

the United States and the rest of the hemisphere. In fact, it may be that we need to change the way we think and talk about the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean. We also need to resist the
temptation to embrace overly reductive yardsticks for judging our standing in the hemisphere. As Moises Naim notes in his recent book, The End of Power, there has been an important change in power distribution in the world away from states toward an expanding and increasingly mobile set of actors that are dramatically shaping the nature and scope

of global relationships. In Latin America, many of the most substantive and dynamic forms of engagement are occurring in a web of cross-national relationships involving small and large companies, people-to-people contact through student exchanges and social media, travel and migration. Trade and investment remain the most enduring and measurable dimensions of U.S. International support for lifting the embargo-UN vote proves Havana Times 12 (Cuba Embargo Blasted Again at UN 188-3, Havana Times, November 13 2012,
http://www.havanatimes.org/?p=82054, Accessed: 7/4/13, EH)
HAVANA TIMES (dpa) The UN General Assembly on Tuesday renewed a demand that the United States lift the economic embargo imposed on Cuba since the 1960s. The 193-nation assembly voted 188-3 to adopt an annual resolution, for the 21st consecutive year, calling for UN members to consider the US embargo against Cuba as illegal and respect international law that reaffirms freedom of trade and navigation. Last years vote was 186-2. The United States, Israel and Palau voted against the resolution, while the Marshall Islands and Micronesia abstained. Washington has rejected the repeated UN demands to end the embargo. But it has also improved ties with Havana and allowed US citizens to travel to Cuba. The resolution, like in previous ones, asked all states that have been implementing the US embargo to take the necessary steps to repeal or invalidate them as soon as possible in accordance with their legal regime.

The economic embargo against Cuba was strengthened by US President John F Kennedy in February 1962 following the failure of US-backed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba. The US embargo was further boosted in 1996 by the Helms-Burton Act with the US Congress demanding compliance by all companies with regard to trade and navigation with Cuba. - See more at: http://www.havanatimes.org/?p=82054#sthash.yJBO6ieX.dpuf

The embargo undermines US influence and soft power Hansing 11 Katrin Hansing, Associate Professor of Black and Hispanic Studies at Baruch College
(10 Reasons to Oppose the Embargo, Center for Democracy in the Americas, October 21 2011, http://www.democracyinamericas.org/blog-post/10-reasons-to-oppose-the-embargo/, Accessed: 6/28/13, EH)

In light of the UN Secretary-Generals report on the U.S. embargo of Cuba, and in advance of Tuesdays vote against it, we offer a series of statements from a variety of sourcesincluding a retired General, Ronald Reagans Agriculture Secretary, an environmentalist, a physician, an actor/human rights advocate, several scholars, and one of Washingtons leading voices on foreign policyon why the U.S. should end the embargo. We hope you read them all.

The embargo undermines U.S. foreign policy interests Failure of the U.S. to finally snuff out the last vestiges of the Cold War in the U.S.-Cuba embargo signals impotence in American strategic vision and capability. Those who support the embargo undermine the empowerment of Cuban citizens, harming
them economically and robbing them of choices that could evolve through greater engagement exactly what we have seen in transitioning Communist countries like Vietnam and China. The world is dismayed and rejects yet again Americas nonsensical embargo,

which ultimately makes the U.S. look strategically muddled and petty rather than a leader committed to improving the global order.
Steve Clemons, Washington Editor-at-Large, The Atlantic Senior Fellow & Founder, American Strategy Program New America Foundation The embargo hurts U.S. national security interests 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 and terrorism, 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. John Adams, Brigadier General US Army (Retired)

Repealing embargo key to regaining international reputation- Embargo is symbolic Holmes 10- Michael G. Holmes, MA The School of Continuing Studies, Georgetown (SEIZING THE MOMENT, June 21, 2010, Georgetown, https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/bitstream/handle/10822/553334/holmesMichael.pd f?sequence=1-Accessed-7-2-13-RX] From an image stand point repealing the sanctions and removing the embargo is symbolic. It shows Cuba and the world that although the United States is pro democracy, it does not wish to impose its values on other nations. The Cuba Democracy Act was an attempt to force democratic changes in Cuba.10 By repealing the act the
United States, illustrates that it respects the sovereignty of nations. Considering that this Act did allow for the application of U.S. law in a foreign country11, repealing it not only sends the message about U.S. views on sovereignty but also shows that the administration is taking steps to ensure that sovereignty is actually respected.

Repealing the Helms-Burton Law will certainly stimulate foreign investment in Cuba as well . Many
foreign countries were leery of investing in Cuba out of fear of being sued or losing property under the provisions established by the HelmsBurton Act.12 This

return of foreign investment will further secure Cuba's place in the global

marketplace. It also will help to silence skeptics who will question U.S. intentions. Since the sanctions against Cuba were unilateral U.S. actions, an unsolicited change in course will undoubtedly spark speculation. Allowing all countries to invest in Cuba again underscores the United States' position of desiring for all countries to participate in the global market place. It is difficult to imagine that the benefits of lifting the embargo will not be immediate and substantial in regards to the United States reputation in the world. Looking at the long-term benefits of removing the sanctions, the two benefits that stand out the most are trade and fuel.

US soft power key in order to solve global problems such as economic competitiveness, terrorism, war, proliferation, disease, human trafficking, and drugs Kurlantzick 06- Joshua Kurlantzick visiting scholar in the Carnegie Endowments China Program and a fellow
at the USC School of Public Diplomacy and the Pacific Council on International Policy; previously foreign editor at The New Republic, (The Decline of American Soft Power, carnegieendowment.org, 2006, http://carnegieendowment.org/files/Kurlantzick.pdf, Accessed: July 10, 2013, KH)

A broad decline in soft power has many practical implications. These include the drain in foreign talent coming to the United States, the potential backlash against American companies, the growing attractiveness of China and Europe, and the possibility that anti-US sentiment will make it easier for terrorist groups to recruit. In addition, with a decline in soft power, Washington is simply less able to persuade others. In the run-up to the Iraq War, the Bush administration could not convince Turkey, a longtime US ally, to play a major staging role, in part because America's image in Turkey was so poor. During the war itself, the United States has failed to obtain significant participation from all but a handful of major nations, again in part because of America's negative image in countries ranging from India to Germany. In attempts to persuade North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons, Washington has had to allow China to play a central role, partly because few Asian states view the United States as a neutral, legitimate broker in the talks. Instead, Washington must increasingly resort to the other option Nye discusses-force, or the threat of force. With foreign governments and publics suspicious of American policy, the White House has been unable to lead a multinational effort to halt Iran's nuclear program, and instead has had to resort to threatening sanctions at the United Nations or even the possibility of strikes against Iran. With America's image declining in nations like Thailand and Pakistan, it is harder for leaders in these countries to openly embrace counterterrorism cooperation with the United States, so Washington resorts to quiet arm-twisting and blandishments to obtain counterterror concessions. Force is not a long-term solution. Newer, nontraditional security threats such as disease, human trafficking, and drug trafficking can only be managed through forms of multilateral cooperation that depend on America's ability to persuade other nations. Terrorism itself cannot be defeated by force alone, a fact that even the White House recognizes. The 2002 National security Strategy emphasizes that winning the war on terror requires the United States to lead a battle of ideas against the ideological roots of terrorism, in addition to rooting out and destroying individual militant cells.

North Korea Nuclear EMP kills Millions of Americans Instantly Maloof 13- F. Michael Maloof, staff writer for WND and G2Bulletin, is a former senior security policy analyst in
the office of the Secretary of Defense, NORTH KOREAN EMP ATTACK 'UNSTOPPABLE, WND, April 14, 2013, http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/north-korean-emp-attack-unstoppable/, Accessed July 10, 2013, KH) If North Korea were to launch a preemptive nuclear attack on the United States, it could use a long-range missile to orbit a satellite over the South Pole, putting it in line to fly over Omaha, Neb., and explode it at a 300-mile altitude where U.S. Aegis anti-ballistic missile systems cannot reach, sources have told WND. In addition, these sources say, there is no way to determine whether a missile is carrying a dummy or real nuclear warhead, obviating the need to shoot down any missile that is launched from North Korea, given the public warning by Pyongyang that it intends to launch a preemptive nuclear strike against the U.S. The U.S. has positioned Aegis ships near North Korea and Japan, but a political decision apparently has been made not to attempt to shoot it down if it is heading for open water. Sources say, however, that a missile to be launched toward the U.S. would take a trajectory over the South Pole, and it is questionable whether the U.S. has Aegis assets anywhere along the southerly path such a missile would take. In addition, the missile would need to be shot down almost after lift-off, since the missile would launch the satellite relatively quickly into an orbit of 300 miles, which was the altitude of its satellite launch last December. North Korea, meanwhile, announced in a statement that it has drawn the arrows for merciless retaliatory strikes at the U.S. mainland, U.S. military bases in the Pacific and all other bases where the U.S. imperialist aggression forces station. The powerful strike means of the revolutionary armed forces of the DPRK [Democrat ic People's Republic of Korea] have been put in their places and the coordinates of targets put into the warheads, a North Korean statement said. Just pressing the button will be enough to turn the strongholds of the enemies into the sea of fire. North Korea in December successfully orbited a satellite weighing 220 pounds so they could deliver against the United States, or against any nation on Earth, a small nuclear warhead, said Dr. Peter Vincent Pry, who served as staff director on the a commission that looked into the effects of an electromagnetic pulse, or EMP, on the national electrical grid system and other critical U.S. infrastructures. THIS is how an EMP event could bring the worlds remaining superpower to its knees. Read it in A Nation Forsaken. A nuclear weapon designed specifically to generate a powerful electromagnetic pulse, or EMP a single such super-EMP warhead would be able to collapse the U.S. electric grid and other critical infrastructures, inflicting catastrophic consequences on the entire nation would probably be deliverable by North Koreas so -called space launch vehicle over the United States, said Pry, who also worked for the Central Intelligence Agency. North Korea orbited its satellite on a trajectory and at an altitude ideal for making an EMP attack on the U.S. Pry pointed out that South Korean military intelligence has warned not only their government but also the U.S. that North Korea is developing super-EMP warheads with Russian help. In 2011, Pry pointed out, a military commentator with the Peoples Republic of China

stated that North Korea has super-EMP warheads. Data from North Koreas nuclear tests, he said, are consistent with a super-EMP warhead. Prys comments echo those of former U.S. Ambassador Henry Cooper, in which he said that North Korea could launch a nuclear weapon on a satellite, similar to satellites North Korea has previously launched southward over the South Pole. After all, Cooper said in an interview with WND, their previous satellites have been successfully placed in orbits that are optimum for executing an electromagnetic pulse, or EMP, attack on the entire continental U.S. with a single nuclear burst. Cooper, chairman of the board of High Frontier, which is dedicated to warning the U.S. against a missile attack, developed the framework for President Ronald Reagans Strategic Defense Initiative. He also pushed for a workable missile defense system for the U.S. and later became director of the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization under President George W. Bush. Cooper pointed out that the satellite carrying a nuclear warhead could be detonated at an altitude of 300 miles. With a detonation over Omaha, he said, it would blanket the entire continental United States with EMP effects, the consequences of which could, within a year, lead to the death of hundreds of millions of Americans and end our way of life . Other sources have indicated that the 220-pound satellite would be able to carry a 300 kiloton nuclear bomb, similar to the weight of warheads on U.S. missiles and would be sufficient to create an EMP effect from coast to coast if exploded at 300 miles above Omaha. North Korea, Iran and everyone else understands these points or certainly should if they have been awake, Cooper said. But have they connected the dots? Cooper said that if the satellite with a nuclear weapon in it were to come from the southern hemisphere, there may not be sufficient warning and tracking information to support an intercept attempt before North Korea detonates its nuclear device over Omaha. He said North Korea could launch a nuclear weapon on a satellite, similar to satellites North Korea has previously launched southward over the South Pole. After all, their previous satellites have been successfully placed in orbits that are optimum for executing an electromagnetic pulse attack on the entire continental U.S. with a single nuclear burst, Cooper said. Our current defense is focused on an attack from the north but if the attack came from the south via satellite, it might not be capable of intercepting the satellite before North Korea detonates its device, Cooper warned. Moreover, he added, where there are disputes about whether North Korean ballistic missiles launched in a normal ballistic trajectory have sufficient range to reach the U.S. mainland, there can be no dispute about whether a nuclear weapon on a satellite can be detonated on orbit above the United States or anywhere else on the surface of the earth.

Iran prolif leads to Middle East nuclear arms race causes nuclear war Allison 6 Graham Tillett Allison Jr., Graham Allison is an American political scientist and professor at the
John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. (The Will to Prevent, Harvard International Law Review, Fall 2006, page lexis) Meanwhile, Iran is testing the line in the Middle East. On its current trajectory, the Islamic Republic will become a nuclear weapons state before the end of the decade. According to the leadership in Tehran, Iran is exercising its inalienable right to build Iranian enrichment plants and make fuel for its peaceful civilian nuclear power generators. These same facilities, however, can continue enriching uranium to 90 percent U-235, which is the ideal core of a nuclear bomb. No one in the international community doubts that Irans hidden objective in building enrichment facilities is to build nuclear bombs. If Iran crosses its nuclear finish line, a Middle

Eastern cascade of new nuclear weapons states could trigger the first multi-party nuclear arms race, far more volatile than the Cold War competition between the United States and the Soviet Union. Given Egypts historic role as the leader of the Arab Middle East, the prospects of it living unarmed alongside a nuclear Persia are very low. The IAEAs reports of clandestine nuclear experiments hint that Cairo may have considered this possibility. Were Saudi Arabia to buy a dozen nuclear warheads that could be mated to the Chinese medium-range ballistic missiles it purchased secretly in the 1980s, few in the US intelligence community would be surprised. Given Saudi Arabias role as the major financier of Pakistans clandestine nuclear program in the 1980s, it is not out of the question that Riyadh and Islamabad have made secret arrangements for this contingency. Such a multi-party nuclear arms race in the Middle East would be like playing Russian roulettedramatically increasing the likelihood of a regional nuclear war. Other nightmare scenarios for the region include an accidental or unauthorized

nuclear launch

from Iran, theft of nuclear warheads from an unstable regime in Tehran, and possible Israeli preemption against Irans nuclear facilities, which Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has implied,
threatening, Under no circumstances, and at no point, can Israel allow anyone with these kinds of malicious designs against us to have control of weapons of destruction that can threaten our existence.

1AC Human rights Advantage


Advantage __ is human rights: Two internal links

First is credibility, the US embargo violates the human rights of Cubans Amnesty International 09Non-profit organization to protect human rights (THE US EMBARGO
AGAINST CUBA ITS IMPACT ON ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL RIGHTS, Amnesty International, http://www.amnesty.org/ar/library/asset/AMR25/007/2009/en/51469f8b-73f8-47a2-a5bdf839adf50488/amr250072009eng.pdf, Accessed 7/4/13, jtc)
The adverse consequences of economic sanctions on the enjoyment of human rights, a Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, concluded that the

study prepared by Marc Bossuyt for the SubUS embargo violates human rights law

in two distinct ways. Firstly, the fact that the United States is the major regional economic power and the main source of new medicines and technologies means that Cuba is subject to deprivations that impinge on its citizens human rights. Secondly, by passing legislation that tries to force third-party countries into embargoing Cuba as well the 1992 Torricelli Act the US government attempted to turn a unilateral embargo into a multilateral embargo through coercive measures, the only effect of which will be to deepen further the suffering of the Cuban people and increase the violation of their human
rights.34

The embargo doesnt work- its just a scapegoat 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, 2012, Cato Institute, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/time-end-cuba-embargo, accessed July 4, 2013, MY) The U.S. government has waged economic war against the Castro regime for half a century. The policy may have been worth a try during the Cold War, but the embargo has failed to liberate the
Cuban people. It is time to end sanctions against Havana. Decades ago the Castro brothers lead a revolt against a nasty
authoritarian, Fulgencio Batista. After coming to power in 1959, they created a police state, targeted U.S. commerce, nationalized American assets, and allied with the Soviet Union. Although Cuba was but a small island nation, the Cold War magnified its perceived importance. Washington reduced Cuban sugar import quotas in July 1960. Subsequently U.S. exports were limited, diplomatic ties were severed, travel was restricted, Cuban imports were banned, Havanas American assets were frozen, and almost all travel to Cuba was banned. Washington also pressed its allies to impose sanctions. These various measures had no evident effect, other than to intensify Cubas reliance on the Soviet Union. Yet the collapse of the latter nation had no impact on U.S. policy. In 1992, Congress banned American subsidiaries from doing business in Cuba and in 1996, it penalized foreign firms that trafficked in expropriated U.S. property. Executives from such companies even were banned from traveling to America. On occasion Washington relaxed one aspect or another of the embargo, but in general continued to tighten restrictions, even over Cuban Americans. Enforcement is not easy, but Uncle Sam tries his best. For instance, according to the Government Accountability Office, Customs and Border Protection increased its secondary inspection of passengers arriving from Cuba to reflect an increased risk of embargo violations after the 2004 rule changes, which, among other things, eliminated the allowance for travelers to import a small amount of Cuban products for personal consumption. Lifting

sanctions would be a victory not for Fidel Castro, but for the power of free people to spread liberty. Three years ago, President Barack Obama loosened regulations on Cuban Americans,
as well as telecommunications between the United States and Cuba. However, the law sharply constrains the presidents discret ion. Moreover, UN Ambassador Susan Rice said that the embargo will continue until Cuba is free. It is far past time to end the embargo. During the Cold War, Cuba offered a potential advanced military outpost for the Soviet Union. Indeed, that role led to the Cuban missile crisis. With the failure of the U.S.-supported Bay of Pigs invasion, economic pressure appeared to be Washingtons best strategy for ousting the Castro dictatorship. However,

the end of the Cold War left Cuba strategically irrelevant. It is a poor country with little ability to harm the United States. The Castro regime might still encourage unrest, but its survival has no measurable impact on any important U.S. interest. The regime remains a humanitarian travesty, of course. Nor are Cubans the only
victims: three years ago the regime jailed a State Department contractor for distributing satellite telephone

equipment in Cuba. But Havana is not the only regime to violate human rights. Moreover, experience has long demonstrated that it is
virtually impossible for outsiders to force democracy. Washington often has used sanctions and the Office of Foreign Assets Control currently is enforcing around 20 such programs, mostly to little effect. The

power. Indeed, it has consistently used the

policy in Cuba obviously has failed. The regime remains in embargo to justify its own mismanagement, blaming poverty

on America. Observed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: It is my personal belief that the Castros do not want to see an end to the emba rgo
and do not want to see normalization with the United States, because they would lose all of their excuses for what hasnt happened in Cuba in the last 50 years. Similarly, Cuban exile Carlos Saladrigas of the Cuba Study Group argued that keeping the embargo, maintainin g this hostility, all it does is strengthen and embolden the hardliners.

Cuban human rights activists also generally oppose sanctions. A decade ago I (legally) visited Havana, where I met Elizardo Sanchez Santa Cruz, who suffered in communist prisons for eight years. He told me that the sanctions policy gives the government a good alibi to j ustify the failure of the totalitarian model in Cuba.

Second is oppression, the embargo allows the Cuban government to commit atrocities against its people, lifting solves Amash 12- Brandon Amash, writer at the Prospect Journal, (EVALUATING THE CUBAN EMBARGO, 7/23/12, http://prospectjournal.org/2012/07/23/evaluating-the-cubanembargo/, 6/28/13, CAS)
Although Americas previous policies of intervention, use of force and economic sanctions have all failed at achieving democratization in Cuba, not all options have been exhausted. One policy alternative for promoting democracy and human rights in Cuba that the United States has not attempted is the exact opposite of the approach it has taken for the past half century. Namely, the United States should lift the embargo on Cuba

and reopen diplomatic relations in order to work internationally on improving human rights in Cuba. Unless Cuba, as a rogue state, is isolated internationally, rather than merely by the United States, the human
rights situation in Cuba may never improve. A fresh policy of engagement towards Cuba has been delayed long enough. 4.1: Reopening diplomatic relations with Cuba will decrease the chances of conflict and will promote cooperation between the two countries economically, politically and socially. Diplomatic relations and negotiations have proven to be effective in the past in similar situations, such as the renewed relations between Egypt and Israel following the Camp David Accords. As Huddleston and Pascual state, a great lesson of democracy is that it cannot be imposed; it must come from within. [] Our policy

should therefore encompass the political, economic, and diplomatic tools to enable the Cuban people to engage in and direct the politics of their country (Huddleston 14). The mobilization of the
Cuban people on the issues of democratization, which are inherently linked to the human rights violations in Cuba, is a first step to producing changes in Cuba. American engagement with the Cuban people, currently lacking under the embargo policy, will provide the impetus in Cuban society to produce regime change. Furthermore, integrating U.S.-Cuba relations on a multilateral level will ease the burden on the United States in fostering democracy and a better human rights record in the country, as other states will be more involved in the process. In contrast to a policy of isolation, normalized relations will allow America to engage Cuba in new areas, opening the door for democratization and human rights improvements from within the Cuban state itself. 4.2: With diplomatic relations in place, the United States may directly promote human rights in the country through negotiations, conferences, arbitration and mediation. Providing the support, resources, and

infrastructure to promote democratic systems in Cuba could produce immense improvements to the human rights situation in the nation. Normalizing diplomatic relations with the state will also allow America
to truly support freedom of opinion and expression in Cuba, which it cannot currently promote under the isolationist policy. Furthermore, through diplomatic relations and friendly support, Cuba will be more willing to participate in the international system, as well as directly with the United States, as an ally. As the United States, along with the international community as a whole, helps and supports Cubas economic growth, Cuban society wi ll eventually push for greater protection of human rights.

4.3: Lifting

economic sanctions will improve economic growth in Cuba, which correlates to democratization. Empirical evidence shows that a strong economy is correlated to democracy. According to the
Modernization Theory of democratization, this correlation is a causal link: economic growth directly leads to democratization. Lifting the current economic sanctions on Cuba and working together to improve economic situations in the state will allow their economy to grow, increasing the likelihood of democracy in the state, and thus promoting greater freedom of expression, opinion and dissent. 4.4: A policy of engagement will be a long-term solution to promoting democracy and improving human rights in Cuba. This proposal, unique in that it is simply one of abandoning an antiquated policy and normalizing relations to be like those with any other country, does not present any large obstacles to implementation, either in the short run or the long run. The main challenge is in continuing to support such a policy and maintaining the normal diplomatic, economic and social relations with a country that has been isolated for such a long period of time. Although effects of such a policy may be difficult to determine in the short term, promoting democracy and improving human rights in Cuba are long-term solutions. As discussed above, engagement with the Cuban government and society, along with support from the international community, will provide the spark and guidance for the Cuban people to support and promote democracy, and thus give greater attention to human rights violations.

US needs to adopt consistent strategy to human rights to gain credibility and end oppression McDonough 2/11-- Amy McDonough, Program Assistant with the Open Society Foundations, previously
worked at John Snow, Inc. (JSI) on USAIDs Maternal and Child Health Project , B.A. in Diplomacy and World Affairs from Occidental College (Human Rights and the Failings of U.S. Public Diplomacy in Eurasia, HuffPost, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amy-mcdonough/human-rights-and-the-fail_b_2664667.html, Accessed 7/10/13, jtc) The United States has two distinct approaches to human rights violations in the countries of the former Soviet Union. When it is in Washington's perceived strategic interest, the U.S. government normally remains quiet. When its strategic interests are not at stake, U.S. officials speak forcefully and work to expose human rights violations and corruption. This inconsistent approach fuels cynicism toward the United States when it professes support for human rights. The approach also limits the

incentives for governments in the region to improve their behavior and it fosters the perception that the United States is not a legitimate global protector of human rights. These inconsistencies
become abundantly clear by comparing U.S. officials' public statements on Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Tajikistan and Russia, as shown in a recently published OSF policy paper, "Human Rights and the Failings of U.S. Public Diplomacy in Eurasia." Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, which provide critical supply routes to U.S. troops in Afghanistan, are rarely criticized. U.S. officials tend to emphasize the positive aspects of the respective countries' behavior while ignoring persistent violations of human rights. When U.S. officials do mention human rights and democracy, they are usually buried at the end of a list of issues. But the United States takes the opposite approach toward Belarus. U.S. officials strongly condemn human rights violations and treat improvements in democratic governance as a requirement for improving bilateral relations. In Russia, the United States takes a middle-of-the-road approach, addressing human rights and democracy problems while making clear that it considers these issues separate from other areas on which it seeks progress. The volume and stridency of U.S. rhetoric rises and falls depending on the state of play in other areas of the relationship with Russia. This approach underscores the reality that the United States will publicly comment on Russia's human rights and democracy problems only to the extent that its comments will not have a detrimental impact on its other interests. To be sure, a one-size-fits-all approach to U.S. public diplomacy on human rights and democracy across its many diverse bilateral relationships is not feasible. Nevertheless, the United States should develop a more consistent approach to defending human rights to live up to its own standards. As former Secretary of State Clinton's said in her last television interview: "... I believe that what we've done is to pioneer the new diplomacy, taking the best and continuing the traditions of... government-to-government negotiations, whether it's a trade treaty or a peace treaty, but also expanding our aperture so that we understand that the United States must tell its story better... must stand for our values more strongly." The beginning of the second Obama Administration

presents an opportunity for the United States to reaffirm its values by taking the following steps: Give greater weight to public diplomacy considerations in determining its approach to human rights and democracy. These issues should not only be discussed privately between governments; the United States needs to show the public in the region that it cares enough to speak publicly about these issues. Speak more forthrightly about human rights in countries where it has strategic interests. There is significant room to increase pressure on countries such as Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, whose governments will not change course without greater pressure from the United States and the international community. Weave human rights into discussions of other issues and address them concurrently, rather than "last but not least." Last is least. It is a means of trying to ensure that unpleasant discussions on human rights will not poison discussions on other strategic issues. Treating human rights and

democracy on a par with other issues will show the United States' commitment to these issues and encourage real progress. If the United States starts treating these issues more consistently, leaders of oppressive regimes in the region will know that they will face increased pressure on the international stage if they do not choose to fully respect the rights and freedoms of their citizens.
As importantly, their citizens will know that the United States is truly committed to supporting the universal values of human rights and democracy.

The Cuban embargo is inhumane and Genocidal Schweid 08 Barry Schweid, AP diplomatic writer (Cuban diplomat: US embargo is akin to genocide, USA Today, 10/24/2008, http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-10-242543966879_x.htm, Accessed: 7/3/2013, EH)
WASHINGTON Looking ahead to a new American administration, Cuba's top diplomat in Washington opened a campaign Wednesday to generate world pressure to kill a half-century old U.S. trade embargo that he likened to genocide. "It's equivalent to genocide; its intention is strangulation," Jorge Bolanos said in an Associated Press interview a week before Cuba plans to ask the U.N. General Assembly to condemn the U.S. boycott of his country. Bolanos steered clear of presidential politics, but he said Cuba was ready for talks with the United States "if the U.S. considers Cuba an equal partner in negotiations." Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama has said he would be willing to meet with Cuban leader Raul Castro without preconditions and would ease restrictions on family-related travel and on money Cuban-Americans want to send to their families in Cuba. Republican nominee John McCain, meanwhile, has called the offer to meet "the wrong signal," but also has said he favors easing restrictions on Cuba once the United States is "confident that the transition to a free and open democracy is being made." The United States has no diplomatic relations with Cuba and lists the country as a state sponsor of terror. The trade embargo, imposed in 1962, has been tightened during President Bush's two terms. "The last eight years have seen the most ruthless and inhumane application of the blockade," Bolanos said. It "typifies the act of genocide" and from the start was designed to undermine the Cuban revolution of 1959 led by Fidel Castro, the diplomat said. Forced to retire because of intestinal illnesses, Fidel yielded control of the government to his brother, Raul. "He is better and better every day," Bolanos said. "He is writing." But Bolanos said he did not know if Fidel Castro, now 82, would be able to participate in the half-century anniversary celebration of the revolution in Santiago at the end of the year. Bolanos, who heads Cuba's "interest section" in Washington out of the embassy of Switzerland, said he had "no doubt the blockade is going to disappear" at some point. Next Wednesday, the U.N. General Assembly will consider a resolution calling on the United States to end the trade embargo. Every year for the past 17 years, the Assembly has approved Cuba's resolution, but the United States has not yielded. "It is the most isolated issue at the U.N.," Bolanos said, and the U.N. has "a psychological and moral effect." The diplomat, a former ambassador to Mexico, Brazil and Britain, predicted the embargo, in time, will "disappear." Representing a government the United States shuns, Bolanos said he is limited in his travels to the Washington area and is permitted among government offices only to visit the State Department, where he said he has had occasional meetings. However, he said, the diplomatic community has treated him as "an ambassador in full capacity." Again and again, in a 50-minute interview conducted mostly in English, Bolanos returned to the U.S. embargo and its impact. He said a few sick Cuban children have been unable to receive proper medical treatment because the United States would not approve the export of catheters. Some material for the blind also is under boycott , and Cuba was unable to purchase washing machines from Mexico because they had parts manufactured in the United States, he said. "Eleven million Cubans live under the blockade's effects," he said. "Each day, each of them, child, woman, man, elder of whatever social position or religion, suffers without distinction, the perverse effects of the blockade ." The cost to Cuba has risen to $93 billion, but the blockade has failed to undermine the Cuban government "because of the irrevocable will of the Cuban nation to defend its legitimate right to self-determination," the ambassador said.

1AC Democracy Advantage


Lifting embargo starts democracy chain Arzeno 12MBA in military art and science strategy Mario A. Arzeno, M.B.A. of military art and
science strategy, University of Miami. She is also a member of the Inter American Defense board. Created on March 30th, 1942, the Inter-American Defense Board (IADB) is the oldest regional defense organization in the world. Its main purpose is to provide the OAS and its member states with technical and educational advice and consultancy services on matters related to military and defense issues in the Hemisphere in order to contribute to the fulfillment of the OAS Charter. The IADB enjoys technical autonomy in carrying out the purpose and functions contained in these Statutes, taking into account the mandates of the OAS (General Assembly, Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, and Permanent Council) Currently, the IADB has 27 Member States and its structure is composed by the Council of Delegates, by the Secretariat and by the Inter-American Defense College, bringing together civilian and military representatives of various American countries. (THE U.S. EMBARGO ON CUBA: A TIME FOR CHANGE?, BiblioScholar, 9/18/12, Page 51, Print, Accessed 7/3/13, jtc)
Critics argue free markets do not promote democracy. However, free

trade and open markets do promote open economies and societies with greater freedom for their people, with better opportunities and less poverty. Less poverty equals stability. Charles William Maynes, President of the Eurasia Foundation and a leading political scientist in the United States calls this idea of free markets promoting democracy Liberal Internationalism. He argues open markets lead to the formation of a middle class; the middle class then brings pressure on non-democratic governments to open the political process; once that opening occurs, democracy develops. With Cubas proximity to the United States, democracy is inevitable. It will be a slow
process. Nevertheless, it will happen, as it has in countless other countries like the Dominican Republic, Chile, Argentina, El Salvador and the other thirty-one out of thirtytwo countries in the Latin American region. The

first step before any real change happens in Cuba must be engagement within our own borders with the Cuban American National Foundation (CANF). The
CANF is without question the center of gravity for this issue. The CANF is single handedly preventing progress in the Cuba policy. Clausewitz defines a center of gravity as the hub of all power and movement, on which everything else depends. That is the point agains t which all our energies should be directed. The United States should focus its energy on encouraging the CANF to reform its uncompromising stance against

Several actions, or decisive points, must occur for the CANF to compromise and ultimately create change in Cuba; beginning with the review of the Torricelli Bill and the Helms-Burton Act, followed by the opening of economic trade, and the lifting of restrictions on the travel ban and the sale of food and medicine. The CANF will not allow any of this to happen without the unconditional removal of Castro and anyone associated with the Castro family. This is an unrealistic goal that the embargo alone cannot accomplish. The CANF, as the source of all power in this issue, should be part of the solution by seeking ways to promote change in the Cuba policy, instead of seeking ways to prevent change in a failed policy. The CANFs power and influence is becoming less relevant each day with the shift in public opinion that is even transcending cultural lines to Cuban Americans in Miami who believe the embargo is a failed policy. Since 1993, the Florida International University in Miami has polled Cuban Americans on their position with regard to the Cuba Policy. In 1993, forty two percent of Cuban Americans believed better relations with Cuba were needed. The most recent poll in 2002 indicates that number has grown to sixty-two percent who believe better relations are needed. However, the CANFs influence is still significant enough to prevent better relations and progres s. The U.S. strategic goal for Cuba should be a peaceful transition to a post embargo environment by gradually lifting the embargo with the
Castro. implementation of the full spectrum of the Diplomatic Instruments of Power illustrated below. Fidel Castro should be inconsequential to the transition: Diplomatic. Open dialogue with the government of Cuba. Fidel Castro says he wants to open negotiations with the U.S. The U.S. should capitalize on this new stance of openness and use it to its advantage. The U.S. has open dialogue with China; Cuba should be no different. This idea will also open doors to establish relationships with the progressive Cuban leadership willing to consider change. The Bush Administration should also consider supporting the Cuba Working Group s 9-Point Plan as a tool to initiate reform. Information. Reform

TV and Radio Marti by taking it out of the Cuban American National Foundations span of influence. Place it under the control of a non-partisan government organization that can develop a robust and
meaningful information campaign targeted towards the Cuban people and reform. Conduct an information campaign within our own borders to

educate the American public on the costs and benefits of helping the Cuban people. Military. Militarily

engage Cuba by

including it in one of the Unified Commands. Develop long term bilateral cooperation with the Cuban military and incorporate their armed forces in multilateral cooperation throughout the Caribbean region. Economic . Incrementally lift the embargo beginning with the lifting of the travel ban and the restrictions on the sale of food and medicine, followed by reforming the Torricelli Bill and the Helms-Burton Act. Attempt to undermine Cuban regime without promoting democracy will result in war Amash 12- Brandon Amash, writer at the Prospect Journal, (EVALUATING THE CUBAN EMBARGO, 7/23/12, http://prospectjournal.org/2012/07/23/evaluating-the-cuban-embargo/, 6/28/13, CAS)
3.3: The current policy may drag the United States into a military conflict with Cuba. Military conflict may be inevitable in the future if the embargos explicit goal creating an insurrection in Cuba to overthrow the government is achieved, and the United States may not be ready to step in. As Ratliff and Fontaine detail, Americans are not prepared to commit the military resources *+ (Fontaine 57), especially after unpopular wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Much like Americas current situation with isolated rogue states such as Iran and North Korea, Cubas isolation may also lead to war for other reasons, like the American occupation of Guantanamo Bay. These consequences are inherently counterproductive for the democratization of Cuba and the improvement of human rights.

Cuban instability results in Latin American instability, terrorism, democratic backsliding, and distracts the US from hotspots including Africa, the Caucus, and North Korea Gorrell 5- Tim Gorrell, Lieutenant Colonel (CUBA: THE NEXT UNANTICIPATED ANTICIPATED STRATEGIC CRISIS?
3/18/05, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA433074, Accessed: 7/4/13, zs)

Regardless of the succession, under the current U.S. policy, Cubas problems of a post Castro transformation only worsen. In addition to Cubans on the island, there will be those in exile who will return claiming authority. And there are remnants of the dissident community within Cuba who will attempt to exercise similar authority. A power vacuum or absence of order will create the conditions for instability and civil war . Whether Raul or another successor from within the current government can hold power is debatable. However, that individual will nonetheless extend the current policies for an indefinite period, which will only compound the Cuban situation. When Cuba finally collapses anarchy is a strong possibility if the U.S. maintains the wait and see approach. The U.S. then must deal with an unstable country 90 miles off its coast. In the midst of this chaos, thousands will flee the island. During the Mariel boatlift in 1980 125,000 fled the island.26 Many were criminals; this time the number could be several hundred thousand flee ing to the U.S., creating a refugee crisis. Equally important, by adhering to a negative containment policy, the U.S. may be creating its next series of transnational criminal problems. Cuba is along the axis of the drug-trafficking flow into the U.S. from Columbia. The Castro government as a matter of policy does not support the drug trade. In fact, Cubas actions have shown that its stance on drugs is more than hollow rhetoric as indicated by its increasing seizure of drugs 7.5 tons in 1995, 8.8 tons in 1999, and 13 tons in 2000.27 While there may be individuals within the government and outside who engage in drug trafficking and a percentage of drugs entering the U.S. may pass through Cuba, the Cuban government is not the path of least resistance for the flow of drugs. If there were no Cuban restraints, the flow of drugs to the U.S. could be greatly facilitated by a Cuba base of operation and accelerate considerably. In the midst of an unstable Cuba, the opportunity for radical fundamentalist groups to operate in the region increases. If these groups can export terrorist activity from Cuba to the U.S. or throughout the hemisphere then the war against this extremism

gets more complicated . Such activity could increase direct attacks and disrupt the economies,

that are budding throughout the region. In light of a failed state in the region, the U.S. may be forced to deploy military forces to Cuba, creating the conditions for another insurgency . The ramifications of this action could very well fuel greater anti-American sentiment throughout the Americas. A proactive policy now can mitigate these potential future problems. U.S. domestic political support is also turning
threatening the stability of the fragile democracies
against the current negative policy. The Cuban American population in the U.S. totals 1,241,685 or 3.5% of the population.28 Most of these exiles reside in Florida; their influence has been a factor in determining the margin of victory in the past two presidential elections. But this election strategy may be flawed, because recent polls of Cuban Americans reflect a decline for President Bush based on his policy crackdown. There is a clear softening in the Cuban-American community with regard to sanctions. Younger Cuban Americans do not necessarily subscribe to the hard-line approach. These changes signal an opportunity for a new approach to

The U.S. can little afford to be distracted by a failed state 90 miles off its coast. The administration, given the present state of world affairs, does not have the luxury or the resources to pursue the traditional American model of crisis management. The President and other government and military leaders have warned that the GWOT will be long and protracted. These warnings were sounded when the administration did not anticipate operations in Iraq consuming so many military, diplomatic and economic resources. There is justifiable concern that Africa and the Caucasus region are potential hot spots for terrorist activity, so these areas should be secure. North Korea will continue to be an unpredictable crisis in waiting. We also cannot ignore China . What if China resorts to aggression to resolve the Taiwan situation? Will the U.S. go to war over Taiwan? Additionally, Iran could conceivably be the next target for U.S. pre-emptive action. These are known and potential situations that could easily require all or many of the elements of national power to resolve. In view of such global issues, can the U.S. afford to sustain the status quo and simply let the Cuban situation play out? The U.S. is at a crossroads: should the policies of
U.S.-Cuban relations. (Table 1) The time has come to look realistically at the Cuban issue. Castro will rule until he dies. The only issue is what happens then? the past 40 years remain in effect with vigor? Or should the U.S. pursue a new approach to Cuba in an effort to facilitate a manageable transition to post-Castro Cuba?

Democracy solves political stability and global conflict Griswold 07 --- Daniel Griswold is director of the Cato Institute's Center for Trade Policy Studies (Trade, Democracy and Peace: The Virtuous Cycle, April 20, 2007, http://www.cato.org/publications/speeches/trade-democracy-peace-virtuous-cycle, accessed July 10, 2013, MY)
The good news does not stop there. Buried beneath the daily stories about suicide bombings and insurgency movements is an underappreciated but encouraging fact: The

world has somehow become a more peaceful place. A little-noticed headline on an Associated Press story a while back reported, War declining worldwide, studies say. In 2006, a survey by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute found that the number of armed conflicts around the world has been in decline for the past half-century. Since the early 1990s, ongoing
conflicts have dropped from 33 to 17, with all of them now civil conflicts within countries. The Institutes latest report fo und that 2005 marked the second year in a row that no two nations were at war with one another. What a remarkable and wonderful fact. The

death toll from war has also been falling. According to the Associated Press report, The number killed in battle has fallen to its lowest point in the
post-World War II period, dipping below 20,000 a year by one measu re. Peacemaking missions, meanwhile, are growing in number. Current estimates of people killed by war are down sharply from annual tolls ranging from 40,000 to 100,000 in the 1990s, and from a peak of 700,000 in 1951 during the Korean War. Many causes

lie behind the good newsthe end of the Cold War and the

spread of democracy, among thembut expanding trade and globalization appear to be playing a major role in promoting world peace.
Far from stoking a World on Fire, as one misguided American author argued in a forgettable book, growing commercial ties between nations have had a dampening effect on armed conflict and war. I would argue that free trade and globalization have promoted peace in three main ways. First, as I argued a moment ago, trade and globalization have reinforced the trend toward democracy, and democracies

tend not to pick fights with each other. Thanks in part to globalization, almost two thirds of the worlds countries today are democraciesa record high. Some studies have cast doubt on the idea that democracies are less likely to fight wars. While its true that democracies rarely if ever war with each other, it is not such a rare occurrence for democracies to engage in wars with non-democracies. We can still hope that has more countries turn to democracy, there will be fewer provocations for war by non-democracies. A second and even

more potent way that trade has promoted peace is by promoting more economic integration. As national economies become more intertwined with each other, those nations have more to lose should war break out. War in a globalized world not only means human casualties and bigger government, but also ruptured trade and investment ties that impose lasting damage on the economy. In short, globalization has dramatically raised the economic cost of war. The 2005 Economic Freedom of the World Report contains an insightful chapter on Economic Freedom and Peace by Dr. Erik Gartzke, a professor of political science at Columbia University. Dr. Gartzke compares the prop ensity of countries to engage in wars and their level of economic freedom and concludes that economic freedom, including the freedom to trade, significantly decreases the probability that a country will experience a military dispute with another country. Through econometric analysis, he found that, Making economies freer translates into making countries more peaceful. At the extremes, the

least free states are about 14 times as

conflict prone as the most free. By the way, Dr. Gartzkes analysis found that economic freedom was a far more important variable in
determining a countries propensity to go to war than democracy. A third reason why free trade promotes peace is because it allows nations to acquire wealth through production and exchange rather than conquest of territory and resources. As economies develop, wealth is increasingly measured in terms of intellectual property, financial assets, and human capital. Such assets cannot be easily seized by armies. In contrast, hard assets such as minerals and farmland are becoming relatively less important in a high-tech, service economy. If people need resources outside their national borders, say oil or timber or farm products, they can acquire them peacefully by trading away what they can produce best at home. In short, globalization and the development it has spurred have rendered the spoils of war less valuable. Of course, free trade and globalization do not guarantee peace. Hot-blooded nationalism and ideological fervor can overwhelm cold economic calculations. Any relationship involving human beings will be messy and non-linier. There will always be exceptions and outliers in such complex relationships involving economies and governments. But deep trade and investment ties among nations make war less attractive. A Virtuous Cycle of Democracy, Peace and Trade The global trends weve witnessed in the spread of trade, democracy

and peace tend to reinforce each other in a grand and virtuous cycle. As trade and development encourage more representative government, those governments provide more predictability and incremental reform, creating a better climate for trade and investment to flourish. And as the spread of trade and democracy foster peace, the decline of war creates a more hospitable environment for trade and economic growth and political stability.

Ag Adv AT: Cuba not key to US Ag


Cuba markets key to U.S. agriculture Williams 02Graduate of University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture (MORE ASSISTANCE PLEASE:
LIFTING THE CUBAN EMBARGO MAY HELP REVIVE AMERICAN FARMS, Drake Journal of Agricultural Law, 1/2002, http://students.law.drake.edu/aglawjournal/docs/agVol07No2-Williams.pdf, Accessed 7/3/12, jtc)

American farmers are at a point where they desperately need to search for new avenues and alternatives to increase their profits and pull themselves out of financial difficulty. I believe that one such way is lifting the highly controversial Cuban embargo, thus granting American farmers entrance into the Cuban market. It is apparent that Cuba has a need for food and American farmers are looking to increase foreign markets. Therefore, lifting the Cuban
embargo may help to solve both countries problems. Recently, there has been widespread support for lifting the Cuban food and medicine embargo by American farmers and Congressmen because it is estimated that Cuba buys a little less than one billion dollars of food annually from countries such as Canada, Europe, and Latin America.110 Any well-trained businessman knows that a

billion-dollar market is a gold mine in the world of economics.111 And, any well-trained businessman knows that opening additional export markets, a billion dollar one at that, is vital to any industry that is in a severe economic crisis.112
Therefore, many American farmers and certain Congressman have taken steps to open the Cuban market to American Farmers.113 For example, Representative Nick Lampson of Texas, along with several rice farmers, traveled to Cuba in search of new export markets, in turn, they asked United States lawmakers to lift the restrictions on food and medicine sales to Cuba.114 Representative Lampson believes that the objectives for which [the embargo] was created no longer makes any sense in either political or economic terms.115 Furthermore, Representative Lampso n believes that the economic

sanctions specifically hurt two groups of people, the Cuban people who need our food, and United States farmers who can produce it in abundance.116 Other Congressmen have
also asked for lifting the embargo, mainly because of the rising interest and influence from agricultural and business groups who want to transact business with Cuba.117 For example, in March 2000, Senator Jesse Helms, an outspoken supporter of the embargo, passed a bill that would permit the sale of American food and medicine to the Cuban people.118 It is also believed that the American public is even changing its views about the embargo.119 Several polls showed that the Cuban embargo support of the past was beginning to fade because six of ten Americans backed the sanctions; today, forty-seven percent of the American public feel its time to remove Cubas sanctions.120 Furthermor e, at least thirtyeight powerful and influential farm groups and agribusiness companies support lifting the sanctions against Cuba.121 More support is soon to follow, especially since two ships carrying U.S. chicken arrived in Cuba, completing the first trade between the two nations since the embargo was first implemented.122 Moreover at that time, more shipments were expected to bring about $30 million dollars worth of American wheat, corn, soybeans, rice, and chicken.123 This magnitude of support clearly demonstrates the eagerness of American farmers and businesses to tap into the economic opportunities that are present in Cuba.124 But the recent food sales to Cuba will surely fuel the debate in the United States between American farmers and corporations who would like to see an end to the embargo, and Cuban exile groups who would like to make the sanctions tougher.125 If the United States government were to lift the Cuban embargo to provide assistance to the American farmer, then such a move will give them access to a new billion-dollar market in which to sell its food. More importantly, this new billion-dollar market will ultimately provide American farmers with some of the aid that they so desperately seek. Clearly, American farmers want, need, and feel that they should have the opportunity to tap into this market, just as farmers and businessmen from other nations have. Presently, other countries have a head start with Cuban investment.126 However, as a practical matter, tapping into this market could be beneficial to both countries because Cuba is so close to the United States.127 Therefore, this advantage afforded to other countries could shift to the United States simply because of the proximity between the two nations.128 B. The United States Proximity to Cuba Cuba is only ninety miles south of the United States.129 Thus,

American farmers products could be easily and quickly transported to Cuba if the embargo were lifted.131 C. The Cuban
both countries could save considerable amounts of time and money because of reduced transportation costs.130 Moreover, Economy The Cuban economy is in terrible shape.132 Presently, the Cuban economy has stagnated because its primary benefactor , the former Soviet Union, is no longer able to provide it significant financial support.133 Again, between 1989 and 1990, Cuba lost its major commercial markets together with the Soviet subsidies it had been receiving.134 Moreover, from 1959 to 1994, Cubas GNP fell from U.S. $32.5 billion to U.S. $ 18.6 billion.135 During that same time, the total worth of Cubas exports fell from U.S. $5.4 billion to U.S. $1.7 billion.136

AG Adv EXT: Removal key to Ag


Lifting the embargo benefits the US agricultural industry, USITC study Sullivan 3/29 --- Mark P. Sullivan, Specialist in Latin American Affairs for the Congressional Research Office (Cuba: U.S. Policy and Issues for the 113th Congress, March 29, 2013, FAS, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R43024.pdf, accessed June 28, 2013, MY) The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) produced a study in 2007 analyzing the effects of both U.S. government financing restrictions for agricultural exports to Cuba and U.S. travel restrictions on the level of U.S. agricultural sales to Cuba.48 At the time of the study, the U.S. share of various Cuban agricultural imports was estimated to range from 0-99% depending on the commodity. If U.S. financing restrictions were lifted, the study estimated that the U.S. share of Cuban agricultural, fish, and forest products imports would rise to between one-half and two-thirds. According to the study, if travel restrictions for all U.S. citizens were lifted, the influx of
U.S. tourists would be significant in the short term and would boost demand for imported agricultural products, particularly high-end products for the tourist sector. If

both financing and travel restrictions were lifted, the study found that the largest gains in U.S. exports to Cuba would be for fresh fruits and vegetables, milk powder, processed foods, wheat, and dry beans. In 2009, the USITC issued a working paper that updated the agencys 2007 study on U.S. agricultural sales to Cuba. The update concluded that if U.S. restrictions on financing and travel were lifted in 2008, U.S. agricultural exports to Cuba would have increased between $216 million and $478 million and the U.S. share of Cubas agricultural imports would have increased from 38% to between 49% and 64%.49 Among the U.S. agricultural products that would have benefited the most were wheat, rice, beef, pork, processed foods, and fish products. In general, some groups favor further easing restrictions on agricultural exports to Cuba. U.S. agribusiness companies that support the removal of restrictions on agricultural exports to Cuba believe that U.S. farmers are unable to capitalize on a market so close to the United States. Those who support the lifting of financing restrictions contend such an action would help smaller U.S. companies increase their exports to Cuba more rapidly. Opponents
of further easing restrictions on agricultural exports to Cuba maintain that U.S. policy does not deny such sales to Cuba, as evidenced by the large amount of sales since 2001. In particular, some agricultural producers that export to Cuba support continuation of the provision requiring payment of cash in advance because it ensures that they will be paid.

Lifting Embargo key to Farm exports/ imports. Griswold 09 Daniel Griswold, director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C. (6/27/13, The US
Embargo of Cuba is a Failure, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/us-embargo-cuba-is-failure) Admitting Cuba to the OAS may be premature, given the organisations charter that requires its members to be democracies that respect human rights, but changes to the US economic embargo are long overdue. The embargo has been a failure by every measure. It has not changed the course or nature of the Cuban government. It has not liberated a single Cuban citizen. In fact, the embargo has made the Cuban people a bit more impoverished, without making them one bit more free. At the same time, it

has deprived Americans of their freedom

to travel and has cost US farmers and other producers billions of dollars of potential exports. Congress and President Barack Obama should act now to lift the embargo to allow more travel and farm exports to Cuba.As a tool of US foreign policy, the embargo actually enhances the Castro governments standing by giving it a handy excuse for the failures of the islands Carib bean-style socialism. Brothers Fidel and Raul can rail for hours about the suffering the embargo inflicts on Cubans, even though the damage done by their communist policies has been far worse. The embargo has failed to give us an ounce of extra leverage over what happens in Havana. In 2000, Congress approved a modest opening of the embargo. The Trade

Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act allows cash-only sales to Cuba of US farm products and medical supplies. The results of this modest
opening have been quite amazing. Since 2000, total sales of farm products to Cuba have increased from virtually zero to $691m in 2008. The top US exports by value are corn, meat and poultry, wheat and soybeans. From dead last, Cuba is now the number six customer in Latin America for US agricultural products. Last year, American farmers sold more to the 11.5 million people who live in Cuba than to the 200 million people in Brazil. According to the US international trade commission, US farm exports would increase another $250m if restrictions were lifted on export

financing. This should not be interpreted as a call for export-import bank subsidies. Trade with Cuba must be entirely commercial and market driven. Lifting the embargo should not mean that US taxpayers must now subsidise exports to Cuba. But neither should the government stand in the way. USITC estimates do not capture the long-term export potential to Cuba from normalised relations. The Bahamas, Dominican Republic, Jamaica and Guatemala spend an average of 2.8% of their GDP to buy farm exports from the US. If Cuba spent the same share of its GDP on

US farm exports, exports could more than double the current level, to $1.5bn a year.

Advocates of the embargo argue that trading with Cuba will only put dollars into the coffers of the Castro regime. And its true that t he government in Havana, because it controls the economy, can skim off a large share of the remittances and tourist dollars spent in Cuba. But of course, selling more US products to Cuba would quickly relieve the Castro regime of those same dollars. if more US tourists were permitted to visit Cuba, and at the same time US exports to Cuba were further liberalised, the US economy could reclaim dollars from the Castro regime as fast as the regime could acquire them. In effect, the exchange would be of agricultural products for tourism services, a kind of bread for beaches, food for fun trade relationship. Meanwhile, the increase in Americans visiting Cuba would dramatically increase contact between Cubans and Americans. The unique US-Cuban relationship that flourished before Castro could be renewed, which would increase US influence and potentially hasten the decline of the communist regime. Congress and President Barack Obama should act now to lift the embargo to allow more travel and farm exports to Cuba. Expanding our freedom to travel to, trade with and invest in Cuba would make Americans better off and would help the Cuban people and speed the day when they can enjoy the freedom they deserve.

Lifting Embargo Key to Agriculture


Danielson 13 Richard Danielson, covers city government and politics in Tampa. He grew up in Clearwater,
graduated from Vanderbilt University and joined the Times in 1987. (U.S. Rep. Kathy Castor: Lift Cuba embargo, travel limits, Tampa Bay Times, April 8, 2013, http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/us-rep-kathy-castor-liftcuba-embargo-travel-restrictions/2113828, Date Accessed: June 28, 2013, SD)

companies, except for computer and some high-tech companies, can sell to Cuba now for cash. What the embargo prevents, he said, is extending the regime credit, and he said it should since he doesn't believe the nation would repay its debts.
He also predicted opening Cuba to tourism would hurt Florida's economy. "If the travel ban is lifted, there ain't going to be a tourist in our neck of the woods for five years, because every tourist is going to go south," he said. While Fernandez said Castor's trip was valid and lawful, he contended her proposals do nothing but give credibility and propaganda points to a dictatorship. "She joins Beyonc, Flake and all the terrorists of the Western hemisphere in their expression of solidarity with the repression and tyranny of the Cuban regime," Fernandez said. Castor said such critics "need to recognize the fact that there are new, privately owned small businesses restaurants everywhere, hotels and motels. Reform is happening, and much of the money is not going to support the actual government. It is going to those individuals, just like the remittances. "Every American should be able to travel" to Cuba, she said, "including Beyonc and Jay-Z, and including the people in the Tampa Bay area and they should fly out of Tampa."

Lifting Embargo key to agriculture sector.


Lloyd 11 Delia Lloyd, PhD in political science.
(Ten Reasons to Lift the Cuba Embargo, Huffpost Politics, 2011, http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/24/ten -reasons-to-lift-the-cubaembargo, Date Accessed: June 28, 2013, SD)

It's good economics. 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 to the Cuban government, 250 ,000 Cuban-Americans visited from the United
States in 2009, up from roughly 170,000 the year before, suggesting a pent-up demand. 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.

The embargo hurts the US agricultural industry. Grogg 06- Patricia Grogg; Cuban correspondent to IPS, studied Journalism in the University of Havana (Cuba
Embargos Boomerang Effect IPS, October 2006, http://havanajournal.com/politics/entry/cuba-embargosboomerang-effect/, accessed: 6/27/13, ML)

Washingtons embargo against Cuba also has an impact on the United States economy and prevents
millions of U.S. citizens from benefiting from Cuban medical progress, according to a report released by the Cuban foreign ministry. The text of the report will be presented at the United Nations General Assembly, which on Nov. 8 will be examining for the fifteenth consecutive year the need to end the embargo imposed by Washington on Havana more than four decades ago. The document states that because of t he blockade regulations it has been impossible to begin clinical trials in the U.S. with TheraCIM, a Cuban pharmaceutical produ ct for treating brain tumours in children. TheraCIM is produced by the Molecular Immunology Centre, which in 2004 made a deal with U.S. company CancerVax to develop and produce therapeutic vaccines against cancer. This medication is registered in Cuba and other countries for treating cancer of the head and neck, and has been proved to reduce tumour mass. It could benefit children in the United States and other countries with this type of cancer, the report points out. It also adds that were it not for the embargo, millions of people in the United States suffering from diabetes could benefit from Citoprot P, a unique product and treatment method that accelerates healing of diabetic foot ulcers, reducing the risk of lower extremity amputations. Citoprot P was developed by the Cuban Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology. According to the foreign ministry report, about 20.8 million people in the United States suffer from diabetes, a chronic incurable disease. The restrictions that Cuba calls a blockade and the U.S. an embargo have cost this Caribbean country 86.1 billion dollars in total damages throughout the period, including four billion in 2005 alone, the document says. Last year the U.N. approved by 182 votes the Cuban motion in favour of lifting the embargo. The motion was first set before the U.N. General Assembly in 1992, when only 59 countries voted in favour of the resolution. The report states that the ban on U.S. tourism to Cuba causes tourist agents in the U.S. losses of 565 million dollars per million U.S. tourists who are prevented from visiting the country. An estimated 1.8 million U.S. tourists could have vacationed in this Caribbean island in 2005, but because of the ban, U.S. tourist agencies lost potential income of 996 million dollars, the report says. In addition, the U.S. imports about 148,000 tons of primary nickel and some 10,000 tons of cobalt annually from distant markets. But If the blockade did not exist, it could purchase these raw materials from Cuba, only 200 kilometres a way, the report notes. At present Cuba produces about 77,000 tons of nickel a year, and output is set to increase through an investment programme agreed with Canada in March 2005 for the expansion and modernisation of a joint venture company to exploit the mineral. Cuba has proven nickel reserves of 800 million tons, and potential reserves are estimated at two billion tons. The countrys cobalt reserves amount to approximately 26 percent of total world reserves, according to official sources. In presenting the report, Cuban deputy foreign minister Bruno Rodrquez said on Monday that the George W. Bush administration has created an inter-agency task force on Cuban nickel, to monitor and prevent sales of this strategic mineral. Energy is another good business that Havana says U.S. companies are missing out on, because they are forbidden to participate in prospecting for oil on Cubas undersea platform in the Gulf of Mexico, only 137 kilometres from Florida. The platform to the north of Cuba has an estimated potential of between one billion and 9.3 billion barrels of crude and between 1.9 trillion and 22 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. These estimates in the Cuban foreign ministrys report are attributed to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), which said the possibilities of success are of the order of 95 percent. In 1999 Cuba opened up to tender 112,000 square kilometres of its waters in the Gulf of Mexico, divided into 51 blocks, for foreign exploration aimed at eventual exploitation. The Spanish-Argentine company Repsol YPF currently has a contract to drill in six of these blocks, with a total surface area of 10,700 square kilometres. This year, however it decided to spread the risk and has sold a 30 percent share in the venture to each of two other companies, from India and Norway, retaining 40 percent itself. The Canadian firm Sherritt International has also signed a contract for four blocks in this deep water drilling area.

Legislation approved in 2000 by the U.S. Congress permits the sale of foods to Cuba, an exception to the embargo that began to be implemented in 2001. Between late 2001 and 2004, Cuban purchases from U.S. firms totalled over one billion dollars in cash. In 2005, Cuba had earmarked between 700 and 800 million dollars to buy food from the United States. But Washington tightened its trading restrictions with Cuba, and the trade dropped to some 474 million dollars. Due to the obstacles to trade imposed by the blockade, U.S. agricultural exporters lost income of about 300 million dollars, which were used for purchases in other markets, the Cuban report said.

Ag Adv A2: Cuba Says No


Cuban farmers want the embargo liftedkey to agriculture trade Pulliam 12- John Pulliam, Senior Analyst, Risk Management at OneAmerica, Columbia University (Fa rmers
want Cuban Embargo Lifted, 6/8/12, Galesburg, http://www.galesburg.com/news/x1271220402/Farmers-wantCuban-embargo-lifted#axzz2Xzqoe8Ai, Accessed: 7/3/13, zs) Grant Strom, who farms near Williamsfield, and David Serven, a St. Augustine-area farmer, were among more than 20 Illinois Farm Bureau members and staff from across the state who traveled to Cuba on June 28 through July 2 in an effort to promote the resumption of normal trading relations with the country. Strom, who was impressed by the Cuban people, said U.S. farmers can sell their products to the

Caribbean nation, but there are a number of hurdles to jump to do so. For instance, the U.S. government will not allow Cuba to buy agriculture products on credit. If Cuba wants to buy a barge
load of wheat, they have to pay for it in cash, he said. While products such as coffee, rum and cigars are produced in Cuba and in demand in the U.S., They cant sell those things back to us, Strom said. He said those restrictions hurt farmers in the U.S., who cannot

readily sell their crops to the potential market, as well as the average Cuban, rather than government officials in the Communist country. Food shortage Theyre on the brink of a food shortage in Cuba, Strom said. Serven said each Cuban
has a food coupon book. They can go to market and buy their needs at subsidized costs, he said. Serven said Cubans used to be able to use coupons to buy household goods, as well, but those are no longer available. Restoring normal trade relations with Cuba is an important step in furthering Illinois farmers abilities to market their produce, including grains, meat and dairy products, said Tamara Nelsen, senior director of commodities for the Illinois Farm Bureau. Agriculture has been a bright spot in our nations and our states economy during the recent downturn. Improving our trade relations with Cuba will only help to ensure agriculture can continue to strengthen our state and national economies. While there may be some potential for renewed trade with Cuba if the embargo is lifted, Serven thinks it will help Cuba more than affecting U.S. farmers. As far as being a boon for U.S. agriculture, I dont think that will happen, he said. But its just the fact that were so close. Strom said the trade embargo has very real effects. For instance, rather than buying rice from Mississippi, which would take three days to get to the island nation, Cuba is forced to buy it from Vietnam, which takes 28 days to ship the nation, about 100 miles south of Florida.

Cuba will say yes high demand Gegg and Larose 7 Betty Valle Gegg and John Larose, Members of the MidAmerica
Farmer Grower, (Commodity Groups Exert Strong Push to Remove Cuban Embargo, Publication for the MidAmerica Farmer Grower Organization, NO DATE (most recent year referenced was 2007), http://www.mafg.net/Files/Commodity%20Groups%20Exert%20Strong%20Push%20To%20Lift %20Cuban%20EmbargogNfhoi.pdf, Accessed 6/28/13, AW)

We found the country very anxious to buy U.S. commodities . Unfortunately, the
restrictions that they pay cash before the product leaves the United States has hampered their ability to buy. Yet they have been buying a half million metric tons or 20 million bushels of corn annually from the United States for several years. He said theres been an effort for a long time in Congress, led by Congresswoman JoAnn Emerson, to dissolve the trade embargo with Cuba. There have been some modifications in the procedures, some loosening of the rules for

ob- taining licenses, but other measures have not been significantly improved, Hobbie said. Lob- byists from Florida and New Jersey work very hard to keep the current legislation in place. Hobbie said that while this administration has been less willing to consider changes in the law, other administrations have been unwilling to lift the ban as well. Neither Democrat nor Republican adminis- trations have shown a willingness to lift the ban, he said. Rice Producers Respond To Situation Since 2002, the U.S. Rice Producers Associa- tion (USRPA) has been to Cuba 10 to 12 times to foster trade there. However, it has become more difficult for U.S. citizens to get a Visa. People have been denied since then, said USRPA President and CEO Dwight Roberts. Hurricane Michelle in the fall of 2001 was the spur that opened trade with Cuba in the 21st Century. USRPA worked to get the U.S. government to allow rice shipments to aid the people. Our government allowed us to donate, Roberts continued, but the Cubans reacted with a thank you, but no thank you, but well be happy to buy food

products from you . So from that the U.S. government tweaked the em- bargo and allowed the sale of food products to Cuba on a cash basis
with a list of other re- strictions. We were off and running in moving rice into Cuba. At that time the rice sent to Cuba was milled rice, but Roberts said hes in favor of the sale of any type of rice to Cuba. Even Fidel Castro him- self said the country was better off buying milled rice because of a need to upgrade their mills. The mills are located in the interior of the country so purchasing rough rice adds the cost of transport. Its more cost effective for them; and with rice prices today, Pedro Alvarez (president and CEO of ALIMPORT, the government agency respon- sible for food imports to Cuba) told me recently when I was there that they paid $97 a ton for paddy rice. That was when they first started buying rice. Today prices of paddy rice are in the neighborhood of $500 a ton. Prices in Thailand and Vietnam on a milled basis are around $800 a ton. When you add $140 a ton freight rate, the United States can easily compete with that plan. They do not export paddy rice f rom Asia so the Cubans have to crunch the numbers to see which is the best deal for them, Roberts added. I think they will cont inue to buy a combination of the two, they know what their internal issues and costs are and when their harvest comes off. Maybe there are times of the year that their mills are too busy to take paddy rice, but other times paddy rice could be a better deal for them. Roberts said he learned in an email that Cuba bought 10,000 tons of U.S. rice for April ship - ment. They were looking for an additional 10,000, he said. Theyve just about stretched their credit in Vietnam, plus the type of rice they are getting out of Vietnam is just trash. Cubans know rice, I mean they really know. Americans dont even take the time to look at it but Cubans look at the color, the y smell it, they know their rice and how well it cooks. I have spoken at the U.S. Cuban trade talks that theyve had a time or two and were fixing to host our Second Annual Rice Congress of the Americas, Roberts said. Its going to be in Brazil later this month. Last year we had the first one in Cancun and we had people from 2 2 different countries there. Alvarez came and spoke and we have someone that covers the main markets. It was a very good presentation and weve kept Cuba very much inv olved in the Western Hemisphere. When I say we educated the Cubans, we also shared our opinions on the market with the Cubans. Our thoughts on the world market- place, western hemisphere, Asian influence and that type of thing and having them a part of this Rice Congress of The Americas has been real important because they rival Mexico as the number

Roberts and the USRPA found the people of Cuba very friendly and eager to deal with them. They know us and we know them well, Roberts said. Our efforts are to give them a bet- ter understanding of the U.S. rice industry, how we are structured and operate, our feelings on the western hemisphere and trade within the region, not just with Cuba but with their neigh- bors. We spent a lot of time in an education phase with the Cubans. For a country of 11 million people, Cuba eats about as much rice as Mexico. Mexico bought 800,000 tons of rice in 2007 from the United States, Cuba bought 600,000 or 700,000 tons. Brazil some years can approach 800,000 from Uruguay and Argentina and maybe a little bit from the United States so everyone falls off drastically after that, Roberts continued. Theyre one of the major importers and play- ers. Per capita consumption of rice in Cuba is probably the highest in Latin America. Haiti would be very high. The poorer countries have the higher per capita consumption. Roberts thinks the visits to Cuba have created the relationships that are necessary for trade to take place. I believe that if we did not have an embargo, we would immediately sell in the very first year several hundred tons more than were selling now, even if the Cubans did not like us, which is totally false, he said. They are as friendly a people as I have known, and buying rice from the United States is still a good deal because of the proximity, especially in these times of high oil prices and high freights. Cubas tourism
one importer of rice in the western hemisphere or close to Brazil on a shear volume basis.

industry is growing and Roberts feels that even if the entire embargo is not lifted, travel back and forth should be allowed. Tourists from Europe and other coun- tries regularly visit Cuba, but Americans cannot.

Ag Adv 2AC Famine Impact


Removing the embargo solves Cuban Famine Zimmerman 10 CHELSEA A. ZIMMERMAN, Fellow of the Center for The Study of the
Presidency and Congress, Member of The Juvenile Rights Project and the Legal Aid Society, Barnard College, (Rethinking The Cuban Trade Embargo: An Opportune Time To Mend a Broken Policy, The Presidency 2010 Fellows, NO DATE (Paper was written in 2010), http://www.thepresidency.org/storage/documents/Fellows2010/Zimmerman.pdf, Accessed 6/27/13, AW) Despite the U.S. governments attempts to promote democracy in Cuba through economic sanctions, Fidel Castro, the forme r leader of an underdeveloped nation of 11 million people, survived eight U.S. pr esidents and their attempts to oust him from office. With the recent resignation of Fidel Castro and the installation of his brother, 76-year-old Raul Castr o, as president, many observers in the U.S. and Cuba relish the opportunity to develop stronger trade ties. Although he has not signaled any major shift in Cubas econo mic system, in a speech given in July of 2007, Raul Castro acknowledged that structu ral changes were necessary to increase efficiency and the production of goods in Cuba. Castro recognizes the inherent

limitations on a country that imports more than 80 percent of its food, leaves half of its
arable land fallow, and depends on Venezuela for 90 million barrels of oil per day ( The Center for Democracy in the Americas) . During the several years he has acted as president, Raul Castr o has pursued reform measures to make the government more efficient and invigorate t he Cuban economy. He has opened unused state land to private farmers, allowe d private farmers to buy their own feed and fertilizer rather than have them assig ned by the state, permitted nationals to buy computers, cell phones and other a ppliances that previously were prohibited, reformed the state wage system by remov ing salary limits, and allowed Cubans to gain title to state-owned homes (Weissert , 1). Most experts believe that Raul Castro will not undertake dramatic economic re forms over the near term. Furthermore, due to the diversification of its econ omic relationships with other countries, particularly China and Venezuela, Cuba i s less reliant on the United States as a potential business partner. Cuba is recovering from a series of hurricanes and tropical storms that hit Cuba in the fall of 2008 that by some estimates hav e caused over $9 billion worth of damage to Cuban farms and industry. Because foo d shortages are a serious problem in Cuba, the trade embargo with Cuba has re sulted in increased suffering of the Cuban people. According to Peter Schwab, t he most explosive impact of the U.S. embargo, even worse than that on public he alth, is the effect on food and hunger (Schwab, 79). Food rationing began in Cuba in 1962, with the distribution of one rationing booklet for each Cuban household. Initially most food items were included in the rationing, but items such as fruits , vegetables, and eggs have been added and deleted based on their scarcity at the ti me (Alvarez, 1). The Cuban people have suffered from a crumbling eco nomy under Fidel Castros rule, and the embargo imposed by the U.S. government has only made on attempts to weaken the Castro regime.

AG Adv Specific Ag Exports


Removing embargo boosts soybean exports high Cuban demand Gegg and Larose 7 Betty Valle Gegg and John Larose, Members of the MidAmerica
Farmer Grower, (Commodity Groups Exert Strong Push to Remove Cuban Embargo, Publication for the MidAmerica Farmer Grower Organization, NO DATE (most recent year referenced was 2007), http://www.mafg.net/Files/Commodity%20Groups%20Exert%20Strong%20Push%20To%20Lift %20Cuban%20EmbargogNfhoi.pdf, AW) As a result of that, U.S. sales have in- creased. However, in 2005 some restrictions were placed on sales to Cuba, and if those were changed U.S. food exports would increase. This last calendar year of 2007, we exported about $114 million in terms of soybeans, soy- bean meal and soybean oil. It is a good market for us , he said. Since the restrictions were placed on the mar- ket in 2005, soybean sales to Cuba have been about the same while soybean meal value has gone up; however, the actual tonnage shipped has gone down. The 2005 interpretations did have a negative effect on trade with Cuba. The treasury departments reinterpretation of the rules in 2005 requiring cash in advance has disrupted trade, Censky said. When the legis- lation passed, the initial interpretation was to allow for the payment right before the goods were physically delivered. The treasury reinter- preted that and now they require payment be- fore shipment leaves the United States. Thats very highly restrictive . We dont have those re- quirements on any other country. The other re- striction is that no U.S. bank can be involved in the financial transaction. We see that as a hin- drance. That increases the overall banking costs, because U.S. exporters have to go to their bank, then their bank has to go to a third coun- try bank which then deals with Cuba to get the payment. It just increases the price of the trans- action by getting a third country bank in- volved. Another restriction Censky doesnt think should be in place is on the use of government credit guarantees or even U.S. market develop- ment funds. We receive funding from both the soybean checkoff as well as from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to carry out market devel- opment activities around the world, he ex- plained. We cant use a dime of either producers checkoff dollars or the money that comes from the USDA to do any kind of market development activities in Cuba. There are a few other countries like that, Iran and North Korea. Yet, Cuba is a unique situa- tion. For U.S. soybeans and soybean products the soybean association has a very high market share in Central America and throughout the Caribbean. In fact, before the embargo was in place, Cuba was the organizations biggest for- eign country market in the world for soybean meal. We were shipping the meal, given the prox- imity from the Gulf down to Cuba to support their livestock industry, Censky said. Of course, now they have gone to other suppliers, Brazil and Venezuela. We have been able to get some of that back since 2000 and we

would like to get even more back. Plan boosts rice exports status quo licensing prevents trade Gegg and Larose 7 Betty Valle Gegg and John Larose, Members of the MidAmerica
Farmer Grower, (Commodity Groups Exert Strong Push to Remove Cuban Embargo,

Publication for the MidAmerica Farmer Grower Organization, NO DATE (most recent year referenced was 2007), http://www.mafg.net/Files/Commodity%20Groups%20Exert%20Strong%20Push%20To%20Lift %20Cuban%20EmbargogNfhoi.pdf, Accessed 6/28/13, AW) U.S. Grain Council Comments The U.S. Grain Council, headed by President and CEO Kenneth Hobbie, promotes the expor- tation of corn, sorghum and barley products from the United States, and works to help de- velop export op- portunities. This organization has been very active in Cuba since 1997, actually traveling there before the first trading began. As an organization its structure is differ- ent from other commodity groups. The U.S. Grain Council has a contract with the USDA to enhance and carry out overseas trade. However, trade with Cuba is covered under national legislation. The main reason trade with Cuba is curtailed is we have a standing law currently that pre- vents any significant business relationships from developing between the two countries, said Hobbie. It requires licensing to travel. We need the permission of the Department of Com- merce to trade with them. We are not allowed to spend any government funding to enhance trade with Cuba, even though we are allowed to travel there, Hobbie said. Our members have to pay for that them- selves.

Ag Adv EXT: Economy Internal Link


Lifting the embargo would have a massive economic impactlarger than NAFTA Amnesty International 10 Amnesty International is a global movement of people fighting injustice and promoting human rights.
We work to protect people wherever justice, freedom, truth and dignity are denied. Currently the worlds largest grassroots h uman rights organization, we investigate and expose abuses, educate and mobilize the public, and help transform societies to create a safer, more just world. We received the Nobel Peace Prize for our life-saving work. (Is the U.S. Embargo on Cuba a Form of Genocide?, Amnesty International, September 8, 2010, http://www3.sympatico.ca/danchristienses/CubaFAQ137.html , Accessed: July 2, 2013, SD) The restrictions imposed by the embargo help to deprive Cuba of vital access to medicines, new scientific and medical technology, food, chemical water treatment and electricity.... The impact of economic sanctions on health and health services is not limited to difficulties in the supply of medicine. Health and health services depend on functioning water and sanitation infrastructure, on electricity and other functioning equipment such as X-ray facilities or refrigerators to store vaccines. The financial burden and commercial barriers have led to shortages or intermittent availability of drugs, medicines, equipment and spare parts. It has also hindered the renovation of hospitals, clinics and care centres for the elderly. Source: "The US embargo against Cuba: Its impact on economic and social rights," Amnesty International, September 2009 In addition to blocking essential imports, the US embargo also continued to impose a significant drag on the development of the Cuban economy,

simply lifting the economic and financial restrictions imposed on Cuban farmers by the US embargo would have a dramatic impact on their production levels: Cuban agriculture has such a big potential that if it were to be totally developed it could
especially in the areas of agriculture and food production. According to at least one US agricultural expert, surpass the volume of production of the Free Trade Treaty [the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) presumed]. William A.

Messina Jr., of the University of Florida's Agriculture Science Institute, said, that the communist island "has such good soil and it represents a challenge of such magnitude that, with the end of the embargo, the agricultural market impact on the continent would be larger that of the Free Trade Treaty.'' Source: "Cuba's agriculture shows promise," Miami Herald, September 29, 2009 Follow-up, September 2010 Amnesty
International reiterates its condemnation of the US embargo: [The US embargo's is] negatively affecting Cubans access to med icines and medical technologies and endangering the health of millions. United Nations agencies and programs operating in Cuba, such as UNICEF, UNAIDS and UNFPA, have reported that the US embargo has undermined the implementation of programs aimed at improving the living conditions of Cubans. Source: "Amnesty International criticises President Obama's decision on Cuba," Amnesty International, September 8, 2010 Follow-up, October 2010 On October 26, 2010 the UN General Assembly voted overwhelmingly again to condemn the US embargo. Only Israel voted with the US against the resolution. Israel trades freely with Cuba, so even this single vote cannot be seen as support for these cruel and inhumane sanctions. On this the US is truly isolated on the world stage. The only abstentions were the tiny US-island colonies in the South Pacific: Palau (pop. 20,000), Micronesia (pop. 110,000) and the Marshall Islands (pop. 60,000).

OFAC 2AC Iran Adv A2 Hurts US Companies


OFAC only targets Iranian businesses supporting prolif protects US system Fitzpatrick 1/16 --- Mark Fitzpatrick directs the IISS Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Programme,
International Institute for Strategic Studies (US sanctions on Iran, January 16, 2013, IISS, www.iiss.org/~/media/Documents/.../US%20sanctions%20on%20Iran.pdf, accessed July 10, 2013, MY)
Financial institutions that provide financial support for the sensitive nuclear and missile programs are also targeted. As a derivative, OFAC

can target entities that are owned or controlled by the main entities. Whereas the UN has designated only two Iranian banks, the US blacklist includes about two dozen. The aim is to target financial institutions involved in any way that Iran moves money to finance proliferation. The 2011 CISADA provided authority to designate any bank that deals with designated Iranian banks. This is often said to be an extra-territorial application of US law. US officials describe it differently: if third-country banks deal with Iran banks that are involved in proliferation, the Treasury Department does not want US banks risking their own reputation by involved with them. In this way, the Treasury Dept protects the US financial system from taint by association with proliferation. Only
two third-country banks, in Iraq and China, have been so designated for helping Iranian banks evade sanctions.

OFAC 2AC Iran Adv A2 Sanctions Fail


Sanctions effective statistics prove more are needed Berman et al 13 - Ilan Berman, Vice President of the American Foreign Policy Council; Franois Delmas,
Political Counselor for strategic affairs at the French Embassy; Michael Howells, First Secretary for Middle East policy at the British Embassy; Kenneth Katzman, Specialist in Middle East Affairs at the Congressional Research Service, Orde Kittrie, Professor of Law at Arizona State University and Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies; and Michael Singh, Managing Director of the Washington Institute on Near East Policy. Mr. Katzman participated in this discussion in his capacity as an Iran expert, and not as a representative of the Congressional Research Service, the Library of Congress, or the United States Congress, (Are Sanctions Working?, Report of a discussion on 10/25/12 for Iran Watch for The Wisconsin Project of Nuclear Arms Control, 2/6/13, http://www.iranwatch.org/ourpubs/bulletin/sanctions-roundtable-020613.htm, Accessed 7/10/13, AW)

A tough new U.S. sanctions measure against Iran goes into effect today, restricting foreign governments from remitting payments for Iranian oil back to Tehran. The payments now must be kept within the banking system of the oil-importing country and can be used by Iran only to purchase local goods. If the local bank transfers the Iranian funds outside its national borders, it risks losing access to the U.S. financial systema serious threat. Limiting Tehrans hard cash in this manner is a smart escalation in the sanctions campaign, but will it be enough? Can any type of sanction curb Irans nuclear effort? During the past year, the United States, European Union, and others have put into place the strongest sanctions yet against Iran. Nevertheless, during this same period, Iran has expanded its uranium enrichment program and refused to address allegations that it conducted nuclear weapon-related work. U.S. officials say there is still time for sanctions to prevent Iran from emerging as a nuclear weapon power. If so, what, specifically, can be done? The Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control recently hosted a roundtable discussion by a panel of experts * that examined sanctions as a means of influencing nuclear decision-making by Irans leaders. The panelists identified three factors critical to influencing Tehrans nuclear ambitions: money, oil, and China. In addition, the panel raised concerns about incentivizing an Iranian sprint toward nuclear weapons. There was broad consensus among the panelists that sanctions are having an increasing impact on the Iranian economy. The sanctions implemented so far are causing economic strain that will worsen over time , despite efforts by Iran to mitigate their impact. The panelists also concluded that additional sanctions must be sought in order to hasten the unraveling of Irans economy, mainly by further diminishing its foreign exchange reserve and oil revenue. The full
moderator's report of the roundtable discussion is available here. Among the panels spec ific findings were: Sanctions limiting Irans oil sales are working and should be tightened . In 2012, the United States

and European Union took serious steps to restrict Irans ability to sell oil and other petrochemical products. The panelists agreed that the ripple effect of these sanctions, especially since July, has resulted in plummeting oil sales: from over two million barrels per day in 2011 to under one million barrels per day by the end of 2012. Declining oil sales have cut access to hard currency. It is quite important, the panelists noted, that these sanctions are still relatively new. Iran has yet to feel their full impact. The panelists found that the U.S. and its allies should seek even further reductions in Irans oil sales. One possible course of action:
make waivers and exceptions to U.S. sanctions more difficult to obtain. As additional steps, the United States also could deny government contracts to firms that continue to do business with Iran and bar vessels owned by companies that are transporting Iranian oil from docking in the United States. China is a key player. China currently absorbs about half of Irans oil exports. The time to encourage China to reduce Iranian oil purchases is now, before Tehran works out ways to mitigate the impact of sanctions or influence the price of oil. Similarly, additional pressure could be placed on the Chinese government to crack down on proliferation-sensitive exports to Iran by private Chinese firms. It is nevertheless wise to tread carefully. Unity on sanctions with China

also sends a valuable message to Tehran about the cohesiveness of the P5+1 group of countries that
are leading sanctions and negotiations.

Empirics prove Maloney 11 --- Suzanne Maloney studies Iran, the political economy of the Persian Gulf and Middle East energy
policy for the Brookings Institute and is a former U.S. State Department policy advisor (The Self -Limiting Success of Iran Sanctions, November 11, 2011, Brookings Institute, http://www.brookings.edu/research/articles/2011/11/iran-sanctions-maloney-takeyh, accessed July 10, 2013, MY)

After more than three decades of reliance on sanctions as the centrepiece of US policy towards Tehran, Washington can finally claim a measure of success, at least with respect to the breadth of multilateral cooperation, the potency of international implementation, and apparent costs imposed on Iran as a result of its defiance of UN mandates. The consequences of the sharpened sanctions regime can be seen across the board within Iran. Trade with Europe has declined precipitously, and sanctions have forced Tehran to recapitalize its banks and seek out creative mechanisms including barter instrumentsfor increasing proportions of
its considerable trade finance requirements. Indian imports of Iranian gasoline have gone unpaid for months, for lack of a legally viable payment process, while Iranian jets have been grounded in Europe as a result of US restrictions on sales of refined petroleum products.

OFAC 2AC Iran Adv A2 Squo Solves


Despite sanction success more are needed Maloney 11 --- Suzanne Maloney studies Iran, the political economy of the Persian Gulf and Middle East energy
policy for the Brookings Institute and is a former U.S. State Department policy advisor (The Self -Limiting Success of Iran Sanctions, November 11, 2011, Brookings Institute, http://www.brookings.edu/research/articles/2011/11/iran-sanctions-maloney-takeyh, accessed July 10, 2013, MY)
The consequences of the sharpened sanctions regime can be seen across the board within Iran. Trade with Europe has declined precipitously, and sanctions have forced Tehran to recapitalize its banks and seek out creative mechanisms including barter instrumentsfor increasing proportions of its considerable trade finance requirements. Indian imports of Iranian gasoline have gone unpaid for months, for lack of a legally viable payment process, while Iranian jets have been grounded in Europe as a result of US restrictions on sales of refined petroleum products.A

wide range of Iranian politicians, including Ayatollah Khamenei, have acknowledged the increasing hardships posed as a result of the restrictions. The argument in favour of sanctions is grounded in the historical evidence that Iranian policy is often shaped by a rational assessment of costs and benefits. And yet it is not apparent that the mounting costs of sanctions have brought the clerical leadership any closer to a meaningful process of dialoguemuch less serious compromiseson its nuclear programme or the other elements of its provocative policies. This reflects the formative influence of Irans domestic political
dynamics, and its unexpected evolution, on the regimes assessment of risks and rewards.

More specific sanctions needed Maberry and Riemer 6/6 --- J. Scott Maberry is an International Trade partner in the Government Contracts,
Investigations & International Trade Practice Group in the firm's Washington, D.C. office, JD from Georgetown Law, Matthew L. Riemer is an associate in the Government Contracts, Investigations & International Trade Practice Group in the firm's Washington, D.C. office, JD from University of Chicago (OFAC continues to expand the scope of Iranian sanctions, June 6, 2013, Lexology, http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=2db0d7ac-19654265-b1e5-5c43798bbca2, accessed July 10, 2013, MY)
Oil, Petrochemical, and Aircraft Industries. On May 31, the U.S. Department of Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control ( OFAC)

imposed sanctions on entities and individuals that are part of, or have done business with, Irans international procurement and proliferation operations. The targeted entities include branches of the Iranian government (e.g., the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and the Ministry of Defense for Armed Forces Logistics), several Iranian petrochemical companies, and a group of corporations and individuals in Kyrgyzstan, Ukraine, and the United Arab Emirates that lease or sell aircraft to Iranian companies. The sanctions were imposed pursuant to Executive Orders 13,382 (targeting proliferators and supporters of Irans weapons of mass destruction) and 13,599 (targeting the government of Iran). As we reported here, these industry-based sanctions are further evidence of the U.S. Governments continued commitment to hindering Irans attempts at advancing its military and nuclear programs.

OFAC 2AC Iran Adv Multilat Ext


OFAC Iran sanctions get multilateral support Segall 12 Wynn H. Segall, ABA Export Controls and Economic Sanctions Committee Member (Enforcement
Of U.S. Sanctions Against Iran: Corporate Governance In A New World, 9/25/12, http://www.metrocorpcounsel.com/articles/20640/enforcement-us-sanctions-against-iran-corporate-governancenew-world, accessed: 7/10/13, ckr)

Global compliance trends are generally paralleling U.S. and international Iran sanctions enforcement. This trend is supported and, to some extent, equally driven by the fact that other countries including the U.S.s closest allies in Europe and other parts of the world have been adopting sanctions measures against Iran in keeping with UN sanctions resolutions and other multilateral arrangements that provide a self-sustaining legal grounding that is not simply reactive to U.S.
measures. Other countries sanctions enforcement officials and non -U.S. companies are now recognizing increased restrictions under the laws of countries in which they are operating. Norms of corporate governance and best practices for leading global companies are following these developments out of necessity. Under the Iran Sanctions Act (ISA), administered by the U.S. Department of State, the U.S. has also increasingly pursued extraterritorial sanctions measures against Iran that target Irans nuclear program, oil and gas industry, shipping and aviation sectors, banking system and entities associated with international concerns regarding Iranian involvement in international terrorism and weapons proliferation. While these measures have been implemented more through diplomacy than by overt punitive actions, they appear to be increasingly effective in leveraging the threat of intervention to cut off non-U.S. companies from access to U.S. capital, goods and technology as a means to influence commercial decisions of companies with their center of gravity in other countries. Similar measures

have been adopted by many other countries both in keeping with progressive tightening of multilateral sanctions resolutions and as part of coordinated diplomatic efforts. OFAC sanctions on Iran get multilateral support King and Spalding 10 King and Spalding, international law firm (OFAC Issues Iranian Financial Sanctions
Regulations, 10/1/2010, http://www.kslaw.com/imageserver/KSPublic/library/publication/ca100110.pdf, accessed: 7/10/13, ckr) On August 16, 2010, the U.S. Treasury Departments Office of Foreign Assets Control ( OFAC) published the Iranian Financial Sanctions Regulations, 31 C.F.R. Part 561, (IFSR) that implement sections 104(c) and 104(d) of the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (CISADA). CISADA, signed into law by President Obama on July 1, builds upon the recently adopted United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1929 and provides a foundation for new multilateral sanctions against those who assist Iran in the development of nuclear weapons and in the support of terrorism. CISADA also expands the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 in an attempt to limit Irans ability to import and produce refined petroleum products and strengthens the U.S. Presidents authority to impose sanctions on companies that provide refined petroleum products to Iran or assist Iran in expanding its refining capacity. The IFSR prohibit (1) U.S. financial institutions (e.g., banks, depository institutions, savings banks, money service businesses, trust companies, insurance companies, etc.) from opening or maintaining a correspondent account or a payable-through account in the United States for a foreign financial institution that knowingly engages in activities that assist Iran with weapons proliferation or with its support of international terrorism and (2) any person owned or controlled by a U.S. financial institution from knowingly engaging in any transaction with or benefitting Irans Islamic Revo lutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) or any of its agents or affiliates. Both of these prohibitions and penalties for violations are described in more detail below

OFAC 2AC Iran Adv Prolif Ext


Nuclear proliferation causes extinction Viegas 9 - Jennifer Viegas, one of Discovery News first reporters, has covered a great variety of topics, an author of many books [Hum an
Extinction: How Could It Happen? Discovery News, 11/11/09, http://news.discovery.com/human/psychology/human-extinction-doomsday.htm, accessed: 7/2/13, JK] While any number and combination of doom-and-gloom happenings could destroy the human race, the researchers outlined four, more general types of events that may also serve as "signposts," or events that may signal the unfolding of a defined scenario.

In this case, that

defined scenario is human extinction. "The types were non-war human-caused -- whether accidental or intended or purposeful, natural-viral, natural-environmental, and finally nuclear or near nuclear war/engagement between any two nations," Lopes said. Should a launch of nuclear weapons, an outbreak of disease, an unforeseen side effect of technical and medical advancements, or unusual environmental changes occur, the researchers believe "serious consideration throughout the globe" is warranted. Side effects of technology and environmental changes "are slow to present themselves, and that's what makes those signposts the most dangerous, in my opinion," Lopes said.
"Unfortunately, as we've seen with the impassioned discussion regarding global warming, not everyone can agree on what it is they are seeing or what the data reveal, and that's where a great deal of danger lies."

OFAC 1AC Narcotics Advantage


Plan boosts OFAC sanctions on Iran reallocates resources Johnson, Spector and Lilac 10 - Andy Johnson, Director, National Security Program, Kyle Spector, Policy
Advisor, National Security Program, Kristina Lilac, National Security Program, Senior Fellows of The Third Way Institute, (End the Embargo of Cuba, Article for The Third Way Institute, 9/16/10, http://content.thirdway.org/publications/326/Third_Way_Memo_-_End_the_Embargo_of_Cuba.pdf, Accessed 7/02/13, AW)

Keeping the embargo in place requires that the US government devote time and resources to fighting a Cold War -8 era threat. Senator Chris Dodd argued in a 2005 op ed that the US spends extraordinary resources each year to enforce the sanctions instead of devoting such resources to the fight against terrorism. 4 While the financial resources dedicated to enforcing the embargo may be limited compared to resources dedicated to other causes, lifting the Cuban embargo could put the US in a better position to fight terrorist organizations by freeing up resources currently enforcing the embargo. For example, the Treasury Departments Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), which governs travel and trade between the US and Cuba, is also responsible for maintaining sanctions against truly problematic countries, including Iran and North Korea. OFAC also is responsible for responding to economic threats posed by terrorist organizations and narcotics traffickers. By ending OFACs need to regulate the Cuban embargo, OFAC could instead devote those resources to respond to the current threats posed by rogue states and terrorist networks OFAC key to solve narcotics empirics prove it solves crackdown Office of Foreign Assets Control 7, Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Department of the Treasury
(Impact Report, Economic Sanctions Against Colombian Drug Cartels, March 2007, U.S. Department of the Treasury, http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Documents/narco_impact_report_05042007.pdf, accessed: 7/10/13, LR) Treasurys Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)

integrates regulatory, national security, investigative, enforcement, and intelligence elements towards a single goal: effective implemen- tation of economic sanctions programs against foreign threats and adversaries. OFAC currently administers and
enforces more than 30 economic sanctions programs pursuant to Presidential and Congressional mandates,1

targeting select foreign countries and regimes, terrorist organiza- tions, proliferators of weapons of mass destruction, and narcotics traffickers . OFAC acts under general Presidential wartime and national emergency powers, as well as specific legislation, to prohibit transactions and freeze (or block) assets within
the United States or in possession or control of U.S. persons, including their foreign branches. These programs are administered in conjunction with diplomatic, law enforcement and occasionally military action. Since 1995, the Executive Branch has developed an array of targeted sanctions programs that focus on drug cartels and traffickers, international terrorist groups, proliferators of weapons of mass destruc- tion, members of hostile regimes, and other individuals and groups whose activities threaten U.S. interests. Narcotics traffickers operating on a global scale require an extensive support network, includ- ing procurement, logistics, transportation, communications, security, money laundering, and other facilitation. Disguising the sometimes vast profits derived from major drug operations requires the purchase of ostensibly legitimate enterprises capable of handling business on an international scale. These illicitly funded corporate empires can be extensive, complex, and undermine the integrity of financial systems. They are

also one of the drug cartels greatest vulnerabilities.

To combat the threats of violence, corruption, and harm posed by narcotics traffickers and their networks, President Clinton signed Executive Order 12978 in October 1995, declaring a nation- al emergency
with respect to significant foreign narcotics traffickers centered in Colombia. The impact of these sanctions has been significant and, at times, dramatic. When OFAC desig- nates an individual or entity, any assets within the United States or the possession or control of a U.S. person anywhere in the world, must be frozen. Trade with or through the United States is cut off. Moreover, many non-U.S. businesses and banks have voluntarily severed all ties with individuals and entities that OFAC has listed. As a result, designated persons may lose access to their bank accounts outside the United States, disrupting their operations and freedom of ac- cess. Finally, in many cases, Colombian authorities have taken law enforcement actions against designated companies or properties after OFAC listed them. Collectively, these actions have disrupted more than $1 billion worth of assets in blockings, seizures, forfeitures, and the fail- ure of enterprisesand economically isolated the individuals who own and manage the enter- prises. The Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), in fact, stated that OFACs efforts

have resulted in the forfeiture of billions of dollars worth of drug-related assets. Also deters narcotics sanctions send perceptions Office of Foreign Assets Control 7, Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Department of the Treasury
(Impact Report, Economic Sanctions Against Colombian Drug Cartels, March 2007, U.S. Department of the Treasury, http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Documents/narco_impact_report_05042007.pdf, accessed: 7/10/13, LR)

Economic sanctions are employed to financially and commercially impair and impede, and to ultimately isolate and incapacitate narcotics traffickers, their supporters, and business empires. OFAC designations help publicly identify drug traffickers and their business empires and are often accompanied or followed by U.S. law enforcement actions and Government of Colombia asset seizures and forfeitures. Additionally, the threat of designation often deters top manage- rial talentneeded to operate and manage the often complex drug trafficking money launder- ing operations and business empiresfrom working for the drug traffickers and their business empires. As of December 2006, OFAC has identified drug
traffickers assets under the Specially Designated Narcotics Traffickers program valued at more than $1 billion. Once designated, most narcotics traffickers try to evade and avoid the financial and commercial restrictions placed upon them and their businesses, by working through others or creating shell companies through which to control and conduct their business. Initially, sanctions impair and impede their ability to function; however, as OFAC continues to identify and designate sup- porters, businesses, and front companies, the drug cartel organizations face increasing isolation and incapacitation.

Narcotic trafficking undermines democracy around the globe Sabatini 04Christopher Sabatini, National Endowment for Democracy (Countering the Corrosive Effects of
Narcotics Trafficking and Organized Crime on Democratic Development: How Broader Civil Society Forces Can Help, 2004, http://www.wmd.org/assemblies/second-assembly/reports/topical-workshops/countering-corrosiveeffects-narcotics-traffick, Accessed: 7/10/13, zs) There are different types of illegal conduct that directly threaten democracies, and narco-trafficking is one of them. It mostly affects democracy through blackmail, corruption, and the use of violence,

and it works against the institutions of the state, by undermining public authorities and agencies, and also against the electoral process. Its intimidating effects gravely influence those in different sectors of civil society, especially journalists who investigate the problem. To the degree that narco-trafficking spreads to different countries, the growth of corruption and violence around the world threatens to debilitate the spread and growth of democracy. Big profit margins resulting from the process of drug

production and distribution are invested in arms to meet the demands of terrorists, organized crime, or armed groups that seek to seize power through violence.

OFAC 2AC Narcotics Solves Drugs Ext


Solves drug sanctions are sufficient Code of Federal Regulations 8 (Code of Federal Regulations, National Archives and Records
Administration, July 1, 2008, Published by the Office of the Federal Register National Archives and Records Administration, http://books.google.com/books?id=LyV3QJvfPfUC&pg=PA492&lpg=PA492&dq=ofac+narcotics+traffickers&sour ce=bl&ots=tbxFMvPH56&sig=dflsUzo4skATS51eQXF2jN0NEJw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=C2PdUdmZC6bj4AO4h4CA Dg&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q&f=false, accessed: 7/10/13, LR)

OFAC administers and enforces economic and trade sanctions based on U.S. foreign policy and national security goals against targeted foreign countries, terrorists, inter- national narcotics traffickers, and those en-gaged in activities related to the prolifera-tion of weapons of mass destruction. OFACs Reporting Procedures and Penalties Regula-tions at 31 CPR part 501 require U.S. finan-cial institutions to block and file reports on accounts, payments, or transfers in which an OFACdesignated country, entity, or indi-vidual has any interest. These reports must be filed with OFAC
within ten business days of the blocking of the property. Prior Guidance

Transactions involving an individual or en-tity designated on OFAC's list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons as a global terrorist, terrorist, terrorist or-ganization, narcotics trafficking, or narcotics kingpin may be in in furtherance of a criminal act, and therefore relevant to a possible vio-lation of law. Thus, blocking reports related to such persons also describe potentially sus-picious activity. In
the November 2003 edi-tion of its SAR Activity Review, FinCEN instructed financial institutions to file sus picious activity reports on verified matches of persons designated by OFAC. While this guidance ensured that the relevant informa-tion would be available to law enforcement, it also resulted in financial institutions being required to make two separate filings with the Department of the Treasury one with OFAC pursuant to its Reporting, Procedures and Penalties Regulations, and one with FinCEN pursuant to its suspicious ac-tivity reporting rules.

OFAC 1AC NoKo Advantage


Plan boosts OFAC sanctions on North Korea reallocates resources Johnson, Spector and Lilac 10 - Andy Johnson, Director, National Security Program, Kyle Spector, Policy
Advisor, National Security Program, Kristina Lilac, National Security Program, Senior Fellows of The Third Way Institute, (End the Embargo of Cuba, Article for The Third Way Institute, 9/16/10, http://content.thirdway.org/publications/326/Third_Way_Memo_-_End_the_Embargo_of_Cuba.pdf, Accessed 7/02/13, AW)

Keeping the embargo in place requires that the US government devote time and resources to fighting a Cold War -8 era threat. Senator Chris Dodd argued in a 2005 op ed that the US spends extraordinary resources each year to enforce the sanctions instead of devoting such resources to the fight against terrorism. 4 While the financial resources dedicated to enforcing the embargo may be limited compared to resources dedicated to other causes, lifting the Cuban embargo could put the US in a better position to fight terrorist organizations by freeing up resources currently enforcing the embargo. For example, the Treasury Departments Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), which governs travel and trade between the US and Cuba, is also responsible for maintaining sanctions against truly problematic countries, including Iran and North Korea. North Korea Nuclear EMP kills Millions of Americans Instantly Maloof 13- F. Michael Maloof, staff writer for WND and G2Bulletin, is a former senior security policy analyst in
the office of the Secretary of Defense, NORTH KOREAN EMP ATTACK 'UNSTOPPABLE, WND, April 14, 2013, http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/north-korean-emp-attack-unstoppable/, Accessed July 10, 2013, KH)

If North Korea were to launch a preemptive nuclear attack on the United States, it could use a long-range missile to orbit a satellite over the South Pole, putting it in line to fly over Omaha, Neb., and explode it at a 300-mile altitude where U.S. Aegis anti-ballistic missile systems cannot reach, sources have told WND. In addition, these sources say, there is no way to determine whether a missile is
carrying a dummy or real nuclear warhead, obviating the need to shoot down any missile that is launched from North Korea, given the public warning by Pyongyang that it intends to launch a preemptive nuclear strike against the U.S. The U.S. has positioned Aegis ships near North Korea and Japan, but a political decision apparently has been made not to attempt to shoot it down if it is heading for open water. Sources say, however, that a missile to be launched toward the U.S. would take a trajectory over the South Pole, and it is questionable whether the U.S. has Aegis assets anywhere along the southerly path such a missile would take. In addition, the missile would need to be shot down almost after lift-off, since the missile would launch the satellite relatively quickly into an orbit of 300 miles, which was the altitude of its satellite launch last December. North Korea, meanwhile, announced in a statement that it has drawn the arrows for merciless retaliatory strikes at the U.S. mainland, U.S. military bases in the Pacific and all other bases where the U.S. imperialist aggression forces st ation. The powerful strike means of the revolutionary armed forces of the DPRK [Democratic People's Republic of Korea] have been put in their places and the coordinates of targets put into the warheads, a North Korean statement said. Just pressing the button will be enough to turn the strongholds of the enemies into the sea of fire. North Korea in

December successfully orbited a satellite weighing 220 pounds so they could deliver against the United States, or against any nation on Earth, a small nuclear warhead, said Dr. Peter Vincent
Pry, who served as staff director on the a commission that looked into the effects of an electromagnetic pulse, or EMP, on the national electrical grid system and other critical U.S. infrastructures. THIS is how an EMP event could bring the worlds remaining superpower to its knees. Read it in A Nation Forsaken. A nuclear weapon

designed specifically to generate a powerful electromagnetic pulse, or EMP a single such super-EMP warhead would be able to collapse the U.S. electric grid and other critical infrastructures, inflicting catastrophic consequences on the entire nation would probably be

deliverable by North Koreas so-called space launch vehicle over the United States, said Pry, who also worked for the Central Intelligence Agency. North Korea orbited its satellite on a trajectory and at an altitude ideal for making an EMP attack on the U.S. Pry pointed out that South Korean military intelligence has warned not only their government but also the U.S. that North Korea is developing super-EMP warheads with Russian help. In 2011, Pry pointed out, a military commentator
with the Peoples Republic of China stated that North Korea has super -EMP warheads. Data from North Koreas nuclear tests, he said, are consistent with a super-EMP warhead. Prys comments echo those of former U.S. Ambassador Henry Cooper, in which he said that North Korea could launch a nuclear weapon on a satellite, similar to satellites North Korea has previously launched southward over the South Pole. After all, Cooper said in an interview with WND, their previous satellites have been successfully placed in orbits that are optimum for executing an electromagnetic pulse, or EMP, attack on the entire continental U.S. with a single nuclear burst. Cooper, chairman of the board of High Frontier, which is dedicated to warning the U.S. against a missile attack, developed the framework for President Ronald Reagans Strategic Defense Initiative. He also pushed for a workable missile defense system for the U.S. and later became director of the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization under President George W. Bush. Cooper pointed out that the

satellite carrying a nuclear warhead could be detonated at an altitude of 300 miles. With a detonation over Omaha, he said, it would blanket the entire continental United States with EMP effects, the consequences of which could, within a year, lead to the death of hundreds of millions of Americans and end our way of life. Other sources have indicated that the 220-pound satellite would be
able to carry a 300 kiloton nuclear bomb, similar to the weight of warheads on U.S. missiles and would be sufficient to create an EMP effect from coast to coast if exploded at 300 miles above Omaha. North Korea, Iran and everyone else understands these points or certainly should if they have been awake, Cooper said. But have they connected the dots? Cooper said that if the satellite with a nuclear weapon in it were to come from the southern hemisphere, there may not be sufficient warning and tracking information to support an intercept attempt before North Korea detonates its nuclear device over Omaha. He said North Korea could launch a nuclear weapon on a satellite, similar to satellites North Korea has previously launched southward over the South Pole. After all, their previous satellites have been successfully placed in orbits that are optimum for executing an electromagnetic pulse attack on the entire continental U.S. with a single nuclear burst, Cooper said. Our current defense is focused on an attack from the north but if the attack came from the south via satellite, it might not be capable of intercepting the satellite before North Korea detonates its device, Cooper warned. Moreover, he added, where there are disp utes about whether North Korean ballistic missiles launched in a normal ballistic trajectory have sufficient range to reach the U.S. mainland, there can be no dispute about whether a nuclear weapon on a satellite can be detonated on orbit above the United States or anywhere else on the surface of the earth.

OFAC 1AC Terrorism Advantage Solves sanctions on terrorism reallocates resources Cuba is not a threat Johnson, Spector and Lilac 10 - Andy Johnson, Director, National Security Program, Kyle Spector, Policy
Advisor, National Security Program, Kristina Lilac, National Security Program, Senior Fellows of The Third Way Institute, (End the Embargo of Cuba, Article for The Third Way Institute, 9/16/10, http://content.thirdway.org/publications/326/Third_Way_Memo_-_End_the_Embargo_of_Cuba.pdf, Accessed 7/02/13, AW)

OFAC also is responsible for responding to economic threats posed by terrorist organizations and narcotics traffickers. By ending OFACs need to regulate the Cuban embargo, OFAC could instead devote those resources to respond to the current threats posed by rogue states and terrorist networks. Cuba also remains on the State Departments state sponsor of terrorism list along with Iran, Syria,
and Sudan, despite claims by experts such as former National Coordinator for Security and Counterterrorism Richard Clarke that Cuba is only on the list for domestic political reasons. 6 A 1998 report by the US

Intelligence Community determined that Cuba does not pose a threat to US national security, yet the State Department continues to keep Cuba on the list. By normalizing relations with Cuba and removing Cuba from the list, the State Department could better focus on actual state sponsors of terror and instead use resources in the Western Hemisphere bureau to initiate a new path for engaging Cuba.

OFAC 2AC A2 Politics


Plan is popular perceived as stopping Iran DeLeon et al 12 - Rudy deLeon, National and International Security, John F. Kennedy School of Government at
Harvard University, Recipient of The Defense Civilian Distinguished Service Award in 1994, 1995, and 2001, National Intelligence Distinguished Service Medal in 2001, Former US Senior Department of Defense Official, Senior Vice President of National Security and International Policy at American Progress, With Brian Katulis, Peter Juul, Matt Duss and Ken Sofer, (Strengthening Americas Options on Iran, Report for The Center for Amer ican Progress, April 2012, http://www.americanprogress.org/wpcontent/uploads/issues/2012/04/pdf/iran_10questions_INTRO.pdf, Accessed 7/10/13, AW) Importantly, there is

a strong bipartisan consensus in America and within the inter national community on this single pointan Iranian nuclear weapon would destabilize the one of the worlds most important oil-producing regions at a critical point in the global economic recovery, would harm Israels security, and would severely undermine the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

OFAC internal link Iran and North Korea


Responsible for sanctions on Iran and North Korea Johnson, Spector and Lilac 10 - Andy Johnson, Director, National Security Program, Kyle Spector, Policy
Advisor, National Security Program , Kristina Lilac, National Security Program, Senior Fellows of The Third Way Institute, (End the Embargo of Cuba, Article for The Third Way Insti tute, 9/16/10, http://content.thirdway.org/publications/326/Third_Way_Memo_-_End_the_Embargo_of_Cuba.pdf, Accessed 7/02/13, AW) For example, the Treasury Departments Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), which governs travel and trade between the US an d Cuba, is also responsible for maintaining sanctions against truly problematic

countries, including Iran and North Korea.

Democracy Advantage 2AC


Economic growth in Cuba leads to democracy Amash 12-- Brandon Amash, Prospect Journal writer at UCSD (EVALUATING THE CUBAN EMBARGO,
Prospect Jounral of International Affairs at UCSD, 7/23/12, http://prospectjournal.org/2012/07/23/evaluating-thecuban-embargo/, Accessed 7/3/12, jtc)

Lifting economic sanctions will improve economic growth in Cuba, which correlates to democratization. Empirical evidence shows that a strong economy is correlated to democracy. According to the Modernization Theory of democratization, this correlation is a causal link: economic growth directly leads to democratization. Lifting the current economic sanctions on Cuba and working together to improve economic situations in the state will allow their economy to grow, increasing the likelihood of democracy in the state, and thus promoting greater freedom of expression, opinion and dissent. Lifting embargo opens way for democracy in Cuba Griswold 05 --Daniel Griswold, Director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute (Four
Decades of Failure: The U.S. Embargo against Cuba, 10/12/05, Cato Institute Speeches, http://www.cato.org/publications/speeches/four-decades-failure-us-embargo-against-cuba, Accessed 6/27/13 jtc)
Economic sanctions rarely work. Trade

and investment sanctions against Burma, Iran, and North Korea have failed to change the behavior of any of those oppressive regimes; sanctions have only deepened the deprivation of the very people we are trying to help. Our research at the Cato Institute confirms that trade and globalization till the soil for democracy. Nations open to trade are more likely to be democracies where human rights are respected. Trade and the development it creates give people tools
of communication-cell phones, satellite TV, fax machines, the Internet-that tend to undermine oppressive authority. Trade not only increases the flow of goods and services but also of people and ideas. Development also creates a larger middle class that is usually the backbone of democracy. President

Bush seems to understand this powerful connection between trade and democracy when he talks about China or the Middle East. In a speech on trade early in his first term, the president noted that trade was about more than raising incomes. Trade creates the habits of freedom, the president said, and those habits begin to create the expectations of democracy and demands for better democratic institutions. Societies that open to commerce across their borders are more open to democracy within their borders. And for those of us who care about values and believe in valuesnot just American values, but universal values that promote human dignitytrade is a good way to do that. The president has rightly opposed efforts in Congress to impose trade sanctions against China because of its poor human rights
record. In sheer numbers, the Chinese government has jailed and killed far more political and religious dissenters than has the Cuban government.

China has become our third largest trading partner while we maintain a blanket embargo on commercial relations with Cuba. President Bush understands that economic engagement with China offers the best hope for encouraging human rights and political reforms in that country, yet he has failed to apply that same, sound thinking to Cuba.
And China is arguably more of a national security concern today than Castros pathetic little workers paradise. Yet

Lifting the embargo would force the Cuban government to provide economic opportunity and supplies to its people, therefore promoting democracy. Cave 12 - Damien Cave, foreign correspondent for the New York Times who covers Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean [Easing
of Restraints in Cuba Renews Debate on U.S. Embargo, New York Times, 11/19/12, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/20/world/americas/changes-in-cuba-create-support-for-easing-embargo.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0, accessed: 7/4/13, JK] Still, in a country where Cubans resolve their way around government restrictions every day (private deals with customs age nts are common), many Cubans anticipate real benefits should the United States change course. Mr. Lpez, a meticulous mechanic who wears plastic gloves to avoid dirtying his fingers, said legalizing

imports and investment would create a flood of the supplies that businesses needed, overwhelming the governments controls while lowering prices and creating more work apart from the state. Other Cubans, including political dissidents, say softening the embargo

would increase the pressure for more rapid change by undermining one of the governments main excuses for fai ling to provide freedom, economic opportunity or just basic supplies. Last month, someone asked me to redo
their kitchen, but I told them I couldnt do it because I didnt have the materials, said Pedro Jos, 49, a licensed carpent er in Havana who did not want his last name published to avoid government pressure. Look aroun d Cuba colonial building blushing with circles of faded pink paint from the 1950s. There

is destroyed, he added, waving a hand toward a is a lot of work to be done.

Lifitng the embargo solves democracy and the 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, 2012, Cato Institute, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/timeend-cuba-embargo, accessed July 4, 2013, MY) The administration should move now, before congressmen are focused on the next election. President Obama should propose legislation to drop (or at least significantly loosen) the embargo. He also could use his authority to relax sanctions by, for instance, granting more licenses to visit the island. Ending the embargo would have obvious economic benefits for both Cubans and Americans. The U.S. International Trade Commission estimates American losses alone from the embargo as much as $1.2 billion annually. Expanding economic opportunities also might increase pressure within Cuba for further economic reform. So far the regime has taken small steps, but rejected significant change. Moreover, thrusting more Americans into Cuban society could help undermine the ruling system. Despite Fidel 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 China. Still, 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 Foundations
John Sweeney complained nearly two decades ago that the United States must not abandon the Cuban people by relaxing or lifti ng 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.

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.
Lifting sanctions would be a victory not for Fidel Castro, but for the power of free people to spread liberty.

Democracy Advantage Extensions


Embargo strengthens the Cuba dictatorship Keenan 9 John Keenan, John Keenan is a freelance writer. His work has been published in the Guardian, New Statesman, Times
Literary Supplement, Literary Review and Catholic Herald, (Cubas embargo must go, theguardian, November 24 2009, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/nov/23/embargo-cuba-human-rights, Accessed: 7/3/2013, EH) This month Europe celebrated the twentieth anniversary of the collapse of the iron curtain. Tribute was paid the role the US played in helping to speed the demise of totalitarian regimes. But just 90 miles off the coast of Florida, the

Cuban government continues to ruthlessly suppress any sign of dissent - and the US administration's misguided embargo merely strengthens the dictatorship's hand. Now Human Rights Watch (HRW), the New York-based NGO, has called for the US to scrap its failed
policy in favour of "more effective forms of pressure". HRW's new report, New Castro, Same Cuba, proves that Raul Castro shares his brother's extreme distaste for opposition. Since taking the reins of power from his ailing sibling in 2006, Raul

has deepened the repression of his opponents, particularly through the vigorous use of a provision in the criminal code which allows people to be jailed if it is suspected that they might commit a crime in the future. The catch-all
pre-criminal state of "dangerousness" is defined as any behaviour that contradicts socialist norms. HRW's report states that more than 40

people have been jailed for "dangerousness", including handing out copies of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, staging rallies, and attempting to form independent trade unions. HRW has called for the embargo to be scrapped and replaced by a multi-lateral coalition comprised of the US, the EU, Canada, and Latin American to pressure Cuba to
immediately and unconditionally release its political prisoners. The coalition, HRW says, should give the Cuban government six months to meet this demand or face sanctions, travel bans and asset freezes. The report was published in a week which saw the 64-year-old Cuban dissident Martha Beatriz Roque end her hunger strike over fears for her health. Roque and five other dissidents staged a sit-in protest 40 days ago, complaining that government agents stole a camera from her. A statement issued by the protesters explained: "The camera we want back is not the final purpose of this protest, it is a symbol of our rights and the rights of the people, which day after day are violated by government actions." And this weekend the husband of the dissident blogger Yoani Sanchez said he was attacked by government supporters as he waited to confront state security agents accused of detaining and beating his wife two weeks ago. The intimidation, persecution and incarceration of the Castro government's opponents is ignored by those who like to believe that Cuba is a plucky little island standing up to the might of Uncle Sam. This ignorant and patronising view allows the dictatorship to manipulate the policies of foreign governments in its favour. When

North Korea and Burma ruthlessly extinguish any dissent they are rightly castigated as pariah states. When Cuba does the same, the world looks away. The co-called Cuban exiles in Miami and New Jersey need to drop
their noisy support for the US policy of regime change - it serves only to shore up the government they despise. Anyone who cares about human rights should encourage their governments to take up HRW's call for a new unified approach to Cuba's human rights failures. The Cuban government will change its ways only if it is forced to. Cuba ratified the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in 1995. It has been allowed to flout that convention with impunity.

Lifting the Embargo does not benefit the dictatorship Taylor 13 (Steven L. Taylor, Professor and Chair of Political Science at Troy University. Has a Ph.D. from The University of Texas. More Evidence of the Silliness of US Policy Towards Cuba. Outside the Beltway. April 9 2013, http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/moreevidence-of-the-silliness-of-us-policy-towards-cuba/, accessed: 6/27/13, EH)
A visit to Cuba by US pop singer Beyonce and her rap star husband Jay-Z is coming under scrutiny in connection with the US economic embargo. [...] Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Mario Diaz-Balart, both members of Congress from Florida, asked the US treasury department to clarify what licence the two stars had obtained to travel to Cuba. "Cubas tourism industry is

wholly state-controlled; therefore, US dollars spent on Cuban tourism directly fund the machinery of oppression that brutally represses the Cuban people," they wrote. [...] Americans are not allowed to
visit Cuba and spend money there unless they have special US government permission, according to guidance on the US
treasury website. Granted:

it terms of the letter of the law, the Representatives have a point.

However ,

this just underscored the silliness of said law . US policy towards Cuba is one remarkable mix of

counter-productiveness and pettiness. Counter-productive because lifting the embargo would hasten liberalization in Cuba (so, we are helping perpetuate the repressive government in question) and petty because the Cold War ended over two decades ago and the Cuban Missile Crisis was half a century ago.2

Lifting the embargo now is key to creating a free-market Goodman 13 (Joshua Goodman, Staff Writer for Bloomberg.com, Obama Can Bend Cuba Embargo to Help Open Economy,
Groups Say, Bloomberg.com, Feb 20 2013, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-20/obama-should-bend-cuba-embargo-to-buoy-freemarkets-reports-say.html, Accessed: 6/27/13, EH)

President Barack Obama should break free of the embargo on Cuba and assert his authority to promote a free-market overhaul taking place on the communist island. The recommendation is contained in concurrent reports to be published today by the Cuba Study Group and the Council of the Americas, two groups seeking to end a decades-old deadlock on U.S. policy toward Cuba. Among steps Obama can take without violating sanctions passed by Congress are opening U.S. markets, as well as authorizing the sale of American goods and services, to the estimated 400,000 private entrepreneurs that have arisen since Cuban President Raul Castro started cutting state payrolls in 2011. The reports also recommend allowing U.S. credit card and insurance companies to provide basic financial services to licensed U.S. travelers to Cuba. Weve been sitting on the sidelines with our hands tied by an antiquated law thats being too strictly interpreted , said Chris Sabatini, an author of the report and senior policy director for the Council of the Americas, a business-backed group based in New York. Theres more Obama can do to be a catalyst for meaningful economic change . Obama in 2009 allowed companies for the first time to provide communications services to the Caribbean island of 11 million and lifted a travel ban for Cuban-Americans. The loosening of restrictions, while heralded by the White House as a way to undermine the Castro governments control of information, was seen as insufficient by potential investors including Verizon Communications Inc. an d AT&T Inc. Economic Overhaul Now, in a second term, and with private business expanding in Cuba, Obama has a freer hand to do more, said Sabatini. An exception to the embargo allowing U.S. businesses and consumers to trade with non-state enterprises in Cuba would be small in scale though help empower a growing, viable constituency for change on the island, he said. Since his brother Fidel started handing over power in 2006, Castro has relaxed state control of the economy in the biggest economic overhaul since the 1959 revolution. To

provide jobs for the 1 million state workers being laid off, the government began allowing the buying and selling of homes and the creation of farming cooperatives and other private businesses. The latest sign of change are new rules that took effect in January allowing most Cubans to bypass requirements they obtain an exit visa or invitation from abroad to leave the island. Castro in December said that he hopes that productivity gains will boost economic
growth this year to at least 3.7 percent. Gross domestic product expanded 3.1 percent in 2012. Repeal Legislation The Washington-based Cuba Study Group urges Obama to gain even more leverage by getting Congress to repeal the so-called Helms-Burton act of 1996 and other legislation that conditions the easing of sanctions on regime change.

Lifting embargo solves trade is key Lloyd 11 Delia Lloyd, Contributor for Politics Daily and Former Political Science professor at the University of Chicago (Ten
Reasons to Lift the Cuban Embargo, Politics Daily, 2011[no month/day given ], http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/24/ten-reasons-to-liftthe-cuba-embargo/?icid=main|aim|dl8|sec1_lnk3|166115 , Accessed: 6/28/13, EH) 2. It's good politics. Supporters

of the trade embargo -- like Cuban-American Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) -- have long argued that easing the restrictions would only reward Castro for the regime's ongoing repression of political dissidents. We need to keep up the economic pressure on Cuba, so this logic goes, in order to keep pressure on the regime
But there's a long-standing empirical relationship between trade and democracy. The usual logic put forth to explain this relationship is that trade creates an economically independent and politically aware middle class, which, in turn, presses for political reform. It's not clear that this argument actually holds
to do something about human rights. up when subjected to close causal scrutiny (although the reverse does seem to be true -- i.e., democratic reform creates pressure for trade liberalization). Still, it's difficult to disagree with the proposition that by enabling visiting scholars and religious groups to stay in Cuba for up to two years (as the presidential order would allow) rather than a matter of weeks (as is currently the case) we'd be helping, not hurting, democracy in Cuba. First, easing the current travel restrictions would allow for far deeper linkages between non-governmental organizations from both countries, which some see as a powerful mechanism for democratic reform. Second, because American visitors would be staying on the island longer, scholars and activists alike would gain much better insight into where the pressure points for democracy actually exist.

Doesnt link to pink tide and Lifting the embargo leads to democratization of Cuba Griswold 09 Daniel Griswold, director of the Cato Institutes Center for Trade Policy Studies (The US embargo of Cuba is a
Failure, theguardian, June 15 2009, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/jun/15/cuba-us-trade-embargo-obama, Accessed: 7/2/13, EH) After nearly 50 years, America's cold war embargo against Cuba appears to be thawing at last. Earlier this spring, the Obama administration relaxed controls on travel and remittances to the communist island by Cuban Americans, and last week it agreed to open the door for Cuba's reentry to the Organisation of American States. Admitting Cuba to the OAS may be premature, given the organisation's charter that requires its members to be democracies that respect human rights, but changes to the US economic embargo are long overdue. The

embargo has been a failure by every measure. It has not changed the course or nature of the Cuban government. It has not liberated a single Cuban citizen. In fact, the embargo has made the Cuban people a bit more impoverished, without making them one bit more free . At the same time, it has deprived Americans of their freedom to
travel and has cost US farmers and other producers billions of dollars of potential exports. As a tool of US foreign policy, the embargo actually enhances the Castro government's standing by giving it a handy excuse for the failures of the island's Caribbean-style socialism. Brothers Fidel and Raul can rail for hours about the suffering the embargo inflicts on Cubans, even though the damage done by their communist policies has been far worse. The embargo has failed to give us an ounce of extra leverage over what happens in Havana. In 2000, Congress approved a modest opening of the embargo. The Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act allows cash-only sales to Cuba of US farm products and medical supplies. The results of this modest opening have been quite amazing. Since 2000, total sales of farm products to Cuba have increased from virtually zero to $691m in 2008. The top US exports by value are corn, meat and poultry, wheat and soybeans. From dead last, Cuba is now the number six customer in Latin America for US agricultural products. Last year, American farmers sold more to the 11.5 million people who live in Cuba than to the 200 million people in Brazil. According to the US international trade commission, US farm exports would increase another $250m if restrictions were lifted on export financing. This should not be interpreted as a call for export-import bank subsidies. Trade with Cuba must be entirely commercial and market driven. Lifting the embargo should not mean that US taxpayers must now subsidise exports to Cuba. But neither should the government stand in the way. USITC estimates do not capture the long-term export potential to Cuba from normalised relations. The Bahamas, Dominican Republic, Jamaica and Guatemala spend an average of 2.8% of their GDP to buy farm exports from the US. If Cuba spent the same share of its GDP on US farm exports, exports could more than double the current level, to $1.5bn a year. Advocates of the embargo argue that trading with Cuba will only put dollars into the coffers of the Castro

regime. And it's true that the government in Havana, because it controls the economy, can skim off a large share of the remittances and tourist dollars spent in Cuba. But of course, selling more US products to Cuba would quickly relieve the Castro regime of those same dollars. If more US tourists were permitted to visit Cuba, and at the same time US exports to Cuba were further liberalised, the US economy could reclaim dollars from the Castro regime as fast as the regime could acquire them. In effect,
the exchange would be of agricultural products for tourism services, a kind of "bread for beaches", "food for fun" trade relationship. Meanwhile, the increase in Americans visiting Cuba would dramatically increase contact between Cubans and Americans. The unique USCuban relationship that flourished before Castro could be renewed, which would increase US influence and potentially hasten

the decline of the communist regime. Congress

and President Barack Obama should act now to lift the embargo to allow more travel and farm exports to Cuba. Expanding our freedom to travel to, trade with and invest in Cuba would make Americans better off and would help the Cuban people and speed the day
when they can enjoy the freedom they deserve.

Embargo fails, lifting it is moral and defeats Cuban communism Kirkland 13 Rhiannon M. Kirkland, Intern at the Washington Monthly (Against the Pointless and Execrable Cuba Embargo, Washington monthly, April 15 2013, http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ten-miles-square/2013/04/against_the_pointless_and_exec044130.php , Accessed: 7/3/13, EH)
Jay-Z and Beyonce went to Cuba for their fifth wedding anniversary, causing a huge kerfuffle over whether or not they went there legally. Marco Rubio and others question how educational their trip really was, and why the Treasury Department might authorize such a trip. Thi s is dumb. What difference does it make if music royaltyor anyone else for that mattervisit Cuba and why is the embargo still going on? The policy is ineffective, after allthe Castros are still in power all these years later. Add to this the moral implications of

systematically impoverishing a nation because they happen to have a leader you disagree with.
The embargo became permanent on Feb. 7, 1962 and has existed in one form or another since then. In the past twenty years it has been strengthened and relaxed depending on the prevailing political tides. In 1992 and 1996 it was extended to countries that traded with Cuba in retaliation for the downing of two American civilian aircrafts by Cuba. In 2001 it was loosened to allow the sale of food to Cuba following Hurricane Michelle, a measure that remains in place and has build up a trading relationship worth $710 million by 2008. Otherwise restrictions were tightened under George Bush. Remittance allowances were decimated from $3,000 to $300, and family members were only allowed to visit for a maximum of two weeks every three years. President Obama has relaxed things somewhat by returning to the pre-Bush status quo. Now Americans can send remittances to non-family members and can visit for educational or religious purposes. In the time since Raul Castro replaced his more radical brother in 2008 he has undertaken over numerous reforms in areas including property rights, economics and travel. There are still human rights abuses including the holding of dissidents and journalist, but some forward progress is being made.

Historical warming that took place between in Vietnam-US relations and Sino-American relations provide good examples of how warming between the US and Cuba might unfold, and would be far more effective than the current policy. Vietnam and the U.S. had a gruesome relationship in the Cold War; despite these differences relations were normalized in 1995 and a trade deal was signed in 2000. Trade in 2012 totaled between $22-24 billion. Beijing and Washington spent the early years of the cold war at odds before a warming of relations that paved the way for tod ays relatively warm ties. President Richard Nixons visit in 1972 brought the Shanghai Communique, which was effectively an agree to disagree policy, and the s tart of the normalization of relations. Trade between the US and China went from $5 billion in 1980 to $536.2 billion in 2012. Imagine how different the world would beespecially for the average Chinese personif Sino-American relations were still almost non-existent? Most other countries dont have their own Cuba embargoes, with tourism from the EU and Canada pr oviding about $2.7 billion in revenue. There is no point in

The US will truly have won the battle against communism when Starbucks and McDonalds franchises line the streets of Havana the way they do Beijing. Ending the embargo is the first step. But fundamentally, no matter what other benefits there might be, it is morally sick to continue collectively punishing the Cuban people for such long-passed disputes. Its long since time they fully joined the community of nations
resisting anymore, and standing alone in the world for an old project that has failed.

Removing embargo impetus to democracy Huddelston 08Vicki Huddelston, former State Department official, Brookings Institution expert on Latin
America and Africa, and is the current Chief of the American Interests section in Cuba (Cuba's Road to Democracy?, CBN News, http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2008/March/Cubas-Road-to-Democracy-/, Accessed 7/4/13, jtc)
Brookings Institute's Huddleston disagrees. "The said. She instead says the

more you open up, the more you'll unbalance the regime," she U.S, should first end the travel and communication embargo. Allowing Americans to visit Cuba would promote the exchange of information and speed the spread of democratic ideals. "Anything that empowers the Cuban people. We're talking about building up democracy, so we want freedom of information, free flow of money, remittances to the Cuban people," Huddleston
said.

Cuba heading towards reformUS needs to help, link to democracy Cave 12Damien Cave, foreign correspondent for The New York Times in Mexico City, finalists for the 2008
Pulitzer Prize in international reporting (Easing of Restraints in Cuba Renews Debate on U.S. Embargo, The New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/20/world/americas/changes-in-cuba-create-support-for-easingembargo.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&, 11/19/12, Accessed 7/3/12, jtc) Even as defenders of the embargo warn against providing the Cuban government with economic lifelines, some Cubans and exiles are advocating a fresh approach. The Obama administration already showed an openness to engagement with Cuba in 2009 by removing restrictions on travel and remittances for Cuban Americans. But with Fidel Castro, 86, retired and President Ral Castro, 81, leading a bureaucracy that is divided on the pace and scope of change, many have begun urging President Obama to go further and

update American policy by putting a priority on assistance for Cubans seeking more economic independence from the government. Maintaining this embargo, maintaining this hostility, all it does is strengthen and embolden the hard-liners, said Carlos Saladrigas, a Cuban exile and cochairman of the Cuba Study Group in Washington, which advocates engagement with Cuba. What we should be doing is helping the reformers. Embargo leads to military conflictprevents democracy Amash 12-- Brandon Amash, Prospect Journal writer at UCSD (EVALUATING THE CUBAN EMBARGO,
Prospect Jounral of International Affairs at UCSD, 7/23/12, http://prospectjournal.org/2012/07/23/evaluating-thecuban-embargo/, Accessed 7/3/12, jtc)
The current

policy may drag the United States into a military conflict with Cuba. Military conflict may be inevitable in the future if the embargos explicit goal creating an insurrection in Cuba to overthrow the

government is achieved, and the United States may not be ready to step in. As Ratliff and Fontaine detail, Americans are not prepared to commit the military resources [] (Fontaine 57), especially after unpopular wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Much like Americas current situation with isolated rogue states such as Iran and North Korea, Cubas isolation may also lead to war for other reasons, like t he American occupation of Guantanamo Bay. These

consequences are inherently counterproductive for the democratization of Cuba and the improvement of human rights. Tourism promotes democracy in Cuba Sullivan 3/29 --- Mark P. Sullivan, Specialist in Latin American Affairs for the Congressional Research Office (Cuba: U.S. Policy and Issues for the 113th Congress, March 29, 2013, FAS, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R43024.pdf, accessed June 28, 2013, MY) The first people-to-people trips began in August 2011. In May 2012, the Treasury Department tightened its restrictions on people-to-people travel by making changes to its license guidelines. The revised guidelines require an organization applying for a people-to-people license to describe how the travel would enhance contact with the Cuban people, and/or support civil society in Cuba, and/or promote the Cuban peoples independence from Cuban authorities. The
revised guidelines also require specification on how meetings with prohibited officials of the Cuban government would advance purposeful travel by enhancing contact with the Cuban people, supporting civil society, or promoting independence from Cuban authorities. Major

arguments made for lifting the Cuba travel ban altogether are that it abridges the rights of ordinary Americans to travel; it hinders efforts to influence conditions in Cuba and may be aiding Castro by helping restrict the flow of information; and Americans can travel to other countries with communist or authoritarian governments. Major arguments in opposition to lifting the Cuba travel ban
are that more American travel would support Castros rule by providing his government with potentially millions of dollars in hard currency; that there are legal provisions allowing travel to Cuba for humanitarian purposes that are used by thousands of Americans each year; and that the President should be free to restrict travel for foreign policy reasons.

And its the most pragmatic approach Sullivan 3/29 --- Mark P. Sullivan, Specialist in Latin American Affairs for the Congressional Research Office (Cuba: U.S. Policy and Issues for the 113th Congress, March 29, 2013, FAS, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R43024.pdf, accessed June 28, 2013, MY) In light of Fidel Castros departure as head of government and the gradual economic changes being made by Ra l Castro, some observers called for a reexamination of U.S. policy toward Cuba. In this new context, two broad policy approaches have been advanced to contend with change in Cuba: a status-quo approach that maintains the U.S. dual-track policy of isolating the Cuban government while providing support to the Cuban people; and an approach aimed at influencing the attitudes of the Cuban government and Cuban society through increased contact and engagement. In general, those who advocate easing U.S. sanctions on Cuba make several policy arguments. They assert that if the United States moderated its policy toward Cubathrough increased travel, trade, and dialoguethen the seeds of reform would be planted, which would stimulate forces for peaceful change on the island. They stress the importance to the United States of avoiding violent change in Cuba, with the prospect of a mass exodus to the United States. They argue that since the demise of Cubas communist government does not appear imminent, even without Fidel Castro at the helm, the United States should espouse a more pragmatic approach in trying to bring about change in Cuba. Supporters of changing policy also point to broad international support for lifting the U.S. embargo, to the missed opportunities for U.S. businesses because of the unilateral nature of the embargo, and to the increased suffering of the Cuban people because of

the embargo. Proponents of change also argue that the United States should be consistent in its policies with the
worlds few remaining communist governments, including China and Vietnam.

Sanctions are a double standard and free trade promotes democracy Grisworld 05 --- Daniel Griswold is director of the Cato Institute's Center for Trade Policy Studies (Four Decades of Failure: The U.S. Embargo against Cuba, October 12, 2005, http://www.cato.org/publications/speeches/four-decades-failure-us-embargo-against-cuba, accessed July 3, 2013, MY) Economic sanctions rarely work. Trade and investment sanctions against Burma, Iran, and North Korea have failed to change the behavior of any of those oppressive regimes; sanctions have only deepened the deprivation of the very people we are trying to help. Our research at the Cato Institute confirms that trade and globalization till the soil for democracy. Nations open to trade are more likely to be democracies where human rights are respected. Trade and the development it creates give people tools of communication-cell phones, satellite TV, fax machines, the Internet-that tend to undermine oppressive authority. Trade not only increases the flow of goods and services but also of people and ideas. Development also creates a
larger middle class that is usually the backbone of democracy. President Bush seems to understand this powerful connection between trade and democracy when he talks about China or the Middle East. In a speech on trade early in his first term, the president noted that trade was about more than raising incomes. Trade

creates the habits of freedom, the president said, and those habits begin to create the expectations of democracy and demands for better democratic institutions. Societies that open to commerce across their borders are more open to democracy within their borders. And
for those of us who care about values and believe in valuesnot just American values, but universal values that promote human dignitytrade is a good way to do that. The president has rightly opposed efforts in Congress to impose trade sanctions against China because of its poor human rights record. In sheer numbers, the Chinese government has jailed and killed far more political and religious dissenters than has the Cuban government. And China is arguably more of a national security concern today than Castros pathetic little workers paradise. Yet China has become our third largest trading partner while we maintain a blanket embargo on commercial relations with Cuba. President Bush understands that economic

engagement with China offers the best hope for encouraging human rights and political reforms in that country, yet he has failed to apply that same, sound thinking to Cuba. In
fact, the Venezuelan government of Hugo Chavez is doing more to undermine Americas national interest today than either Cuba or China. Chavez shares Castros hatred for democratic capitalism, but unlike Castro he has the res ources and money to spread his influence in the hemisphere. Chavez is not only bankrolling Cuba with discounted oil but he is also supporting anti-Americans movements in Nicaragua and other countries in our neighborhood. Yet we buy billions of dollars of oil a year from Venezuelas state oil company, we allow huge Venezuelan investments in our own energy sector, and Americanslast time I checkedcan travel freely to Venezuela. The one big difference between Venezuela and Cuba is that we dont have half a mi llion politically active Venezuelan exiles living in a swing state like Ohio. This is not an argument for an embargo against Venezuela, but for greater coherence in U.S. foreign policy. In a world still inhabited by a number of unfriendly and oppressive regimes, there

is simply nothing special about Cuba that warrants the drastic option of a

total embargo.

The embargo has strengthened Castros ideological position and has prevented democratization in Cuba. Amash 12 - Brandon Amash, writer for the Prospect Journal of International Affairs at the University of California at San Diego
[Evaluating the Cuban Embargo, Prospect Journal, 7/23/12, http://prospectjournal.org/2012/07/23/evaluating-the-cuban-embargo/, accessed: 7/4/13, JK]

American sanctions during the Cold War strengthened Castros ideological position and created opportunities for involvement by the Soviet Union, thereby decreasing the likelihood of democratization and improvement in human rights.Cubas revolution could not have come at a worse time for America. The emergence of a communist state in the western hemisphere allowed the Soviet Union to extend its influence, and the United States rejection of Cuba only widened the window of opportunity for Soviet involvement. The embargo also became a scapegoat for the Castro administration, which laid blame for poor human rights conditions on the embargo policy itself (Fontaine 18 22). Furthermore, as Ratliff and Fontaine suggest, isolating Cuba as an enemy of

democracy during the Cold War essentially made the goals of democratization in the country unachievable (Fontaine 30). Only engaging in economic activity with Cuba will lead to democratization in Cuba. Dodd No Date - Christopher J. Dodd, US Senator of Connecticut [Should the U.S End its Cuba Embargo? Scholastic,
http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/article/should-us-end-its-cuba-embargo, accessed: 7/4/13, JK]

The United States is the only nation that still has a trade embargo against Cuba. After four decades, it's clear that our policy has failed to achieve its goals: the end of Fidel Castro's regime and a peaceful transition to democracy. Today, Cuba remains under totalitarian rule, with Castro still firmly in power. The real victims of our policies are the 11 million innocent Cuban men, women, and children. Our
embargo has exacerbated already-miserable living conditions for Cuban citizens. Cuba's economy has suffered because it is prohibited from exporting goods to the U.S. In addition, most Cubans have very limited access to American products. Moreover, our policies restrict Americans' right to travel freely to Cuba, making exchange between our two cultures essentially impossible. There

are many other countries whose governments are not freely elected. Yet none of our policies toward these nations resemble our treatment of Cuba. With the Cold War over and Cuba posing no threat to the U.S.. there is no justification for our
outdated approach to Cuba. To make matters worse, we are spending extraordinary resources to enforce the embargo resources that could be used to secure our nation against terrorism. It's time for a fundamental change in our Cuba policy. We

can start by ending the trade embargo and by lifting the ban on travel to Cuba by American citizens. Only by engaging the Cuban people, and by building bridges between our citizens and theirs, will we succeed in bringing freedom and democracy to our neighbor.

Embargo does not encourage democracy or human rights.


Lewis 13 Bill Lewis, Digital Journalist based in Washington, DC, United States, United States. Joined on Sep 23, 2012
Expertise in Personal finance, Books, Politics, Automotive, Internet (Op-Ed: Why the United States should end its embargo on Cuba, Digital Journal, April 17, 2013, http://digitaljournal.com/article/348218, Date Accessed: June 28, 2013, SD) For over 50 years the United States has held firm on its embargo against Cuba, even as the world condemned it for doing so. It is now time that the United States accept that the embargo has failed and move on. When Fidel Castro came to power in 1959 and installed an authoritarian communist regime aligned with the Soviet Union, the United States began applying diplomatic and economic pressure to the small island nation 90 miles off of the Florida coast. After the Cuban Missile Crisis President John F. Kennedy took the pressure a step further by imposing a full trade embargo and urging US allies to do the same. At the time, the embargo seemed the logical thing to do in order to pressure Castro to make political reforms and to stop what many saw as an inevitable spread of communism during the height of the Cold War. Over 50 years later, however, many have begun to question the efficacy of the embargo and believe the time has come to end it. Before going over the many reasons why the United States should end the embargo on Cuba it is important to understand the goal of the embargo both past and present. The Council on Foreign Relations notes that the embargo was initially placed on Cuba in an attempt to pressure Havana into making democratic reforms and aligning itself with the United States, as opposed to the Soviet Union which it had allied with. In the aftermath of the Cuban Missile Crisis fears of Cuba being used as a forward base for the Soviet Union to threaten the United States and to spread communism in the region seemed to be fully realized with some validity and it seemed prudent for the United States and its allies to squash any possible threat that Cuba might represent. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the

reason given for the continuation of the embargo has been twofold according to the Washington Times; a continued desire to put pressure on Havana to make democratic reforms and end human rights violations, and Cubas continued status as a supporter of terror organizations. Let us then review each of these in order to determine
if the embargo has been effective and if its continuation is justified. The first reason given for the continued embargo on Cuba is that it is the only way for the United States to put pressure on Havana to end human rights violations and make democratic reforms. Proponents further state that we have a moral responsibility to show our support for Cuban citizens through the embargo. While this seems to make sense on face value this argument falls apart under close scrutiny. To begin with, the embargo is not supported or enforced by the majority of the world. In fact, according to Brett Wilkins of the Digital Journal, Israel and the tiny Pacific island nation of Palau (population 20,000) were the only other nations to have voted against a resolution in the UN calling for an end to the embargo in 2012 (the 21st such annual resolution). This simple fact alone means that whatever effect we might hope the embargo would have toward pressuring Havana disappears. Cubas largest industry tourism is booming due to European and Canadian travelers who flock to the islands many beaches. Additionally, trade with countries like Venezuela ensure a steady supply of oil and the European Union has begun working on closer trade ties with Cuba. Even U.S. companies find it easy to circumvent the embargo by routing the trades through foreign branches. It cannot be denied, however, that Cub as economy has been affected by the embargo even if not to the point that we would hope. In fact, Havana reports that they have lost more than a trillion dollars since the implementation of the embargo. The issue is, however, that even if the embargo had been fully enforced

and crippling to the Cuban economy it would likely have failed because trade sanctions and embargoes are notoriously ineffectual at causing reform.

The sad reality is that the first people to be hurt by any embargo are the innocent civilians; the very people who we are purportedly trying to help by forcing reforms. When a country such as Cuba begins to feel the effect of an embargo they do not cut amenities for the leader or military readiness though Cuba did cut its military
slightly when the embargoes were first put in place it was never truly a military threat and its military was never a concern; a look at nations like North Korea whose military is at the core of concerns is an indicator of the effect of sanctions on a country's military.

Instead they slash programs that improve the lives of their citizens. Worse, they then blame the United States for causing all of their economic woes; thus relieving them of the need to show action toward improving the situation. Therefore, rather than weakening Castros government through the sanctions as we had hoped, we in fact strengthen it by allowing it to use the United States as a
scapegoat. It is for this reason that human rights groups have actually called for an end to the embargo pointing to the hardship it causes the Cuban people without any real effect on the control the government has over them. As for the moral responsibility that we have to stand with the citizens of Cuba against an oppressive regime, to put it simply, what a bunch of hogwash. If we really want to stand with the citizens of Cuba, then rather than imposing an embargo that has hurt the people while strengthening the government we should take the same stance we did with the Marshal Plan which was used in post World War II Europe. Faced with the same potential problem the potential spread of communism we poured millions of dollars of aid and trade into European nations to help them rebuild and get their economies strong again. We used the same tactic in South Korea and several other countries since; and it has continued to work gloriously. While the issue has changed since the fall of the USSR the solution remains the same. By allowing trade with Cuba and ensuring that the people gain access to the many great things that capitalism and democracy allow we give the best chance that the people will call for reforms. It wont happen overnight and it wont be easy ; however, it will surely be more effective than an embargo that has been in place for over 50 years with no success whatsoever. Furthermore, given that Raul Castro has already begun making some reforms albeit small ones the time seems ripe for the US to make a move. The final argument given for continuing the embargo is the fact that Cuba remains on the United State's list as a state sponsor of terrorist organizations for their supposed support of groups like FARC and the ELN. There are, however, a few issues with this line of thought. First of all, as the Council on Foreign Relations indicates many experts state that there is no proof that Cuba has supported these organizations. Second, while the United States labels these organizations terrorist groups others call them freedom fighters and would point out that the government they are fighting against Columbia is incredibly corrupt and has been accused of supporting drug cartels. In the end, however, both of these points are moot because of the third; which happens to be the same argument made above. If in fact Cuba is supporting these groups, and if in fact these groups are terrorist organizations our embargo against Cuba does nothing to stop them from supporting these groups and in fact may even prevent reforms that would lead to them ending any support currently given. There are two more important reasons that we should end the embargo against Cuba. First, as I mentioned earlier in this article the United States stands alone outside of the support of Israel and Palau in enforcing this embargo; but more importantly we

stand

alone in seeing any justification for it. When we first began the embargo many nations stood with us because of the Cold
War and the threat from the Soviet Union, however, since the fall of the USSR it has become a black eye for the United States. Rather than looking like a nation protecting its national interest as is the right of any nation the United States looks like a larger nation bullying a smaller neighbor because it doesnt like their politics and the US has in fact been condemned by the UN for doing so. While this has yet to cause us any serious issues it does detract from the United States' international image which is an important part of any diplomatic effort they undertake. Second, is the extreme cost of continuing the embargo. According to the CATO Institute the, U.S. International Trad e Commission estimates American losses alone from the embargo [are] as much as $1.2 billion annually. Further, Forbes reports that accor ding 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 further increasing the cost. Thats a lot of money to be throwing at a policy that isnt actually working. No one will argue that reforms dont need to take place in Cuba, however, the method w e are choosing to use is not only ineffectual but actually hurts those we are trying to help. It is high time that we recognize the embargo for what it is failed policy and move on.

Lifting Embargo key to democracy and human rights.


Perez 10 Louis A. Perez Jr., Louis A. Prez, Jr., Ph.D. Louis A. Prez Jr. is the J. Carlyle Sitterson Professor of History in the College of
Arts and Sciences. His principal teaching fields include twentieth-century Latin America, the Caribbean, and Cuba. Professor Prez has written and edited fifteen books, and his articles have appeared in the principal journals of the profession. (Want Change in Cuba? End U.S. Embargo, CNN, September 21, 2010, http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/09/20/perez.cuba.embargo/index.html, Accessed: July 2, 2013, SD) CNN) -- In April 2009, the White House released a presidential memorandum declaring that democracy and human rights in Cuba were "national interests of the United States." Assistant Secretary of State Arturo Valenzuela repeated the message in May of this year to the Cuban-American National Foundation in Miami. The Obama administration, he said, wanted "to promote

respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms ... in ways that will empower the Cuban people and advance our national interests." Fine words. But if the administration really wanted to do something in the national interest, it would end the 50-year-old policy of political and economic isolation of Cuba. The Cuban embargo can no longer even pretend to be plausible. On

the contrary, it

has contributed to the very conditions that stifle democracy and human rights there. For 50 years, its brunt has fallen mainly on the Cuban people. This is not by accident. On the contrary, the embargo was designed to impose suffering and hunger on Cubans in the hope that they would rise up and overturn their government. "The only foreseeable means of alienating internal support," the Department of State insisted as early as April 1960, "is
through disenchantment and disaffection based on economic dissatisfaction and hardship." The United States tightened the screws in the postSoviet years with the

Torricelli Act and the Helms-Burton Act -- measures designed, Sen. Robert Torricelli said, "to wreak havoc on that island." The post-Soviet years were indeed calamitous. Throughout the 1990s, Cubans faced growing
scarcities, deteriorating services and increased rationing. Meeting the needs of ordinary life took extraordinary effort. And therein lies the problem that still bedevils U.S. policy today.

Far from inspiring the Cuban people to revolution, the embargo keeps them down and distracted. Dire need and urgent want are hardly optimum circumstances for a people to contemplate the benefits of democracy. A people preoccupied with survival have little interest or inclination to bestir themselves in behalf of anything else. In Cuba, routine household errands and chores consume overwhelming amounts of time and energy, day after day: hours in lines at the local grocery store or waiting for public transportation. Cubans in vast numbers choose to emigrate. Others burrow deeper into the black market, struggling to make do and carry on. Many commit suicide. (Cuba has one of the highest suicide rates in the world; in 2000, the latest year for which we have statistics, it was 16.4
per 100,000 people.) A June 2008 survey in The New York Times reported that less than 10 percent of Cubans identified the lack of political freedom as the island's main problem. As one

Cuban colleague recently suggested to me: "First necessities, later democracy." The United States should consider a change of policy, one that would offer Cubans relief from the all-consuming ordeal of daily life. Improved material circumstances would allow Cubans to turn their attention to other aspirations. Ending the embargo would also imply respect for the Cuban people, an acknowledgment that they have the vision and vitality to enact
needed reforms, and that transition in Cuba, whatever form it may take, is wholly a Cuban affair. A good-faith effort to engage Cuba, moreover, would counter the common perception there that the United States is a threat to its sovereignty. It would deny Cuban

leaders the chance to use U.S. policy as pretext to limit public debate and stifle dissent -- all to the good of democracy and human rights. And it would serve the national interest. The embargo hurts US soft power Franks 12- James Franks, VP of franchising and reporter at Reuters,( Cuba says ending U.S. embargo would help
both countries, Reuters.com, September 20, 2012, http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/20/us-cuba-usa-embargoidUSBRE88J15G20120920, Accessed: July 3, 2013, KH) The embargo, fully in place since 1962, has done $108 billion in damage to the Cuba economy, but also has violated the constitutional rights of Americans and made a market of 11 million people off limits to U.S. companies, Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez told reporters. "The blockade is, without doubt, the principal cause of the economic problems of our country and the essential obstacle for (our) development," he said, using Cuba's term for the embargo. "The blockade provokes suffering, shortages, difficulties that reach each Cuban family, each Cuban child," Rodriguez said. He spoke at a press conference that Cuba stages each year ahead of what has become an annual vote in the United Nations on a resolution condemning the embargo. The vote is expected to take place next month. Last year, 186 countries voted for the resolution, while only the United States and Israel supported the embargo, Rodriguez said. Lifting the embargo would improve the image of the United States around the world, he said, adding that it would also end what he called a "massive, flagrant and systematic violation of human rights." That violation includes restrictions on U.S. travel to the island that require most Americans to get U.S. government permission to visit and a ban on most U.S. companies doing business in Cuba, he said. "The prohibition of travel for Americans is an atrocity from the constitutional point of view," Rodriguez said. Cuba has its own limits on travel that make it difficult for most of its citizens to leave the country for any destination. Rodriguez said the elimination of the embargo would provide a much-needed tonic for the sluggish U.S. economy.

"In a moment of economic crisis, lifting the blockade would contribute to the United States a totally new market of 11 million people. It would generate employment and end the situation in which American companies cannot compete in Cuba," he said. Obama, who said early in his presidency that he wanted to recast long-hostile U.S.-Cuba relations, has been a disappointment to the Cuban government, which expected him to do more to dismantle the embargo. He has lifted some restrictions on travel and all on the sending of remittances to the island, but Rodriguez said he has broadened the embargo and its enforcement in other areas. Fines against U.S. and foreign companies and individuals who have violated the embargo have climbed from $89 million in 2011 to $622 million so far this year, he said. U.S.-Cuba relations thawed briefly under Obama, but progress came to a halt when Cuba arrested U.S. contractor Alan Gross in Havana in December 2009. Gross was subsequently sentenced to 15 years in prison for setting up Internet networks in Cuba under a controversial U.S. program that Cuba views as subversive. Rodriguez dodged questions about how U.S. policy toward Cuba might change if Obama is re-elected in November or if Republican candidate Mitt Romney wins the presidency, but said whoever is in office will have a chance to make history. "Any American president would have the opportunity to make a historic change," he said. "He would go into history as the man who rectified a policy that has failed."

Embargo does not promote democracy --- decades of failure disprove. Bandow, 2012. Doug Bandow, Senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a former special assistant to former US president Ronald Reagan. (Time to End the Cuba Embargo, National Interest, 12/11/2012, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/time-end-cuba-embargo. Accessed: July 4, 2013, KH)
The policy in Cuba obviously has failed. The regime remains in power. Indeed, it has consistently used the embargo to justify its own mismanagement, blaming poverty on America . Observed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: It is my personal belief that the Castros do not want to see an end to the embargo and do not want to see normalization with the United States, because they would lose all of their excuses for what hasnt happened in Cuba in the last 50 years. Similarly, Cuban exile Carlos Saladrigas of the Cuba Study Group argued that keeping the embargo, maintaining this hostility, all it does is strengthen and embolden the hardliners . Cuban human rights activists also generally oppose sanctions . A decade ago I (legally) visited Havana, where I met Elizardo Sanchez Santa Cruz , who suffered in communist prisons for eight years. He told me that the sanctions policy gives the government a good alibi to justify the failure of the totalitarian model in Cuba. Indeed, it is only by posing as an opponent of Yanqui Imperialism that Fidel Castro has achieved an international reputation. If he had been ignored by Washington, he never would have been anything other than an obscure authoritarian windbag. Unfortunately, embargo supporters never let reality get in the way of their arguments . In 1994, John Sweeney of the Heritage Foundation declared that the embargo rem ains the only effective instrument available to the U.S. government in trying to force the economic and democratic concessions it has been demanding of Castro for over three decades. Maintaining the embargo will help end the Castro regime more quickly. The latters collapse, he wrote, is more likely in the near term than ever before. Almost two decades later, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, chairwoman of the House Foreign Relations Committee, retains faith in the embargo : The sanctions on the regime must remain in place and, in fact, should be strengthened, and not be altered. One of the best definitions of insanity is continuing to do the same thing while expecting to achieve different results .

Lifting embargo would empower democratic groups Bandow 12,. Doug Bandow, Senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a former special assistant to former US president Ronald Reagan. (Time to End the Cuba Embargo, National Interest, 12/11/2012, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/time-end-cuba-embargo. Accessed July 4, 2013, KH)
Ending the embargo would have obvious economic benefits for both Cubans and Americans . The U.S. International Trade Commission estimates American losses alone from the embargo as much as $1.2 billion annually. Expanding economic opportunities also might increase pressure within Cuba for further economic reform. So far the regime has taken small steps, but rejected significant change . Moreover, thrusting more Americans into Cuban society could help undermine the ruling system . Despite Fidel 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 China. Still, 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 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.

Ending the Cuban embargo allows travel and ag tradekey to democracy and economic growth
Griswold 09- Daniel Griswold, is the director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute in
Washington, D.C (6/15/09, The US embargo of Cuba is a failure, Cato, Accessed 6/27/13, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/us-embargo-cuba-is-failure)

Obama should lift the embargo. Allowing more travel and farm exports to Cuba will be good for democracy and the economy After nearly 50 years, Americas cold war embargo against Cuba appears to be thawing at last. Earlier this spring, the Obama administration relaxed controls on travel and
remittances to the communist island by Cuban Americans, and last week it agreed to open the door for Cubas re entry to the Organisation of American States. Admitting Cuba to the OAS may be premature, given the organisations charter that requires its members to be democracies that re spect human rights, but changes to the US economic embargo are long overdue. The embargo has been a failure by every measure. It has not changed the course or nature of the Cuban government. It has not liberated a single Cuban citizen. In fact, the

embargo has made the Cuban people a bit more impoverished, without making them one bit more free. At the same time, it has deprived Americans of their freedom to travel and has cost US farmers and
other producers billions of dollars of potential exports. Congre ss and President Barack Obama should act now to lift the embargo to allow more travel and farm exports to Cuba. As a tool of US foreign policy, the embargo actually enhances the Castro governments standing by giving it a handy excuse for the failures of the islands Caribbean-style socialism. Brothers Fidel and Raul can rail for hours about the suffering the embargo inflicts on Cubans, even though the damage done by their communist policies has been far worse. The embargo has failed to give us an ounce of extra leverage over what happens in Havana. In 2000, Congress approved a modest opening of the embargo. The Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act allows cash-only sales to Cuba of US farm products and medical supplies. The results of this modest opening have been quite amazing. Since 2000, total sales of farm products to Cuba have increased from virtually zero to $691m in 2008. The top US exports by value are corn, meat and poultry, wheat and soybeans. From dead last, Cuba is now the number six customer in Latin America for US agricultural products. Last year, American farmers sold more to the 11.5 million people who live in Cuba than to the 200 million people in Brazil. According to the US international trade commission, US farm exports would increase another $250m if restrictions were lifted on export financing. This should not be interpreted as a call for export-import bank subsidies. Trade with Cuba must be entirely commercial and market driven. Lifting the embargo should not mean that US taxpayers must now subsidise exports to Cuba. But neither should the government stand in the way. USITC estimates do not capture the long-term export potential to Cuba from normalised relations. The Bahamas, Dominican Republic, Jamaica and Guatemala spend an average of 2.8% of their GDP to buy farm exports from the US. If Cuba spent the same share of its GDP on US farm exports, exports could more than double the current level, to $1.5bn a year. Advocates of the embargo argue that trading with Cuba will only put dollars into the coffers of the Castro regime. And its true that the government in Havana, because it controls the economy, can skim off a large share of the remittances and tourist dollars spent in Cuba. But of course, selling more US products to Cuba would quickly relieve the Castro regime of those same dollars. If more US tourists were permitted to visit Cuba, and at the same time US

exports to Cuba were further liberalised, the US economy could reclaim dollars from the Castro regime as fast as the regime could acquire them. In effect, the exchange would be of agricultural products for tourism services, a kind of bread for beaches, food for fun trade relationship. Meanwhile, the increase in
Americans visiting Cuba would dramatically increase contact between Cubans and Americans. The unique USCuban relationship that flourished before Castro could be renewed, which would increase US influence and potentially hasten the decline of the communist regime. Congress and President Barack Obama should

act now to lift the embargo to allow more travel and farm exports to Cuba. Expanding our freedom to travel to, trade with and invest in Cuba would make Americans better off and would help the Cuban people and speed the day when they can enjoy the freedom they deserve. Trade helps promote democracy empirics prove Lloyd 11 Delia Lloyd, writer featured in New York Time and Politics Daily (Ten Reasons to Lift the Cuba
Embargo, Politics Daily, Year = 2011 (no date specified), http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/24/ten-reasonsto-lift-the-cuba-embargo/, accessed: 6/28/13, ckr) 1. It's good economics. 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 to the Cuban government, 250,000 Cuban-Americans visited from the United States in 2009, up from roughly 170,000 the year before, suggesting a pent-up demand. 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.

2. It's good politics. Supporters of the trade embargo -- like Cuban-American Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) -have long argued that easing the restrictions would only reward Castro for the regime's ongoing repression of political dissidents. We need to keep up the economic pressure on Cuba, so this logic goes, in order to keep pressure on the regime to do something about human rights. But there's a long-standing empirical relationship between trade and democracy . The usual logic put forth to explain this relationship is that trade creates an economically independent and politically aware middle class, which, in turn, presses for political reform. It's not clear that this argument actually holds up when subjected to close causal scrutiny (although the reverse does seem to be true -- i.e., democratic reform creates pressure for trade liberalization). Still, it's difficult to disagree with the proposition that by enabling visiting scholars and religious groups to stay in Cuba for up to two years (as the presidential order would allow) rather than a matter of weeks (as is currently the case) we'd be helping, not hurting, democracy in Cuba. First, easing the current travel restrictions would allow for far deeper

linkages between non-governmental organizations from both countries, which some see as a powerful mechanism for democratic reform. Second, because American visitors would be staying on the
island longer, scholars and activists alike would gain much better insight into where the pressure points for democracy actually exist.

Embargo prevents change to democracy in Cuba Caribbean News 12 (Should the United States maintain its embargo against Cuba?, Caribbean News Now!,
12/22/12, http://www.caribbeannewsnow.com/headline-Should-the-United-States-maintain-its-embargo-againstCuba%3F-13864.html, accessed: 6/28/13, ckr) Opponents of the Cuba embargo argue that it should be lifted because the failed policy is a Cold War relic and has clearly not achieved its goals. They say the sanctions harm the US economy and Cuban citizens, and prevent opportunities to promote change and democracy in Cuba. They say the embargo hurts international opinion of the United States. In addition to in-depth research on the pros and cons of maintaining the Cuba embargo, the new ProCon.org website contains a historical background section, videos, images, over 60 footnotes and sources, and Did You Know? facts including: 1. President John F. Kennedy sent his press secretary to buy 1,200 Cuban cigars the night before he signed the embargo in February 1962. 2. Estimates place the cost of the Cuban embargo to the US economy between $1.2 and $4.84 billion annually. A 2010 study by Texas A&M University calculated that 6,000 American jobs could be created by lifting the embargo. 3. There are an estimated 65,000 to 70,000 political prisoners incarcerated in Cuba as of May 2012, which is among the world's highest on a per capita basis. 4. The United Nations has denounced the US embargo against Cuba for 21 straight years. The vote against the embargo was 188-3 in 2012, with only Israel and Palau supporting the United States. 5. The United States began exporting food to Cuba following a devastating hurricane in 2001 and is now the island's second-largest food supplier. Annual food sales to Cuba peaked at $710 million in 2008.

Embargo thwarts democracy engagement required to solve Tucker 4/14 Cynthia Tucker, American columnist and blogger for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, syndicated
by Universal Press Syndicate, Pulitzer Prize for commentary (Cuban Embargo Has Far Outlived Its Usefulness, The National Memo, April 13th, 2013, http://www.nationalmemo.com/cuban-embargo-has-far-outlived-itsusefulness/?author_name=cynthiatucker, accessed: 7/2/13, ckr) That just goes to show you that Fidel Castros

efforts to wall off the island nation from his powerful enemy to the north have failed miserably. He and his brother have perfected the dark arts of the dictatorship

jailing dissidents, stifling protest, controlling internal news media, severely restricting travel abroad but the lights of the outside world shine brightly through the cracks. Castros long-running tyranny has not managed the thoroughgoing isolation of, say, North Korea, where citizens have little realistic knowledge of the rest of the world. Still, Castro has his accomplices here in the United States fanatics who would help him wall off

Cuba, restrict the access its citizens have to American culture and generally thwart a hoped-for transition from dictatorship to democracy. Bizarrely, those accomplices consider themselves Castros
biggest enemies. They have dedicated themselves to his demise. Indeed, if you know about the recent trip to Cuba by Americas First Couple of Pop, you probably heard about it through the controversy ginned up by a handful of Florida Republicans: Sen. Marco Rubio and U.S. Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Mario Diaz-Balart. Without waiting to investigate the trip, Ros-Lehtinen and Diaz-Balart, especially, began complaining that it was likely a violation of the antediluvian U.S. embargo. As it turns out, Beyonc and Jay-Z entered Cuba legally. They went as part of a cultural and educational exchange arranged under the auspices of a group called Academic Arrangements Abroad and approved by the U.S. Treasury Department, according to Reuters. But the Florida pols didnt want facts; they wanted to embarrass President Obama by implicating two high-profile political supporters in something nefarious. Its the anti-Castro faction who should be embarrassed. The Cuban embargo is dumb, one of the most antiquated and least sensible federal laws remaining on the books. Enacted in the early 1960s, it is a

remnant of a different time an era of bobby socks, segregation and a serious threat emanating from the Soviet Union.
The Cuban embargo makes no more sense today than laws requiring white and colored water fountains. It is kept alive by a handful of powerful politicians of Cuban heritage, who cling to their parents and grandparents bitterness toward Castro. Many members of Cubas affluent classes fled the island after Castros 1959 revolution, when he began nationalizing private industries and strengthening ties with the Soviets.

His long-running dictatorship has been an economic disaster and a catastrophe for civil liberties. But with the Soviets long gone, Castro represents absolutely no threat to the United States. Further, the most promising avenue for changing Cuba lies in courting it, not cutting it off.
When Richard Nixon visited China in 1972, ending a 25-year breach, he did so with a similar notion in mind.

China remains a Communist country. It has a totalitarian government; it restricts human rights; as a nuclear power with a huge military, it could pose a threat to the United States and its allies. Yet, no reasonable politician suggests that the U.S. government should restrict travel or commerce with China. For decades, our government has believed the best way to change China is through engagement. Using that standard, President Bill Clinton sought to weaken the Cuban embargo during his term by encouraging educational and cultural exchanges. Though President George W. Bush stopped them, Obama has revived the trips. While the sensible policy would be to end the embargo, the cultural exchanges are at least a step in the right direction. Embargo bad helps Castro and hurts Cuban people Karon 10 Tony Karon, senior editor at TIME (Do We Really Need an Embargo Against Cuba?, TIME,
4/21/10, http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,48773,00.html, 7/2/13, ckr) It actually helps keep Castro in power Never mind the fact that it's failed to dislodge him after 38 years, the

embargo is now Castro's catchall excuse for every ill that plagues his decaying socialist society. It helps him paint the U.S. as hostile and an imminent threat in the eyes of the Cuban people, which is how he rationalizes his authoritarian politics. Opening the floodgates of trade will leave Castro with no excuses, and interaction with the U.S. will hasten the collapse of his archaic system.
What's good for China is good for Cuba

China is a lot more repressive than Cuba, and yet we've normalized trade relations with Beijing on the argument that trade will hasten reform and democratization. We're even lifting sanctions against North Korea despite the fact that their missile program is supposedly a threat to our skies, whereas the Pentagon has long since concluded that Cuba represents no threat to U.S. security. It's nonsensical to argue that
trade induces better behavior from communist regimes in China and North Korea, but will do the opposite in Cuba. It mostly hurts the people it's supposed to help You can be sure Fidel Castro isn't going to bed hungry and or suffering through a headache because

there's no Tylenol to be had. Yet millions of his people are suffering all manner of deprivations that the could be eased by lifting an embargo that's never going to overthrow him anyway. Stopping Cubans from benefiting from trade with the U.S. and interaction with American tourists leaves Castro unscathed, but it deprives the Cuban people of a taste of freedom that could only undermine a repressive regime. Embargo helps Castro Regime US politicians too scared to oppose Stern 12 Scott Stern, Branford College at Yale (Lift the Cuba embargo, Yale Daily News, 2/10/12,
http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2012/02/10/stern-lift-the-cuba-embargo/, accessed: 7/3/13, ckr)

The embargo has stunted the Cuban economy and limited Cubans access to good food, modern technology and useful medicine. It has also hurt the United States relationships with other countries the European Parliament actually passed a law making it illegal for Europeans to comply with certain parts of the embargo. The purpose of the embargo was undeniably to make life so
difficult for Cubans that they would see the error of their ways and expel Castro and communism. The United States government has maintained for 50 years that it will not do business with Cuba until it learns to respect human rights and liberty. There is a pretty serious problem with this plan: It hasnt worked. Beyond the fact that Castro is still in

power and Cuba is still not a democracy, the embargo has not truly succeeded in sewing resentment into the hearts and minds of the Cuban people. The embargo allows Castro to make the United States and the embargo the scapegoats for all of Cubas ills. It also forces Cuba to rely on countries like the former USSR, China and Venezuela for trade. The appalling hypocrisy of the
embargo is that the United States nearly always maintained diplomatic and economic relationships with countries like Russia, China and Vietnam even during the heart of the Cold War. Numerous influential people have come out against the Cuban embargo, including Pope John Paul II, Jesse Jackson and George Schultz. They all claim that the embargo hurts the Cuban people, not the Cuban government. Democratic politicians Gary Hart, George McGovern and Jimmy Carter have also expressed this view. It is interesting to note, however, that Hart and McGovern only became vocal enemies of the embargo long after their presidential runs. Politicians are scared openly to oppose the embargo. The Cuban-American population is an exceptionally powerful and vocal voting bloc, and many CubanAmericans support the embargo out of sheer hatred of Castro. These Cuban exiles whose

votes are so important, particularly in Florida have pushed nearly every major politician away from normalizing relations with Cuba. As Hart wrote on his blog last year - years after leaving politics, of
course the embargo is a straight-jacket whereby first-generation Cuban-Americans wielded inordinate political power over both parties and constructed a veto over rational, mature diplomacy. It would be highly inaccurate, however, to foist the blame for the embargos persistence upon the Cuban -American population. American politicians across the political spectrum are to blame for their intransigence

and their unwillingness to challenge the status quo. The embargo is not a major political issue, so politicians are just too apathetic to engage with it.

Embargo promotes poverty in Cuba gives Castro more power Henderson 08 David Henderson, research fellow at Stanford Universitys Hoover Institution and is also
associate professor of economics at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California (End the Cuban Embargo, AntiWar, 2/21/08, http://antiwar.com/henderson/?articleid=12395, accessed: 7/4/13, ckr) Which brings us to the second argument for the embargo, which seems to go as follows.

By squeezing the Cuban economy enough, the U.S. government can make Cubans even poorer than Fidel Castro has managed to over the past 48 years, through his imposition of Stalin-style socialism.
Ultimately, the theory goes, some desperate Cubans will rise up and overthrow Castro. There are at least three problems with this "make the victims hurt more" strategy. First, it's

profoundly immoral. It could succeed only by making average Cubans already living in grinding poverty even poorer. Most of them are completely innocent and, indeed, many of them already want to get rid of Castro. And consider the irony: A defining feature of socialism is the prohibition of voluntary exchange between people. Proembargo Americans typically want to get rid of socialism in Cuba. Yet their solution prohibiting trade with Americans is the very essence of socialism.
The second problem is more practical: It hasn't worked. To be effective, an embargo must prevent people in the target country from getting goods, or at least substantially increase the cost of getting goods. But competition is a hardy weed that shrugs off governmental attempts to suppress it. Companies in many countries, especially Canada, produce and sell goods that are close substitutes for the U.S. goods that can't be sold to Cuba. Wander around Cuba, and you're likely to see beach umbrellas advertising Labatt's beer, McCain's (no relation) French fries, and President's Choice cola. Moreover, even U.S. goods for which there are no close substitutes are often sold to buyers in other countries, who then resell to Cuba. A layer of otherwise unnecessary middlemen is added, pushing up prices somewhat, but the price increase is probably small for most goods.

Some observers have argued that the very fact that the embargo does little harm means that it should be kept because it's a cheap way for U.S. politicians to express moral outrage against Castro. But arguing for a policy on the grounds that it's ineffective should make people question the policy's wisdom. Third, the policy is politically effective, but not in the way the embargo's proponents would wish. The embargo surely makes Cubans somewhat more anti-American than they would be otherwise, and it makes them somewhat more in favor of or at least less against Castro. Castro has never talked honestly about the embargo: he has always called it a blockade, which it manifestly is not. But he has gotten political mileage by blaming the embargo, rather than socialism, for Cuba's awful economic plight and reminds his subjects ceaselessly that the U.S. government is the instigator.
Some Cubans probably believe him.

Ending Cuban embargo boosts human rights and develops democracy Johnson 08 - Roger Johnson, North Dakota Agriculture Commissioner (Cuba: Snuff Out the Embargo,
Bloomberg BusinessWeek, 2008 (no specific date), http://www.businessweek.com/debateroom/archives/2008/06/cuba_snuff_out_the_embargo.html, accessed: 7/4/13, ckr)

American policy toward Cuba is an abject failure. Nine U.S. Presidents have come and gone (and a 10th is
about to depart); Fidel Castro has just resigned, yet his closest supporters remain in power.

The real victims of this misguided policy are the two generations of Cubans who have grown up under the U.S. embargo that has deprived them of access to U.S. consumer products. More important, it has isolated them from the ideals of democracy and freedom, the very things we most want for them.

In the meantime, other nations, including most of our closest allies, are openly trading with and sending tourists to Cuba. There is a substantial market there, especially for our agricultural products, and we are missing out on much of it. Embargoes are almost meaningless when the rest of the world ignores them. Since 2002, North Dakota has exported nearly $40 million in agricultural commodities mostly pulse crops (peas, chickpeas, lentils, etc.)to Cuba, despite the competitive disadvantage imposed on us by our own government restrictions. Lifting those restrictions would mean greater trade opportunities. Cubas government is much like those of China and Vietnam, Communist nations that enjoy tra de, tourism, and even the friendship of the U.S. Yet we treat Cuba, a tiny nation with virtually no political, economic,

or military power, as a pariah. The U.S. should end the trade and business embargo with Cuba and move quickly to allow tourism between our two countries. Most important, we should restore full diplomatic relations with Havana. Only then will we have the leverage to press the new Cuban leadership to restore human rights, establish a free market-based economy, and move to democracy.
Until we do these things, however, we will watch as others enjoy the benefits of trade with Cuba and play an active role in the development of the island. The U.N. General Assembly has voted repeatedly for an end to the embargo against Cuba, most recently by a margin of 183 to 4. It is time to admit we are wrong; it is time to change our policyfor ourselves and for the people of Cuba.

Embargo blocks US from preventing socialism in Cuba Heuvel 7/2 Katrina vanden Heuven, editor, publisher, and part-owner of the magazine The Nation (The US
Should End the Cuban Embargo, The Nation, 7/2/13, http://www.thenation.com/blog/175067/us-should-end-cubanembargo#axzz2Y7Hs619u, 7/4/13, ckr) Is there a greater example of utter folly than Americas superannuated policy toward Cuba? During more than 50 years corrupted by covert actions, economic sabotage, travel bans and unending embargo, the United States

managed to make Castro and Cuba an international symbol of proud independence. Intent on isolating Cuba, Washington has succeeded only in isolating itself in its own hemisphere. Intent on
displacing Fidel Castro, the US enmity only added to his nationalist credentials. A recent visit reveals a Cuba that is already beginning a new, post-Castro era. That only highlights the inanity of the continuing U.S. embargo, a cruel relic of a Cold War era that is long gone.

Cuba is beginning a new experiment, driven by necessity, of trying to build its own version of market socialism in one country. Just as populist movements in the hemisphere looked to Castro and Cuba for inspiration, now Cuba is learning from its allies as it cautiously seeks to open up its economy. Ending the genocidal policy opens up freedom and democracy AP 12 (50 Years After Kennedys Ban, Embargo on Cuba Remains, The New York Times, 2/7/12,
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/world/americas/american-embargo-on-cuba-has-50th-anniversary.html?_r=0, accessed: 7/4/13, ckr) HAVANA (AP) The world is much changed since the early days of 1962, but one thing has remained constant: The United States economic embargo on Cuba, a near-total trade ban that turned 50 on Tuesday. Supporters say it is a justified measure against a repressive Communist government that has never stopped being a thorn in Washingtons side. Critics call it a failed policy that has hurt ordinary Cubans instead of the

government. All acknowledge that it has not accomplished its core mission of toppling Fidel Castro or his brother and successor, Ral.

All this time has gone by, and yet we keep it in place, said Wayne Smith, who was a young American diplomat in Havana in 1961 when relations were severed and who returned as the chief American diplomat after they were partially re-established under President Jimmy Carter. We talk to the Russians, we talk to the Chinese, we have normal relations even with Vietnam, Mr. Smith said. We trade with all of them. So why not with Cuba? In the White House, the first sign of the looming total embargo came when President John F. Kennedy told his press secretary to buy him as many H. Upmann Cuban cigars as he could find. The aide came back with 1,200. Although trade restrictions had been imposed by his predecessor, President Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mr. Kennedy announced the total embargo on Feb. 3, 1962, citing the subversive offensive of Sino-Soviet Communism with which the government of Cuba is publicly aligned. It went into effect four days later at the height of the cold war, a year removed from the failed C.I.A.-backed Bay of Pigs invasion meant to oust Communism from Cuba and eight months before the Soviet attempts to put nuclear missiles on the island brought the two superpowers to the brink of war. Little was planned to observe Tuesdays anniversary, but Cuban-American members of Congress issued a joint statement vowing to keep the heat on Cuba. Supporters of the policy acknowledge that many American strategic concerns from the 1960s are now in the past, such as curbing Soviet influence and keeping Fidel Castro from exporting revolution throughout Latin America. But they say that other justifications remain, such as the confiscation of United States property in Cuba and the need to press for greater freedoms on the island. We have a hemispheric commitment to freedom and democracy and respect for human rights, said Jos Crdenas, a former National Security Council staff member on Cuba under President George W. Bush. I still think that those are worthy aspirations.

With just 90 miles of sea between Florida and Cuba, the United States would be a natural No. 1 trade partner and source of tourism. The embargo is a constant talking point for island authorities, who blame it for shortages of everything from medical equipment to the concrete needed for highway construction. Cuba frequently fulminates against the blockade at the United Nations and demands the United States end its genocidal policy. Every fall, a vast majority of nations back a resolution condemning the
embargo.

Embargo allows Castro to steal Cuban property Salazar 3/25 William De Salazar, writer at Suite (U.S. Embargo Against Cuba, Suite, 3/25/12,
http://suite101.com/article/us-embargo-against-cuba-a23463, accessed: 7/4/13, ckr)

Recently there have been many requests by American farmers and businessman to lift the embargo against Cuba. Due to harder economic times in the U.S. especially farmers; one can sympathize with them to have an increase business market to sell their crops, and products also. However, most Americans are not aware that Castro put himself in power through military force not democracy.
Castro confiscated all properties on the island. He made it illegal for anyone but the government to own property. In this manner in 1959, he stole all the properties and businesses owned by both Cubans and businessmen from all over the world, the majority being Americans. Castro took over all private assets which then became Cuban government assets. Many U.S. companies with offices in buildings built with U.S. money, manufacturing plants, and many other types of business places throughout the island were forced to leave the country. Castro confiscated all the infrastructure left behind. In essence, Castro stole all Cuban properties as well as U.S. businesses

with whatever these companies built as well as whatever machinery they used to operate those businesses. In 1995, those confiscated assets were estimated by the Foreign Settlement Commission in the U.S.
Department of Justice to be worth approximately six billion dollars.

Embargo fails lifting it solves free rights Seattle Times 09 (End the U.S. Embargo of Cuba, The Seattle Times, 12/22/09,
http://seattletimes.com/html/editorials/2010571248_edit23cuba.html, accessed: 7/4/13, ckr)

SEN. Maria Cantwell calls our attention to a law, signed by President Obama, allowing Cuba to buy U.S. farm produce and pay after the goods are shipped. The law reverses a Treasury ruling during
the Bush years that Cuba had to pay in advance a ruling that stopped the trade altogether. This page favors the new law, which will allow a few of our state's farmers to make a little bit of money. But we would go much further. We would end altogether the embargo, which was imposed under President Kennedy almost a half-century ago.

We would allow Cuba to buy U.S. foodstuffs, and most other products, under normal commercial rules. We would allow Americans to visit Cuba without threatening them with fines under the Trading With the Enemy Act. We would repeal the Helms-Burton Act and allow Americans to invest in Cuba, and we would allow some Cuban investment here. We would allow the importation of Cuban sugar and other lawful products. We suggest this not because we support the system in Cuba, but because we support the rights of Americans to make their own decisions about it. For almost half a century, the United States has restricted the rights of Americans in order to bring down Castro and communism. The policy has done neither. It doesn't seem to have done any good at all. Certainly it has harmed ordinary people in Cuba.
Fifty years is enough. Sens. Cantwell and Patty Murray, who support trade and travel with Cuba, can afford to be much bolder on this issue. Only one state loves the embargo, and it is time Florida was outvoted.

Cuba is reforming its socialist waysnew reforms prove Sweig and Bustamante 13- Julia E. Sweig, Nelson and David Rockefeller Senior Fellow for Latin America
Studies and Director for Latin America Studies; Michael Bustamante, PhD candidate specializing in Latin American and Caribbean History at Yale, dissertation about the cultural politics of Cuban collective and historical memory, on and off the island, in the wake of the 1959 Revolution, served as Research Associate for Latin America Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. (Cuba After Communism, Council on Foreign Relations, http://www.cfr.org/cuba/cuba-after-communism/p30991, July/August 2013, accessed: 7/3/13, ML) Three years ago, Castro

caused a media firestorm by quipping to an American journalist that "the Cuban model doesn't even work for us anymore." Tacitly embracing this assessment, Fidel's brother Ral Castro, the current president, is leading a gradual but, for Cuba, ultimately radical overhaul of the relationship between the state, the individual, and society, all without cutting the socialist umbilical cord. So
far, this unsettled state of affairs lacks complete definition or a convincing label. "Actualization of the Cuban social and economic model," the Communist Party's preferred euphemism, oversells the degree of ideological cohesion while smoothing over the implications for society and politics. For now, the emerging Cuba might best be characterized as a public-private hybrid in which multiple forms of production, property ownership, and investment, in addition to a slimmer welfare state and greater personal freedom, will coexist with military-run state companies in strategic sectors of the economy and continued one-party rule.

A new migration law, taking effect this year, provides a telling example of Cuba's ongoing reforms. Until recently, the Cuban government required its citizens to request official permission before traveling abroad, and doctors, scientists, athletes, and other professionals faced additional obstacles. The state still regulates the exit and entry of professional athletes and security officials and reserves the right to deny anyone a passport for reasons of national security. But the new migration law eliminates the need for "white cards," as the expensive and unpopular exit permits were known; gives those who left the country illegally, such as defectors and rafters, permission to visit or possibly repatriate; and expands from 11

months to two years the period of time Cubans can legally reside abroad without the risk of losing their bank accounts, homes, and businesses on the island. This new moment in Cuba has arrived not with a bang but rather on the heels of a series of cumulative measures -- most prominent among them agricultural reform, the formalization of a progressive tax code, and the government's highly publicized efforts to begin shrinking the size of state payrolls by allowing for a greater number of small businesses. The beginnings of private credit, real estate, and wholesale markets promise to further Cuba's evolution. Still, Cuba does not appear poised to adopt the Chinese or Vietnamese blueprint for market liberalization anytime soon.
Cuba's unique demographic, geographic, and economic realities -- particularly the island's aging population of 11 million, its proximity to the United States, and its combination of advanced human capital and dilapidated physical infrastructure -- set Cuba apart from other countries that have moved away from communism. It is perhaps unsurprising, then, that Cuba's ongoing changes do not resemble the rapid transition scenario envisioned in the 1996 Helms-Burton legislation, which conditioned the removal of the U.S. embargo on multiparty elections and the restitution of private property that was nationalized in the 1960s. In this respect, Washington remains more frozen in time than Havana.

Lifting the embargo undermines the government creation of middle class Kinzer 6/1/13 Stephen Kinzer, Stephen Kinzer is a United States author and newspaper reporter. He is a
veteran New York Times correspondent who has reported from more than fifty countries on five continents. During the 1980s he covered revolution and social upheaval in Central America. In 1990, he was promoted to bureau chief of the Berlin bureau and covered the growth of Eastern and Central Europe as they emerged from Soviet rule. He was also New York Times bureau chief in Istanbul (Turkey) from 1996 to 2000. He currently teaches journalism and United States foreign policy at Boston University. Kinzer has written several non-fiction books about Turkey, Central America, Iran, the US overthrow of foreign governments from the late 19th century to the present and, most recently, about Rwanda's recovery from genocide. (A specter is haunting Cuba, Alaska Dispatch, 6/1/13, http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20130601/specter-haunting-cuba, accessed: 6/28/13, amf)

Legalizing larger-scale private business in Cuba would have profound political consequences. It would lead to the emergence of a middle class, and eventually a wealthy class. Such classes always seek to transform their economic power into political power. Cuban leaders are acutely aware that an open economy could be the greatest long-term threat to their revolutionary order. This makes the US trade embargo on Cuba even more self-defeating than it has been for the last half-century. It is among the most bizarre American foreign policies. No other country in the world has cut itself off from Cuba. Lifting the embargo would hasten the kind of change most Americans and most Cubans would like to see in Cuba. Paralyzed by fear of the Cuban vote in
Florida, however, generations of American politicians have refused to take this eminently logical step.

Embargo props up the regime Bandow 12/11/12 Doug Bandow, Doug Bandow is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute. A former Special
Assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is the author of several books, including Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire. (Time to End the Cuban Embargo, The National Interest, 12/11/12, http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/the-pointless-cuba-embargo-7834?page=1, accessed: 7/3/13, amf) Three years ago, President Barack Obama loosened regulations on Cuban Americans, as well as telecommunications between the United States and Cuba. However, the law sharply constrains the president's discretion.

Moreover, UN Ambassador Susan Rice said that the embargo will continue until Cuba is free. It is far past time to end the embargo.
During the Cold War, Cuba offered a potential advanced military outpost for the Soviet Union. Indeed, that role led to the Cuban missile crisis. With the failure of the U.S.-supported Bay of Pigs invasion, economic pressure appeared to be Washingtons best strategy for ousting the Castro dictatorship.

However, the

end of the Cold War left Cuba strategically irrelevant. It is a poor country with little ability to harm the United States. The Castro regime might still encourage unrest, but its survival has no measurable impact on any important U.S. interest.
The regime remains a humanitarian travesty, of course. Nor are Cubans the only victims: three years ago the regime jailed a State Department contractor for distributing satellite telephone equipment in Cuba. But Havana is not the only regime to violate human rights. Moreover, experience has long demonstrated that it is virtually impossible for outsiders to force democracy. Washington often has used sanctions and the Office of Foreign Assets Control currently is enforcing around 20 such programs, mostly to little effect.

The policy in Cuba obviously has failed. The regime remains in power. Indeed, it has consistently used the embargo to justify its own mismanagement, blaming poverty on America.
Observed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: It is my personal b elief that the Castros do not want to see an end to the embargo and do not want to see normalization with the United States, because they would lose all of their excuses for what hasn't happened in Cuba in the last 50 years. Similarly, Cuban exile Carlos Saladrigas of

the Cuba Study Group argued that keeping the embargo, maintaining this hostility, all it does is strengthen and embolden the hardliners. Cuban human rights activists also generally oppose sanctions. A decade ago I (legally) visited Havana, where I met Elizardo Sanchez Santa Cruz, who suffered in communist prisons for eight years. He told me that the "sanctions policy gives the government a good alibi to justify the failure of the totalitarian model in Cuba." Indeed, it is only by posing as an opponent of Yanqui Imperialism that Fidel Castro has achieved an international reputation. If he had been ignored by Washington, he never would have been anything other than an obscure authoritarian windbag. Lifting the embargo spurs mutual economic growth, which undermines the Castro regime Bandow 12 - Bandow, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, specializing in foreign policy and civil
liberties. He worked as special assistant to President Reagan and editor of the political magazine Inquiry. He writes regularly for leading publications such as Fortune magazine, National Interest, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Times. Bandow speaks frequently at academic conferences, on college campuses, and to business groups. Bandow has been a regular commentator on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox News Channel, and MSNBC. He holds a J.D. from Stanford University. (Time to End the Cuba Embargo, The National Interest, December 11, 2012, http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/thepointless-cuba-embargo-7834?page=1, accessed: 6/27/13, LR)

Ending the embargo would have obvious economic benefits for both Cubans and Americans. The U.S. International Trade Commission estimates American losses alone from the embargo as much as $1.2 billion annually. Expanding economic opportunities also might increase pressure within Cuba for further economic reform. So far the regime has taken small steps, but rejected significant change. Moreover, thrusting more Americans into Cuban society could help undermine the ruling system. Despite Fidel 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 China. Still, 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. Lifting the embargo facilitates the spread of democracy by empowering the Cuban people Bandow 12 Doug Bandow, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, specializing in foreign policy and civil
liberties. He worked as special assistant to President Reagan and editor of the political magazine Inquiry. He writes regularly for leading publications such as Fortune magazine, National Interest, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Times. Bandow speaks frequently at academic conferences, on college campuses, and to business groups. Bandow has been a regular commentator on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox News Channel, and MSNBC. He holds a J.D. from Stanford University. (Time to End the Cuba Embargo, The National Interest, December 11, 2012, http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/thepointless-cuba-embargo-7834?page=1, accessed: 6/27/13, LR)

Castro dictatorship ultimately will end up in historys dustbin. But it will continue to cause much human hardship along the way.
The The Heritage 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.

Embargo fails helps the regime Sujanani 12 Ramesh Sujanani, contributor to The Gleaner, Bachelor of Science; Diploma management studies, Diploma Diamond Grading, UWI Mona (Lifting The Cuban Embargo, The Gleaner, Nov. 24, 2012, http://jamaicagleaner.com/gleaner/20121124/cleisure/cleisure6.html, accessed: 6/27/13, LR)
Sometime ago, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton publicly shared the view that the United States' embargo against Cuba helps the Castros, noting, "It is my personal belief that the Castros do not want to see an end to the embargo, and do not want to see normalisation with the United States." Clinton said in the same interview that "we're open to changing with them," though the US government maintains its strong position against lifting the embargo. The fact is that Cuban-Americans, most of whom reside in Miami, had their property and other assets confiscated by Fidel Castro, worth almost US$6 billion. Should the embargo be lifted, these persons will require compensation for personal assets seized. Who will make good that claim by the Cuban migrants? Many are protesting Castro's reasons for becoming the dictator, and are not satisfied Castro will honour his obligations. These Cuban-Americans have supported Obama's Florida campaign, and it seems that as long as it takes to recover their assets, they will continue to support him.

The embargo represents a failed strategy that the Cuban government uses to their advantage

Chapman 4/15 Steve Chapman, columnist and editorial writer for the Chicago Tribune. His twice-a-week column on national and international affairs, distributed by Creators Syndicate, appears in some 50 papers across the country. (Its Time To End The U.S. Embargo of Cuba, Reason.com, April 15, 2013, http://reason.com/archives/2013/04/15/itstime-to-end-the-us-embargo-of-cuba, accessed: 6/27/13, LR) The 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 embargo even less promising is that 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 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.

Embargo theory no longer applies weve adjusted our stance on other countries with a history of bad relations Chapman 4/15 Steve Chapman, columnist and editorial writer for the Chicago Tribune. His twice-a-week column on national and international affairs, distributed by Creators Syndicate, appears in some 50 papers across the country. (Its Time To End The U.S. Embargo of Cuba, Reason.com, April 15, 2013, http://reason.com/archives/2013/04/15/itstime-to-end-the-us-embargo-of-cuba, accessed: 6/27/13, LR) 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. Do trade and tourism work to weaken repression? The evidence is mixed. But our attempted economic strangulation of Cuba has been an emphatic bust. We keep trying it, and the communist government remains in full control, making a mockery of our strategy. The U.S. government has been tireless in pursuing a policy that does not look better with time. It could benefit from the advice of W.C. Fields, who said, "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then give up.

No use being a damned fool about it."

Embargo counterproductive other countries engage, deprives American workers, gives the regime a scapegoat, and facilitates dangerous Cuban politics Haass 9 Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, this countrys preeminent independent, nonpartisan institution devoted to thinking about Americas role in the world. Haass was director of policy planning for the Department of State, where he was a principal advisor to Secretary of State Colin Powell from 2001 to 2003, as well as special assistant to President George H.W. Bush and senior director on the staff of the National Security Council from 1989 to 1993 (Forget About Fidel, The Daily Beast, March 6, 2009, http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/03/06/forget-aboutfidel.html, accessed: 6/28/13, LR)
The American policy of isolating Cuba has

failed. Officials boast that Havana now hosts more diplomatic missions than any other country in the region save Brazil. Nor is the economic embargo working. Or worse: it is working, but for countries like Canada, South Korea and dozens of others that are only too happy to help supply Cuba with food, generators and building materials. Those in Congress who complain about the "offshoring" of American jobs ought to consider that the embargo deprives thousands of American workers of employment. The policy of trying to isolate Cuba also worksperversely enoughto bolster the Cuban regime. The U.S. embargo provides Cuba's leaders a convenient excusethe country's economic travails are due to U.S. sanctions, they can claim, not their own failed policies. The lack of American visitors and investment also helps the government maintain political control.
There is one more reason to doubt the wisdom of continuing to isolate Cuba. However slowly, the country is changing. The question is whether the United States will be in a position to influence the direction and pace of this change. We do not want to see a Cuba that fails, in which the existing regime gives way to a

repressive regime of a different stripe or to disorder marked by drugs, criminality, terror or a humanitarian crisis that prompts hundreds of thousands of Cubans to flee their country for the United States.
Rather, Washington should work to shape the behavior and policy of Cuba's leadership so that the country becomes more open politically and economically.

Lifting sanctions key to Cuban economy and democracy empirically proven Amash 12 Brandon Amash, contributing writer to the Prospect Journal of International Affairs at UCSD (Evaluating the Cuban Embargo, Prospect Journal of international Affairs, July 23, 2012, http://prospectjournal.org/2012/07/23/evaluating-the-cubanembargo/, accessed: 6/28/13, LR)
4.3: Lifting economic

sanctions will improve economic growth in Cuba, which correlates to democratization. Empirical evidence shows that a strong economy is correlated to democracy. According to the Modernization Theory of democratization, this correlation is a causal link: economic growth directly leads to democratization. Lifting the current economic sanctions on Cuba and working together to improve economic situations in the state will allow their economy to grow, increasing the likelihood of democracy in the state, and thus promoting greater freedom of expression, opinion and dissent. 4.4: A policy of engagement will be a long-term solution to promoting democracy and improving human rights in Cuba. This proposal, unique in that it is simply one of abandoning an antiquated policy and normalizing relations to be like those with any other country, does not present any large obstacles to
implementation, either in the short run or the long run. The main challenge is in continuing to support such a policy and maintaining the normal diplomatic, economic and social relations with a country that has been isolated for such

a long period of time. Although effects of such a policy may be difficult to determine in the short term, promoting democracy and improving human rights in Cuba are long-term solutions. As discussed above, engagement with the Cuban government and society, along with support from the international community, will provide the spark and guidance for the Cuban people to support and promote democracy, and thus give greater attention to human rights violations.

Plan promotes good politics and boosts democracy Lloyd 10 Delia Lloyd, American writer based in London. Her work has appeared in The International Herald Tribune, The Financial Times and The Guardian Weekly. She is a regular contributor to www.PoliticsDaily.com, a subset of the Huffington Post. (Ten Reasons to Lift the Cuba Embargo, Politics Daily, Huffington Post, August 24, 2010, http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/24/ten-reasons-to-lift-the-cuba-embargo/, accessed: 7/3/13, LR)
2. It's good politics. Supporters of the trade embargo -- like Cuban-American Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) -have long argued that easing the restrictions would only reward Castro for the regime's ongoing repression of political dissidents. We need to keep up the economic pressure on Cuba, so this logic goes, in order to keep pressure on the regime to do something about human rights. But there's a long-standing empirical relationship between trade and democracy. The usual logic put forth to explain this relationship is that trade creates an

economically independent and politically aware middle class, which, in turn, presses for political reform. It's not clear that this argument actually holds up when subjected to close causal scrutiny (although the
reverse does seem to be true -- i.e., democratic reform creates pressure for trade liberalization). Still, it's difficult to disagree with the proposition that by enabling visiting scholars and religious groups to stay in Cuba for up to two years (as the presidential order would allow) rather than a matter of weeks (as is currently the case) we'd be helping, not hurting, democracy in Cuba. First, easing the current travel restrictions would allow for far deeper linkages between non-governmental organizations from both countries, which some see as a powerful mechanism for democratic reform. Second, because American visitors would be staying on the island longer, scholars and activists alike would gain much better insight into where the pressure points for democracy actually exist.

The embargo fails outdated and counter-productive Lloyd 10 Delia Lloyd, American writer based in London. Her work has appeared in The International Herald Tribune, The Financial Times and The Guardian Weekly. She is a regular contributor to www.PoliticsDaily.com, a subset of the Huffington Post. (Ten Reasons to Lift the Cuba Embargo, Politics Daily, Huffington Post, August 24, 2010, http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/24/ten-reasons-to-lift-the-cuba-embargo/, accessed: 7/3/13, LR)
5. It doesn't work. Of course, if the embargo were the last outpost of Cold War politics and it produced results, that might be an argument for continuing it. But scholars and analysts of economic sanctions have repeatedly questioned the efficacy of economic statecraft against rogue states unless and until there's been regime change. And that's because, as one scholar put it, "interfering with the market (whether using sanctions, aid, or other government policies) has real economic costs, and we rarely know enough about how the target economy works or how to manipulate the political incentives of the target government to achieve our goals." 6. It's counter-productive. Isolating Cuba has been more than ineffective. It's also provided the Castro brothers with a convenient political scapegoat for the country's ongoing economic problems, rather than drawing attention to their own mismanagement. Moreover, in banning the shipment of information-technology

products, the United States has effectively assisted the Cuban government in shutting out information from the outside world, yet another potential catalyst for democratization.

Embargo prevents true democratization our evidence assumes insufficient status quo reforms Cuba Study Group 2/20 Cuba Study Group, a non-partisan, not-for-profit organization, that aims to facilitate change, help empower individuals and promote civil society development. (Restoring Executive Authority Over U.S. Policy Toward Cuba, Cuba Study Group, February 20, 2013, http://www.cubastudygroup.org/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=45d8f827-174c-4d43-aa2fef7794831032, accessed: 7/3/13, LR)
The codification of the U.S. embargo against Cuba has failed to accomplish its objectives, as stated in Helms-Burton, of causing regime change and restoring democracy in Cuba. Continuing to ignore this obvious truth is not only coun- terproductive to the interests of the United States, but also increasingly damaging to Cuban civil society, including the more than 400,000 Cubans now working as licensed private entrepreneurs, because it places the burden of sanc- tions squarely on their shoulders to bear. At a time when Cuba seems headed toward a path of change and reforms, albeit slower than desired, and a real debate seems to be emerging within Cubas elite regarding its future, the inflexibility of U.S. policy has the ironic effect of hurt- ing and delaying the very changes it seeks to produce by severely

limiting Cubas ability to implement major economic reforms and strengthening the hand of the reactionaries, rather than the reformers, within the Cuban government.
Moreover, Helms-Burton and related statutory provisions in Torricelli and TSRA deny the United States the flexibility to address dynamic conditions in Cuba in a strategic and proactive way. They effectively tie the Presidents hands in responding to developments on the Island, placing the impetus for taking advantage of the processes of change in Cuba in hands of hard-liners among Cubas ruling elites, whose interests are best served by the perpetuation of the embargo. The Cuba Study Group is publishing this whitepaper to acknowledge that a Cuba policy fundamentally based on blan- ket unilateral sanctions and isolation has been grossly ineffective for more than half a century; it disproportionately hurts the Cuban people and is counterproductive to the creation of an enabling transitional environment in Cuba where civil society can prosper and bring about the desired

social, political and economic changes for which we long. Embargo fails Castro uses it as a scapegoat for Cubas problems, continuing economic repression Bandow 12 Doug Bandow, senior fellow at Cato Institute, J.D. from Stanford University (Time to end the
Cuba embargo, Cato Institute, 12/11/12, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/time-end-cuba-embargo, Accessed 6/27/13)

The U.S. government has waged economic war against the Castro regime for half a century. The policy may have been worth a try during the Cold War, but the embargo has failed to liberate the Cuban people. It is time to end sanctions against Havana. Decades ago the Castro brothers lead a revolt against a nasty authoritarian, Fulgencio Batista. After coming to power in 1959, they created a police state, targeted U.S. commerce, nationalized American assets, and allied with the Soviet Union. Although Cuba was but a small island nation, the Cold War magnified its perceived importance.

Washington reduced Cuban sugar import quotas in July 1960. Subsequently U.S. exports were limited, diplomatic ties were severed, travel was restricted, Cuban imports were banned, Havanas American assets were frozen, and almost all travel to Cuba was banned. Washington also pressed its allies to impose sanctions. These various measures had no evident effect, other than to intensify Cubas reliance on the Soviet Union. Yet the collapse of the latter nation had no impact on U.S. policy. In 1992, Congress banned American subsidiaries from doing business in Cuba and in 1996, it penalized foreign firms that trafficked in expropriated U.S. property. Executives from such companies even were banned from traveling to America. On occasion Washington relaxed one aspect or another of the embargo, but in general continued to tighten restrictions, even over Cuban Americans. Enforcement is not easy, but Uncle Sam tries his best. For instance, according to the Government Accountability Office, Customs and Border Protection increased its secondary inspection of passengers arriving from Cuba to reflect an increased risk of embargo violations after the 2004 rule changes, which, among other things, eliminated the allowance for travelers to import a small amount of Cuban products for personal consumption. Lifting sanctions would be a victory not for Fidel Castro, but for the power of free people to spread liberty. Three years ago, President Barack Obama loosened regulations on Cuban Americans, as well as telecommunications between the United States and Cuba. However, the law sharply constrains the presidents discretion. Moreover, UN Ambassador Susan Rice said that the embargo will continue until Cuba is free. It is far past time to end the embargo. During the Cold War, Cuba offered a potential advanced military outpost for the Soviet Union. Indeed, that role led to the Cuban missile crisis. With the failure of the U.S.-supported Bay of Pigs invasion, economic pressure appeared to be Washingtons best strategy for ousting the Castro dictatorship. However, the end of the Cold War left Cuba strategically irrelevant. It is a poor country with little ability to harm the United States. The Castro regime might still encourage unrest, but its survival has no measurable impact on any important U.S. interest. The regime remains a humanitarian travesty, of course. Nor are Cubans the only victims: three years ago the regime jailed a State Department contractor for distributing satellite telephone equipment in Cuba. But Havana is not the only regime to violate human rights. Moreover, experience has long demonstrated that it is virtually impossible for outsiders to force democracy. Washington often has used sanctions and the Office of Foreign Assets Control currently is enforcing around 20 such programs, mostly to little effect. The policy in Cuba obviously has failed. The regime remains in power. Indeed, it has consistently used the embargo to justify its own mismanagement, blaming poverty on America. Observed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: It is my personal belief that the Castros do not want to see an end to the embargo and do not want to see normalization with the United States, because they would lose all of their excuses for what hasnt happened in Cuba in the last 50 years. Similarly, Cuban exile Carlos Saladrigas of the Cuba Study Group argued that keeping the embargo, maintaining this hostility, all it does is strengthen and embolden the hardliners. Cuban human rights activists also generally oppose sanctions. A decade ago I (legally) visited Havana, where I met Elizardo Sanchez Santa Cruz, who suffered in communist prisons for eight

years. He told me that the sanctions policy gives the government a good alibi to justify the failure of the totalitarian model in Cuba. Indeed, it is only by posing as an opponent of Yanqui Imperialism that Fidel Castro has achieved an international reputation. If he had been ignored by Washington, he never would have been anything other than an obscure authoritarian windbag. Unfortunately, embargo supporters never let reality get in the way of their arguments. In 1994, John Sweeney of the Heritage Foundation declared that the embargo remains the only effective instrument available to the U.S. government in trying to force the economic and democratic concessions it has been demanding of Castro for over three decades. Maintaining the embargo will help end the Castro regime more quickly. The latters collapse, he wrote, is more likely in the near term than ever before. Almost two decades later, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, chairwoman of the House Foreign Relations Committee, retains faith in the embargo: The sanctions on the regime must remain in place and, in fact, should be strengthened, and not be altered. One of the best definitions of insanity is continuing to do the same thing while expecting to achieve different results. The embargo survives largely because of Floridas political importance. Every presidential candidate wants to win the Sunshine States electoral votes, and the Cuban American community is a significant voting bloc. But the political environment is changing. A younger, more liberal generation of Cuban Americans with no memory of life in Cuba is coming to the fore. Said Wayne Smith, a diplomat who served in Havana: for the first time in years, maybe there is some chance for a change in policy. And there are now many more new young Cuban Americans who support a more sensible approach to Cuba. Support for the Republican Party also is falling. According to some exit polls Barack Obama narrowly carried the Cuban American community in November, after receiving little more than a third of the vote four years ago. He received 60 percent of the votes of Cuban Americans born in the United States. Barack Obama increased his votes among Cuban Americans after liberalizing contacts with the island. He also would have won the presidency without Florida, demonstrating that the state may not be essential politically. Today even the GOP is no longer reliable. For instance, though Republican vice-presidential nominee Paul Ryan has defended the embargo in recent years, that appears to reflect ambition rather than conviction. Over the years he voted at least three times to lift the embargo, explaining: The embargo doesnt work. It is a failed policy. It was probably justified when the Soviet Union existed and posed a threat through Cuba. I think its become more of a crutch for Castro to use to repress his people. All the problems he has, he blames the American embargo. There is essentially no international support for continuing the embargo. For instance, the European Union plans to explore improving relations with Havana. 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 focused on the next election. President Obama should propose legislation to drop (or at least significantly loosen) the embargo. He also could use his authority to relax sanctions by, for instance, granting more licenses to visit the island.

Ending the embargo would have obvious economic benefits for both Cubans and Americans. The U.S. International Trade Commission estimates American losses alone from the embargo as much as $1.2 billion annually. Expanding economic opportunities also might increase pressure within Cuba for further economic reform. So far the regime has taken small steps, but rejected significant change. Moreover, thrusting more Americans into Cuban society could help undermine the ruling system. Despite Fidel 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 China. Still, 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 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.

Lifting restrictions on Cuba creates a free, political atmosphere that supports the flow of information and goods Pascual et. al. 09 Carlos Pascual, director of foreign policy at Brookings Institution ( Gustavo Arnavat
Attorney at law Ann Louise Bardach Author/Journalist University of California Santa Barbara dr. ramon Cols Co-Director Center for the Understanding of Cubans of African Descent dr. Jorge i. domnguez Vice-provost for international Affairs Antonio Madero professor of Mexican and latin American politics and Economics Harvard University daniel erikson Senior Associate for U.S. policy Director of Caribbean programs inter-American Dialogue dr. Mark falcoff resident Scholar Emeritus American Enterprise institute dr. damin J. fernndez provost and Executive Vice president purchase College dr. Andy s. Gomez Nonresident Senior Fellow, The Brookings institution Assistant provost, University of Miami Senior Fellow, institute for Cuban and Cuban American Studies Jess Gracia Former Spanish Ambassador to Cuba paul hare Former British Ambassador to Cuba francisco J. (pepe) hernndez president Cuban American National Foundation dr. William LeoGrande Dean, School of public Affairs American University dr. Marifeli prez-stable Vice president for Democratic Governance inter-American Dialogue Jorge r. pin Energy Fellow Center for Hemispheric policy University of Miami dr. Archibald ritter Distinguished research professor Emeritus Department of Economics and Norman paterson School of international Affairs Carleton University Andrs rozental Nonresident Senior Fellow, The Brookings institution Former Deputy Foreign Minister of Mexico Carlos saladrigas CoChairman Cuba Study Group, Cuba: A New Policy of Critical and Constructive Engagement Brookings, April 2009,

Accessed 6/26/13, http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2009/4/cuba/0413_cuba.pdf)

The more open travel and remittance measures put in place by the Clinton administration in 1998 and continued by the Bush administration until 2003 contributed to creating the conditions that brought about a more open political atmosphere. During the period now known as the Cuban Spring, Oswaldo pay, leader of the Varela project, worked with Cubas human rights activists to collect 11,000 signatures on a petition that requested a referendum on the Cuban constitution. Former president Jimmy Carter gave a speech at the University of Havana in Spanish in which he asked Fidel Castrowho was sitting in the front rowto permit the vote; the speech was broadcast live throughout the island. Martha Beatriz roque, an important dissident leader, held a national assembly to advocate reforms to the Cuban government. religious groups, with help from their American counterparts, provided equipment, food, and medicines to sister organizations that bolstered outreach to their communities. Students from colleges throughout the United States studying in Cuba were engaged in a lively discussion with students, academics, and people across the island. The presence of licensed American and Cuban American visitors provided moral support, advice, and assistance to diverse civil society institutions, allowing them to expand and more effectively assist their membership. And,

interventions by U.S. government and private sector personalities with high-level Cuban officials resulted in reducing repression against dissidents, human rights activists, independent journalists, and librarians. This more fluid and open atmosphere was essential to the growth of civil society
and to the freedoms and creation of spaces in which human rights activists and dissidents could operate. president Obama should replicate these conditions through unilateral and unconditional actions that promote enhanced human contact by generously licensing all categories of travel permitted in the TSrA. He should, first, follow his campaign promise to grant[ing] Cuban Americans unrestricted rights to family travel and to send

remittances to the island, since Cuban American connections to family are our best tool for helping fto foster the beginnings of grass-roots democracy on the island. Further, the president should expand travel for all American citizens and permanent residents by instructing the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) to license people-to-people travel for educational, cultural, and humanitarian purposes.
Cuban citizens should also be permitted to travel to the United States for a variety of purposes including family, academic and cultural visitsin order to enhance their understanding of our open and democratic society. The Secretary of State should instruct the Department of State and the United States interests Section (USiNT) in Havana to use standard criteria applied around the world for awarding non-immigrant visas to Cubans. This more tolerant approach would strengthen the bonds of family and culture, while helping the Cuban people improve their lives and grow the social organizations necessary for a democratic civil society .

Diplomatic travel and interaction must be reciprocally expanded so that our diplomats in Havana have the knowledge, access, and expertise needed to predict, evaluate, and deal with any eventuality in Cuba. This requires permitting comparable opportunities to Cuban diplomats posted in
Washington. There is little the United States has to fear by allowing Cuban diplomats to see for themselves the realities of American life. To reduce illegal migration, enhance our security, and conserve our fisheries, the State Department should resume migration talks at the Deputy Assistant Secretary level and begin a dialogue between the respective heads of the interests Sections on other issues of mutual concern, including the environment, health, and counter-narcotics. The devastation caused by hurricanes that struck Cuba in 2008 generated considerable concern among Cubans in the United States and among the broader American public. Unfortunately,

disagreements and distrust between our governments prevented the United States from assisting with relief efforts. in order to avoid a recurrence of this impasse, the Department of State should seek an understanding or agreement with the Cuban government that would permit U.S. assistance to Cuba for natural disasters. Measures are now in place to ensure that public resources that provide support to
the Cuban people are well used by USAiD grantees. However, large contracts concluded in the final months of the Bush administration with non-profit organizations and private companies that are said to promote or manage a transition in Cuba may not reflect the current administrations objectives. A review should be conducted to determine whether these contracts should be continued, modified, or canceled. Additionally, although OFAC has always had the authority to license the importation of lifesaving medicines developed in Cuba for testing by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), it has made the process cumbersome and lengthy. The sad conclusion is that OFAC has been more concerned with the financial benefits that might accrue to Cuba than with the potential

of these medicines to treat children with brain tumors and adults with lung cancer or meningitis. To

reduce bureaucratic hurdles and permit the speedy entry of life-saving medications into the United States, OFAC regulations should be modified or reinterpreted so that the only barrier to the entry of Cuban manufactured medicines is that they meet FDA standardsthe same criteria that apply to all medical imports. The president should also seek to promote the free flow of ideas and information, including the creation of music, films, and other works of art as embodied in representative
Howard Bermans 1988 Free Trade in ideas Act. Despite the prohibition against the U.S. government restricting the importation of all informational materials, successive administrations have narrowly interpreted the Berman Act in order to prohibit Americans from creating music, films, and other artistic works with Cubans. These prohibitions were not intended by the statutes and should be removed. The aforementioned initiatives are noncontroversial and widely supported by the American public. More controversialalthough still enjoying widespread public supportwould be licensing the sale and donation of all communications equipment, including radios, televisions, and computers. The CDA recognized the importance of expanding access to ideas, knowledge, and information by authorizing the licensing of telecommunications goods and services. U.S. government financing of books and radios that are distributed to Cubans throughout the island demonstrates a belief that breaking down the barriers to the flow of information

is critical to promoting change in Cuba. The president should therefore instruct the Department of Commerce
and OFAC to internally change their respective licensing policies with regard to Cuba from a presumption of denial to a presumption of approval with respect to items deemed to be in the U.S. national interest for Cuba to receive, including laptops, cell phones and other telecommunications equipment, computer peripherals, internet connection equipment, as well as access to satellite and broadband communications networks. The following initiatives that would provide assistance for civil society and for activities that help the Cuban people become agents for change would require, in some cases, a formal understanding with the Cuban government, and, in others, at least a willingness to permit the activity. We believe that if these activities were permitted by the United States and the Cuban governments, they would help to prepare the Cuban people for assuming a greater role in their governance. The U.S. government should act to enhance the flow of resources to the Cuban people. it

should license U.S. non-governmental organizations and private individuals to transfer funds to individuals and civil society organizations in Cuba that work to foster a more open society. The United States should also encourage the creation of multilateral funds that promote the same objective. Such
assistance should not be subject to an ideological test but rather be available to Cuban civic entities in the form of microcredit for small businesses and for salaries of persons engaged by civil society to provide community services, among others. Although the U.S. government currently manages an assistance program for Cuba, it is limited by sanctions regulations and is narrowly focused. Much of the assistanceamounting principally to inkind goodsis difficult to deliver due to the opposition of the Cuban government either to the type of assistance or to the groups or individuals receiving it. in order to better serve the needs of civil society in Cuba, the U.S. government should seek to obtain the approval of the Cuban government for an assistance program

that would provide financial and in-kind assistance for activities that advance human rights and the rule of law, encourage microenterprise, and promote educational, and professional exchanges. The issue of whether Cuba should be classified by the U.S. government as a terrorist state has
many supporters and detractors. However, the reasons listed for Cubas inclusion on the list appear to be insufficient, thus leading to charges that the list is a political tool for appeasing domestic constituencies. in order to ensure that this important vehicle in U.S. policy is used appropriately, a review of the evidence should be conducted. if Cuba is legitimately found to be a terrorist state based on the evidence over the last five years, it should remain on the list; if not, it should be removed. Finally, it is in our interest to see Cuba reintegrated into the Organization of American States (OAS) if it meets membership standards of democracy, human rights, and transparency. To this end, and in order to provide incentives for reform, the United Sates should not

object to the OAS Secretary General discussing with Cuba the requirements for reinstatement as a full member. in addition, the United States should not object to Cubas participation in OAS specialized and technical agencies. Medium-Term Initiatives The second basket of initiatives is distinct from the first because it
moves beyond enhancing the ability of Cubans to take a more proactive and informed part in their society and

government. The initiatives in the second basket seek to build a foundation for reconciliation by beginning a process of resolving long-standing differences. A number of these initiatives could serve as incentives or rewards for improved human rights, the release of political prisoners, and greater freedom of assembly, speech and rights for opposition groups and labor unions. initiatives that fall within this category include allowing Cuba access to normal commercial instruments for the purchase of goods from the United States. None of the initiatives, however, should be publicly or privately tied to specific Cuban actions. As the Cuban government is on record as rejecting any type of carrot-and-stick tactic, it would be counterproductive to do so. rather, the United States should decide the actions that it wishes to take and when to carry them out. Doing so will give the president maximum flexibility in determining how and when to engage.

Embargo causes democratization China proves Harding and Rojas-Ruiz 12 Andrew Harding and Jorge Rojas-Ruiz, research associates on the Council on Hemispheric Affairs (An Economic Analysis of the Cuban Embargo, Council on the Hemispheric Affairs, 8/24/12, Proquest, Accessed 7/3/13, AM) Washington's decision to continue the embargo against Cuba is, at best, hypocritical. China, another nominally communist country with even more backward human rights policies than Cuba, has reaped the benefits of free trade with the U.S. since in 2001. The 2011 report from conservative think tank Freedom House gave low scores in political rights and in civil liberties to both Cuba and China, listing the two countries among the most repressive in the world. Yet China has had the opportunity to trade with the United States and has used it to foster economic development within its borders. As a result of significant increases in agricultural output, the percentage of the population living below the poverty line declined from 63 percent in 1981 to 10 percent in 2004, bringing five-hundred million people above the poverty line within 23 years. While China's protection of civil and political liberties remains far from desirable, according to the National Center for Policy Analysis, through the development of a legal system in China that encourages property rights, " trade is anchoring the process of democratization ". The correlation between trade and the development of durable legal institutions provides an example that Cuban and U.S. officials should consider. Reflections Clearly, Cuba has plenty of potential for economic development and trade, but nothing will be realized unless United States repeals the embargo. Recent moves by Cuba's Raul Castro indicate that the government is willing and able to sit down with the U.S. and discuss differences in order to achieve consensus. In recent remarks, Castro emphasized that the discourse must be "a conversation between equals," and that "any day they [the United States] want, the table is set," signaling an important step towards more conciliatory interactions. The U.S. should act upon Senator Richard Lugar' s February 2009 report from the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations and implement his recommended policy changes by "seizing the initiative... [which] would relinquish a conditional posture that has made any policy changes contingent on Havana, not Washington." Conclusions The world has fundamentally changed since Castro's coup in 1959. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the weak arguments behind the embargo became completely illogical, as the so-called communist threat no longer exists. Additionally, Cuba's revolutionary leaders are dead or dying and the country has made steps towards reform. Even America's staunchest allies have realized the folly of the sanction and have disregarded the policy. Moreover, the United Nations has passed repeated resolutions against the embargo. In 201 1, for the 20th consecutive year, the UN

General Assembly reiterated its call for an end to the U.S. embargo on Cuba that has restricted economic, commercial and financial flow for over fifty years. All told, there exists no solid political or economic logic for Washington to continue the embargo. The United States risks being left behind as the world moves on and does business with a nation only 90 miles from its soil. It is worth re-examining the basic motivations of the American people and the interests that lie closest to their hearts. Calvin Coolidge, the 30th US president, summed up these motivations best when he stated, "After all, the chief business of the American people is business. They are profoundly concerned with producing, buying, selling, investing and prospering in the world." The US would be wise to follow his advice. Embargo ineffective at promoting democracy Amash 12- Brandon Amash, writer at the Prospect Journal, (EVALUATING THE CUBAN EMBARGO, 7/23/12, http://prospectjournal.org/2012/07/23/evaluating-thecuban-embargo/, 6/28/13, CAS) 3.1: The American embargo is not sufficient to democratize Cuba and improve human rights.
Without the help and support of multilateral institutions, economic sanctions on Cuba have been ineffective. As other states trade and interact freely with Cuba, the lack of partnership with America is only a minor hindrance to Cubas economy. Moreover, the sanctions are detrimental to the United States economy, as Cuba could potentially be a geostrategic economic partner. More importantly, since economic sanctions are not directly related to the goal of improved human rights, the effect of these sanctions is also unrelated; continued economic sanctions against Cuba create no incentive for the Cuban government to promote better human rights, especially when the sanctions do not have international support. Empirically, it is clear that since its inception, the policy has not succeeded in promoting democratization or improving human rights. Something

more must be done in order to improve the situation.

Embargo strengthens Castro and stops democracy Amash 12- Brandon Amash, writer at the Prospect Journal, (EVALUATING THE CUBAN EMBARGO, 7/23/12, http://prospectjournal.org/2012/07/23/evaluating-thecuban-embargo/, 6/28/13, CAS) 3.2: American sanctions during the Cold War strengthened Castros ideological position and created opportunities for involvement by the Soviet Union, thereby decreasing the likelihood of democratization
and improvement in human rights. Cubas revolution could not have come at a worse time for America. The emergence of a communist state in the western hemisphere allowed the Soviet Union to extend its influence, and the United States rejection of Cuba only widened the window of opportunity for Soviet involvement . The embargo also became a scapegoat for the Castro administration, which laid blame for poor human rights conditions on the embargo policy itself (Fontaine 18 22). Furthermore, as Ratliff and Fontaine suggest, isolating Cuba as an enemy of democracy during the Cold War essentially made the goals of democratization in the country unachievable (Fontaine 30). While the embargo may have been strategic during the Cold War as a bulwark against communism, the long-term effects of the policy have essentially precluded the possibility for democracy in Cuba. Even after the end of the Cold War, communism persists in Cuba and human rights violations are systemic; Americas policy has not achieved its goals and has become a relic of the Cold War era. The

prospects for democracy and improvement in human rights seem as bleak as ever.

Lifting the embargo promote liberalization in Cuba McElvaine 11- Robert McElvaine, professor of history at Millsaps college, (Lift the U.S. trade embargo on Cuba, 9/8/11, http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/08/opinion/la-oemcelvaine-cuba-20110908, 7/4/13, CAS) Make no mistake: Cuba is not a free country. Conditions have improved, though, and we have been able to walk
about on our own and talk with anyone we meet. Many Cubans take a justified pride in the accomplishments of their country since the revolution, particularly in healthcare and education. But it is obvious that there is substantial discontent with the status quo under the Castro brothers. Over the last decade, a two-class system has developed in which those who can work in the tourist industry make much more than other Cubans do. Many professionals who, in order to earn a decent living, are obliged to work as bellmen, waiters, bartenders, elevator operators and the like are seething with anger. So, clearly, is a difficult-to-gauge percentage of the much larger number of Cubans who have no opportunity to get those jobs. Cubans we meet on the streets are very curious about the United States. Ending the embargo would also mean U.S. citizens could travel to Cuba without restrictions. The more Americans who come here, the greater the desire of the Cuban people for more freedom will become. Fidel Castro is 85 and ailing; Raul is 80. An influx of Americans is almost certain to strengthen the forces for liberalization in Cuba.

Embargo hurts Cubans and helps Castros Griswold 09- Daniel Griswold, director of the Cato center for trade policies, (Obama Should Lift Embargo on Cuba Immediately, 6/16/09, http://www.opposingviews.com/i/obama-should-lift-embargo-on-cuba-immediately, 7/4/13, CAS) The embargo has been a failure by every measure. It has not changed the course or nature of the Cuban government. It has not liberated a single Cuban citizen. In fact, the embargo has made the Cuban people a bit more impoverished, without making them one bit more free. At the same time, it has deprived Americans of their freedom to travel and has cost US farmers and other producers billions of dollars of potential exports. As a tool of US foreign policy, the embargo actually enhances the Castro government's standing by giving it a handy excuse for the failures of the island's Caribbean-style socialism. Brothers Fidel and Raul
can rail for hours about the suffering the embargo inflicts on Cubans, even though the damage done by their communist policies has been far worse. The embargo has failed to give us an ounce of extra leverage over what happens in Havana. In 2000, Congress approved a modest opening of the embargo. The Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act allows cash-only sales to Cuba of US farm products and medical supplies. The results of this modest opening have been quite amazing. Since 2000, total sales of farm products to Cuba have increased from virtually zero to $691m in 2008. The top US exports by value are corn, meat and poultry, wheat and soybeans. From dead last, Cuba is now the number six customer in Latin America for US agricultural products. Last year, American farmers sold more to the 11.5 million people who live in Cuba than to the 200 million people in Brazil. According to the US international trade commission, US farm exports would increase another $250m if restrictions were lifted on export financing. This should not be interpreted as a call for export-import bank subsidies. Trade with Cuba must be entirely commercial and market driven. Lifting the embargo should not mean that US taxpayers must now subsidise exports to Cuba. But neither should the government stand in the way. USITC estimates do not capture the long-term export potential to Cuba from normalised relations. The Bahamas, Dominican Republic, Jamaica and Guatemala spend an average of 2.8% of their GDP to buy farm exports from the US. If Cuba spent the same share of its GDP on US farm exports, exports could more than double the current level, to $1.5bn a year.

Advocates of the embargo argue that trading with Cuba will only put dollars into the coffers of the Castro regime. And it's true that the government in Havana, because it controls the economy, can skim off a large share of the remittances and tourist dollars spent in Cuba. But of course, selling more US products to Cuba would quickly relieve the Castro regime of those same dollars.
If more US tourists were permitted to visit Cuba, and at the same time US exports to Cuba were further liberalised, the US economy could reclaim dollars from the Castro regime as fast as the regime could acquire them. In effect, the exchange would be of agricultural products for tourism services, a kind of "bread for beaches", "food for fun" trade relationship. Meanwhile, the increase in Americans visiting Cuba would dramatically increase contact between Cubans and Americans. The unique US-Cuban relationship that flourished before Castro could be renewed,

which would increase US influence and potentially hasten the decline of the communist regime. Congress and President Barack Obama should act now to lift the embargo to allow more travel and farm exports to Cuba. Expanding our freedom to travel to, trade with and invest in Cuba would make Americans
better off and would help the Cuban people and speed the day when they can enjoy the freedom they deserve.

Embargo helps Castro and hurts economy Walther 12- Nick Walther, graduate of Emerson college, (The Cuba Embargo Is Hurting Men, 12/7/12, http://goodmenproject.com/politics-2/the-cuba-embargo-is-hurting-men/, 7/4/13, CAS) The continuation of the embargo was meant to weaken Fidel Castros communist regime and make the
lives of Cubans so unbearable that the government would have no choice but to respond to the pressure of the United States and the Cuban people to liberalize their economy and democratize their politics. The embargo has failed miserably to achieve this objective. In fact, the embargo has likely strengthened the Castro regime, by providing an easy scapegoat for state propaganda to blame all of Cubas ills on. The embargo has served to validate Castros portrayal of the United States as the neocolonial hegemony of the region: determined to subjugate the people of Cuba and Latin America and reincarnate the tyranny of Batista, the pre-revolutionary tyrant backed by the United States because of his friendly relations with American business. Cubans dont blame their own government for the stranglehold pl aced on them by the most powerful country in the world. The embargo has also served to aimlessly punish the Cuban people, even complicating, with its archaic rules, the availability of medical supplies in the country. Although American medical exports are permitted, the red tapedesigned to thwart a nonexistent military threathas proven insurmountable for the hospitals, clinics, and offices where they are most needed. This undermines Americas reputation as a humanitarian nation. The only thing that the embargo has done successfully is cost the American economy $1.2 billion every year in lost sales and exports. With the economy still struggling, it is unacceptable for American companies to lose the chance to create jobs and expand business with a country ni nety miles from Florida. Whats more, with men having lost a disproportionate number of the jobs in the present recession, ending the embargo would encourage trade, helping shore up the manufacturing and shipping sectors, traditionally male jobs that have suffered severe cutbacks. Every year since 1992,The United Nations General Assembly has condemned the embargo as illegal, with the only two nations regularly voting against such a condemnation being America and Israel. Doesnt this annual denunciation complicate our countrys reputation as one run by the rule of law?

Lifting the embargo rushes changes Cave 12- Damien Cave, foreign correspondent for the New York Times, (Cuban embargo: Should U.S. loosen it? 11/22/12,

http://www.denverpost.com/entertainment/ci_22042074/cuban-embargo-should-u-sloosen-it, 7/4/13, CAS)


Still, in a country where Cubans "resolve" their way around government restrictions every day (private deals with customs agents are common), many Cubans anticipate real benefits should the U.S. change course. Lopez, a meticulous mechanic who wears plastic gloves to avoid dirtying his fingers, said legalizing imports and investment would create a flood of the supplies that businesses needed, overwhelming the government's controls while lowering prices and creating more work apart from the state. Other Cubans, including political dissidents, say softening the embargo would increase the pressure

for more rapid change by undermining one of the government's main excuses for failing to provide freedom, economic opportunity or just basic supplies. Embargo will not solve democracy empirics Johnson, Spector and Lilac 10 - Andy Johnson, Director, National Security Program, Kyle Spector, Policy Advisor, National Security Program , Kristina Lilac, National Security Program, Senior Fellows of The Third Way Institute, (End the Embargo of Cuba, Article for The Third Way Institute, 9/16/10, http://content.thirdway.org/publications/326/Third_Way_Memo__End_the_Embargo_of_Cuba.pdf, Accessed 7/02/13, AW) Peter Hakim, President of the Inter - American Dialogue, has rightly argued that a democratic society in Cuba should be the objective of U.S. engagement, not a precondition. 11 Vietnam and China both fall under the rule of communi st leadership, yet the US has taken steps to establish formal diplomatic relations and open trade with both countries. Cuba should not

continue to be the exception . Others have argued that US - Cuba cooperation on issues
cou ld benefit both countries and initiate trust - building among the two countries. Policymakers on both sides of the aisle can agree that the embargo has failed to meet its stated purpose of bringing change to Cubas communist government, making a change in c ourse a necessary next step. Lifting the antiquated embargo would help to move Cuba into the 21 st century, removing the barriers currently preventing the US from engaging Cuba and presenting the US with an opportunity to bring about change in Cuba through economic and diplomatic channels. By opening Cuba, the US could finally achieve the change it has been seeking for nearly fifty years.
such as counter - narcotics efforts

Solves democracy trade makes countries more democratic studies prove Zimmerman 10 CHELSEA A. ZIMMERMAN, Fellow of the Center for The Study of the
Presidency and Congress, Member of The Juvenile Rights Project and the Legal Aid Society, Barnard College, (Rethinking The Cuban Trade Embargo: An Opportune Time To Mend a Broken Policy, The Presidency 2010 Fellows, NO DATE (Paper was written in 2010), http://www.thepresidency.org/storage/documents/Fellows2010/Zimmerman.pdf, Accessed 6/27/13, AW) A policy environment open to international trade and investment is a necessary i ngredient to sustain higher rates of economic growth and to promote political freedom through exposure to new technology, communications, and democratic ideas (G riswold, 1; Sachs and Warner). Allowing Cuba to more freely import U.S. food is a means of lowering domestic prices and increasing incomes of the poor, food availability and domestic production. U.S. companies

will introduce new tech nologies and production methods, while raising wages and labor standards as a result of trading with Cuba. The additional creation of wealth will help to adva nce social, political, and economic conditions independent of the governing au thorities in Cuba. The most economically open countries today are more than thr ee times as likely to enjoy full political and civil freedoms as those that are rela tively closed (Griswold, 1).

Human Rights Credibility extns.


Embargo is a systemic violation of human rights and an act of genocide UNGA 12 United Nations General Assembly,(Necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial blockade imposed by the
United States of America against Cuba,cubavsbloqueo.cu,5/12,http://www.cubavsbloqueo.cu/informebloqueo2012/Idiomas/1206%20 informe%20bloqueo%202012%20Ingles.pdf,Accessed:7/3/13,JW)

The policy of blockade against Cuba persists and has been intensified despite the attempts of and growing protests by the international community to have the US government change its policy towards Cuba, lift the blockade and normalize bilateral relations between the two countries. The blockade violates International Law; it is contrary to the
purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter and constitutes a violation39 of the right to peace, development and security of a sovereign State. Its

objectives are an act of mass, flagrant and systematic violation of the human rights of an entire people and qualifies as an act of genocide by virtue of the Geneva Convention of 1948
essence and
on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. It

also violates the constitutional rights of the American people, since it puts restrictions on their freedom to travel to Cuba. Moreover, given its extraterritorial character, it violates the sovereign rights of many other States. The economic damage caused to the Cuban people by the application of the economic, commercial and financial blockade of the United States against Cuba until December of 2011, taking into account the devaluation of the dollar vis--vis the price of gold and the world market, amounts to 1 trillion 66 billion (1,066,000,000,000) dollars. At current prices, and based on a very conservative estimate, this figure exceeds 108 billion (108,000,000,000) dollars. The blockade continues to be an absurd, obsolete, illegal and morally unsustainable policy; it has not

succeeded, nor will it succeed, in its attempt to subjugate the patriotic decision of the Cuban people to preserve their
sovereignty, independence and right to free selfdetermination. But

it generates shortages and sufferings for the population, it imposes limitations on and delays the development of the country and seriously damages the economy of Cuba . It is
the main obstacle to the economic and social development of the Island. The blockade is a unilateral policy, rejected both inside the United States and by the international community. The United States must lift it, immediately and unconditionally. Once again, Cuba appreciates and requests the support of the international community in order to put an end to this unfair, illegal and inhuman policy.

Lifting trade embargo key to human rights improves US image Franks 12 Jeff Franks, writer at Reuters (Cuba says ending U.S. embargo would help both countries, Reuters,
9/20/12, http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/20/us-cuba-usa-embargo-idUSBRE88J15G20120920, accessed: 6/27/13, ckr)

United States and Cuba would benefit if Washington would lift its longstanding trade embargo against the island, but U.S. President Barack Obama has toughened the sanctions since taking office in 2009, a top Cuban official said on Thursday. The embargo, fully in place since 1962, has done $108 billion in damage to the Cuba economy, but also has violated the constitutional rights of Americans and made a market of 11 million people off limits to U.S. companies, Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez told reporters. " The blockade is, without doubt, the principal cause of the economic problems of our country and the essential obstacle for (our) development," he said, using Cuba's term for the embargo. " The blockade provokes suffering, shortages, difficulties that reach each Cuban family, each Cuban child," Rodriguez said. He spoke at a press
conference that Cuba stages each year ahead of what has become an annual vote in the United Nations on a resolution condemning the embargo. The vote is expected to take place next month. Last year, 186 countries voted for the resolution, while only the United States and Israel supported the embargo, Rodriguez said.

(Reuters) - Both the

Lifting the embargo would improve the image of the United States around the world, he said, adding that it would also end what he called a "massive, flagrant and systematic violation of human rights."
That violation includes restrictions on U.S. travel to the island that require most Americans to get U.S. government permission to visit and a ban on most U.S. companies doing business in Cuba, he said. "The prohibition of travel for Americans is an atrocity from the constitutional point of view," Rodriguez said. Cuba has its own limits on travel that make it difficult for most of its citizens to leave the country for any destination. Rodriguez said the elimination of the embargo would provide a much-needed tonic for the sluggish U.S. economy. " In a moment of economic crisis, lifting the blockade would contribute to the

United States a totally new market of 11 million people. It would generate employment and end the situation in which American companies cannot compete in Cuba," he said.
Obama, who said early in his presidency that he wanted to recast long-hostile U.S.-Cuba relations, has been a disappointment to the Cuban government, which expected him to do more to dismantle the embargo.

Embargo oppresses Cuban peopleUS double standard Stephens 09Sarah Stephens, Director of the Center for Democracy in the Americas (U.N. Vote to Condemn
(Obama's?) Embargo on Cuba , Huff Post WORLD, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sarah-stephens/un-vote-tocondemn-obamas_b_333722.html, Accessed 7/4/13, jtc)

Our policy is especially controversial in our own hemisphere, where the U.S. alone is without diplomatic relations
with Cuba, and where forum after forum -- including the Rio Group, the Ibero-American Summit, the Heads of State of Latin America and the Caribbean, and CARICOM -- has rejected the embargo and called for its repeal. Beyond our diplomatic interests, the report forces us to move beyond the stale, political debate in which the embargo is most often framed (where every problem on the island is blamed on either Cuba's system or U.S. policy) and to confront the significant injuries this policy inflicts on ordinary Cubans. It reminds us: The

embargo stops Cuba from obtaining diagnostic equipment or replacement parts for equipment used in the detection of breast, colon, and prostate cancer. The embargo stops Cuba from obtaining patented materials that are needed for pediatric cardiac surgery and the diagnosis of pediatric illnesses. The embargo prevents Cuba from purchasing antiretroviral drugs for the treatment of HIV-AIDS from U.S. sources of the medication. The embargo stops Cuba from obtaining needed supplies for the diagnosis of Downs' Syndrome. Under the embargo, Cuba cannot buy construction materials from the nearby U.S. market to assist in its hurricane recovery. While food sales are legal, regulatory impediments drive up the costs of commodities that Cuba wants to buy from U.S. suppliers, and forces them in many cases to turn to other more expensive and distant sources of nutrition for their people. Because our market is closed to their goods, Cuba cannot sell products like coffee, honey, tobacco, live lobsters and other items that would provide jobs and opportunities for average Cubans. This list, abbreviated for space, is actually much longer, more vivid and troubling, as the
report documents case after case of how our embargo affects daily life in Cuba. And for what reason? Because it will someday force the Cuban government to dismantle its system? As a bargaining chip? These arguments have proven false and futile over the decades and what the UN has been trying to tell us since 1992 is that they should be abandoned along with a policy that has so outlived its usefulness. And yet, it is now the Obama administration supporting and enforcing the embargo -- still following Bush-era rules that thwart U.S. agriculture sales; still levying stiff penalties for violations of the regulations; still stopping prominent Cubans from visiting the United States; still refusing to use its executive authority to allow American artists, the faith community, academics, and other proponents of engagement and exchange to visit Cuba as representatives of our country and its ideals. To his credit, President Obama has taken some useful steps to change U.S. policy toward Cuba. He repealed the cruel Bush administration rules on family travel that divided Cuban families. He joined efforts by the OAS to lift Cuba's suspension from that organization. He has opened a direct channel of negotiations with Cuba's government on matters that include migration, resuming direct mail service, and relaxing the restrictions that Cuban and U.S. diplomats face in doing their jobs in each of our nation's capitals. This is a start, but more -- much more

-- needs to be done. Not because the UN says so, but because our country needs to embrace the world not as we found it in 1959 -- or in 2008 -- but as it exists today. President Obama can do this.
Our times demand that he do so.

Embargo is unpopular and violates human rights Fox 11 Michael Fox, Michael Fox is a former editor of NACLA Report on the Americas, he is the co-author of the new book Latin Americas Turbulent Transitions: The Future of 21st Century Socialism (The UN and Human Rights: Condemning the U.S. Embargo of Cuba, North American Congress on Latin America, Oct 26 2011, https://nacla.org/news/2011/10/26/un-andhuman-rights-condemning-us-embargo-cuba, Accessed: 7/3/2013, EH)
On Tuesday, the UN General Assembly again voted overwhelming to condemn the U.S. embargo of Cuba. This was the 20th consecutive vote against the U.S. embargo. The final result was 186-2 in favor of the resolution. Like last year, only Israel and the United States voted against the measure while the island nations Palau, Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands abstained. 517 The United Nations (credit: CNN U.S.)Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez said yesterday that the sanctions over the last five decades have caused the Cuban people nearly $1 trillion in economic damages. After a surprise visit to Cuba in April, former U.S. president Jimmy Carter also called for an end of the embargo. But as William M. LeoGrande, the Dean of the American University School of Public Affairs, wrote in the July/August 2011 NACLA Report, a profound change in U.S. policy toward Cuba isnt likely any time soon. This is partially due to the fact that since the end of the Cold War the United States has justified its embargo against Cuba as a policy of human rights. The embargo is one aspect of U.S. policy toward Cuba, whose overarching goal is to encourage a more open environment in Cuba and increased respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, said Ronald D. Godard, U.S. Senior Area Adviser for Western Hemisphere Af fairs, recently. However, according to international relations scholar Arturo Lpez-Levy in the most recent NACLA Report, the embargo itself actually

violates basic principles of the human rights model established by the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
[T]he problem with the embargo is that human rights as a whole have never been an essential consideration in its design, writes Lpez -Levy in his piece, " Chaos and Instability: Human Rights and U.S. Policy Goals in Cuba. One right above all others takes prece dence in U.S. Cuba policy: the right of Cuban exiles to reclaim their private properties that were nationalized during Cubas revolutionary proc ess after 1959. The embargo furthermore reflects Cuban exiles desire to punish those who do not accept them as the rulers of Cuba by including measures to purify the island of the current governments upper echelons and many of its followers.

The embargo causes human rights issues in Cuba, changing policy solves March 13 William March- Tribune Staff, quotes Rep. Kathy Castor of Tampa, (Castor to Obama: Reform outdated Cuba embargo, travel ban, The Tampa Tribune, April 23 2013, http://tbo.com/article/20130423/SERVICES02/130429992/1438, Accessed: 6/28/13, EH)
U.S. Rep. Kathy Castor of Tampa, fresh back from a trip to Cuba, has told President Barack Obama in a letter that the U.S. travel ban and trade embargo against Cuba are outdated, unproductive and harmful and should be reformed. In the four-page letter, Castor never quite says lift the embargo or end the travel ban, but she comes very close. America's policy of isolation toward Cuba, i.e. the travel ban and embargo of the last 50 years, has resulted in little change, she writes. It is time to refresh America's relationship with Cuba and develop a more humane and smarter approach than the outdated Cold War policies of the past. Castor also quotes the Human Rights Watch organization saying the embargo continues to impose indiscriminate hardship

on the Cuban people and has done nothing to improve human rights in Cuba.
She asks Obama to heed the words of many of the Cuban dissidents I have spoken to who urge America to give greater attention to its island neighbor, lift the embargo and promote modernization of civil society in Cuba. As she has before, Castor argues in the letter that Cuba has made significant changes in allowing free enterprise for its c itizens; that the travel restrictions violate the rights of Americans; that Cuba is not a state sponsor of terrorism; and that a policy of engagement would improve America's diplomatic standing in the region. She also notes Cuba's quick return of the two Hakken children abducted by their father in Tampa recently, and her own constituents' frequent need for help in making visits and contacts with family members in Cuba in instances of family emergencies.

Cuban embargo is inhumane DNO 12(Cuba makes case for lifting of US embargo, Dominica News Online, October 10 2012, http://dominicanewsonline.com/news/homepage/news/international-relations/cuba-makes-case-for-lifting-ofus-embargo/, Accessed: 7/4/13, EH)

The Cuban government is once again calling on the international community to support its call for the lifting of the trade embargo imposed by the United States. At a press conference, to garner local support, Cuban ambassador to Dominica Joanna Elena Ramos on Wednesday

described the embargo as an act of genocide.


The increased persecution of Cubas international financial transactions has been one of the distinctive features in the implementation of the blockade policy under the current US administration, she argued. For the 21st consecutive time Cuba on November 13th, 2012 will submit for the consideration of the UN General Assembly the draft resolution entitled Necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial blockade imposed by the United States of America against Cuba. Since its conception the resolution has been steadily gaining support from nations around the globe. Last year 186 member states voted in favor of the resolution, which according to Cuba is irrefutable proof that the battle for the lifting of the blockade has the recognition and support of the vast majority of the international community. But calls for lifting the embargo have fallen on deaf ears. In 2012 the US imposed a $619-million fine on the Dutch bank ING for making transactions with Cuba, in dollars. Actions like these due to the embargo are described by the Cuban ambassador as criminal and inhumane. The blockade

continues to be a criminal, inhumane and morally unsustainable policy that has not succeeded and will never succeed in fulfilling the purpose of breaking the political will of the Cuban people to preserve its sovereignty,
independence and right to self-determination, she stated. She said the embargo is having a devastating impact on Cuba. The direct economic damage to the Cuban people by the implementation of the economic, commercial and financial blockade of the United States against Cuba until December 2011 based on the current prices and calculated in a very conservative way, amount to over 108 billion dollars (108,000,000,000), she said. Taking into consideration the depreciation of the US dollar against the price of gold in the international financial m arket, the damages cost to the Cuban economy would exceed one trillion 66 thousand million dollars ($1,066,000,000,000). She also thanked the Dominican government for its continued support on the matter.

Cuban embargo is an extreme human rights abuse, medicine, development, and disaster relief Mingxin 10 Bi Mingxin, editor and columnist for xinhuanet.com (U.S. embargo denies right of Cubans to development: Venezuela, English.news.cn, 2010-10-27, http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2010-10/27/c_13576914.htm, Accessed: 7/4/13, EH)
UNITED NATIONS, Oct. 26 (Xinhua) -- Venezuela said here Tuesday that the U.S. embargo against Cuba is "a repeated and unilateral denial" of the right of the Caribbean island country and its people to development , and criticized the United States for continuing to "ignore the voice of the peoples of the world that demand the end of this genocidal policy." The statement came as Jorge Valero, Venezuela's permanent representative to the United Nations, was taking the floor at an open debate of the UN Security Council on "the necessity of ending economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States against Cuba." "The blockade is, in short, a repeatedly and unilateral denial, by a signatory to the United Nations Charter, of the right to development of another member states," he said. Valero, who also described the U.S. blockade as "criminal," said, "The blockade affects the legitimate interests of any sovereign state that legitimately decides to become a business partner of the Republic of Cuba, through the extraterritorial application of the U.S. legal system." The United States imposed the trade embargo on Cuba in early 1960s when both countries severed diplomatic ties. "The devastating collateral damage inflicted each day to the brotherly people of the island by the policy of the blockade, are unjustifiable," he said. "It would cause a massive humanitarian disaster in Cuba -- as recognized by the American Association of World Health -- if this nation did not have an extraordinary system of public health." "The blockade against Cuba has diverse impacts on the daily lives of women and men, children and the elderly," he said. " It manifests itself -- crudely -- in the way it affects the quality of life of children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia,

which must do without the standard treatment for this disease ."
"The blockade also manifests in the difficulties of the people to have access to the enjoyment of housing rights," he said. "It

hinders the import of building materials needed to replace and repair the huge number of buildings affected by the hurricanes."
"The blockade generates millions in losses each year in Cuba 's basic industries: sugar, steel work and tourism," he said. Meanwhile, he said that the new U.S. government did nothing to change its policy towards Cuba and continued to ignore the voice of the world for an end to such an embargo.

"The change of government in the United States generated great expectations regarding a new policy respecting the sovereignty of nations," he said. "There is nothing that suggests, however, that there have been substantial changes in the foreign policy of the United States, in particular, in regards to the blockade against Cuba." "The U.S. government continues to ignore the voice of the peoples of the world that demand the end of this genocidal policy which represents a violation of human rights," he said.

Lifting the embargo improves the US humanitarian image, UN support Amnesty International 11 --- Amnesty International, world-renowned organization that addresses humanitarian issues (Amnesty International Annual Report 2011 Cuba, May 13, 2011, RefWorld, http://www.fln.dk/NR/rdonlyres/4858E8BD-DCC2-4AB8-AE3549EED9AE3222/0/cuba018_udg130511_opt080711.pdf, accessed June 27, 2013, MY) US embargo against Cuba The US embargo continued to affect the economic, social and cultural development of the Cuban people and in particular the most vulnerable groups. According to the UN Population Fund, treatments for children and young people with bone cancer and for patients suffering from cancer of the retina were not readily available because they were commercialized under US patents. The embargo also affected the procurement of antiretroviral drugs used to treat children with HIV/AIDS. Under the terms of the US embargo, medical equipment and medicines manufactured under US patents cannot be sold to the Cuban government. In September, US President Barack Obama renewed the extension of economic and financial sanctions against Cuba as
provided for in the Trading With the Enemy Act. In August, he relaxed travel restrictions on academic, religious and cultural groups under the "people-to-people" policy. For

the 19th consecutive year, a resolution calling on the USA to end its embargo against Cuba was adopted by an overwhelming majority (187 votes to two) in the UN General Assembly.

The embargo fails and causes humanitarian issues 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, 2012, Cato Institute, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/time-end-cuba-embargo, accessed July 4, 2013, MY) The U.S. government has waged economic war against the Castro regime for half a century. The policy may have been worth a try during the Cold War, but the embargo has failed to liberate the Cuban people. It is time to end sanctions against Havana. Decades ago the Castro brothers lead a revolt against a
nasty authoritarian, Fulgencio Batista. After coming to power in 1959, they created a police state, targeted U.S. commerce, nationalized American assets, and allied with the Soviet Union. Although Cuba was but a small island nation, the Cold War magnified its perceived importance. Washington reduced Cuban sugar import quotas in July 1960. Subsequently U.S. exports were limited, diplomatic ties were severed, travel was restricted, Cuban imports were banned, Havanas American assets were frozen, and almost all travel to Cuba was banned. Washin gton also pressed its allies to impose sanctions. These various measures had no evident effect, other than to intensify Cubas reliance on the Soviet Union. Yet the collapse of the latter nation had no impact on U.S. policy. In 1992, Congress banned American subsidiaries from doing business in Cuba and in 1996, it penalized foreign firms that trafficked in expropriated U.S. property. Executives from such companies even were banned from traveling to America. On occasion Washington relaxed one aspect or another of the embargo, but in general continued to tighten restrictions, even over Cuban Americans. Enforcement is not easy, but Uncle Sam tries his best. For instance, according to the Government Accountability Office, Customs and Border Protection increased its secondary inspection of passengers arriving from Cuba to reflect an increased risk of embargo violations after the 2004 rule changes, which, among other things, eliminated the allowance for travelers to import a small amount of Cuban products for personal consumption. Lifting

sanctions would be a victory not for Fidel Castro, but for the power of free people to spread liberty. Three years ago, President Barack Obama loosened regulations on Cuban
Americans, as well as telecommunications between the United States and Cuba. However, the law sharply const rains the presidents discretion. Moreover, UN Ambassador Susan Rice said that the embargo will continue until Cuba is free. It

is far past time to end the embargo. During the Cold War, Cuba offered a potential advanced military outpost for the Soviet Union. Indeed, that role led to the Cuban
missile crisis. With the failure of the U.S.-supported Bay of Pigs invasion, economic pressure appeared to be Washingtons best strategy for

ousting the Castro dictatorship. However,

the end of the Cold War left Cuba strategically irrelevant. It is a poor country with little ability to harm the United States. The Castro regime might still encourage unrest, but its survival has no measurable impact on any important U.S. interest. The regime remains a humanitarian travesty, of course. Nor are Cubans the only victims: three years ago the regime jailed a State Department contractor for distributing satellite telephone equipment in Cuba. But Havana is not the only regime to violate
human rights. Moreover, experience has long demonstrated that it is virtually impossible for outsiders to force democracy. Washington often has used sanctions and the Office of Foreign Assets Control currently is enforcing around 20 such programs, mostly to little effect. The

policy in Cuba obviously has failed. The regime remains in power. Indeed, it has consistently used the embargo to justify its own mismanagement, blaming poverty on America. Observed Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton: It is my personal belief that the Castros do not want to see an end to the embargo and do not want to see normalization with the United States, because they would lose all of their excuses for what hasnt happened in Cuba in the last 50 years. Similarly, Cuban exile Carlos Saladrigas of the Cuba Study Group argued that keeping the embargo, maintaining this hostility, all it does is strengthen and embolden the hardliners.

Cuban human rights activists also generally oppose sanctions. A decade ago I (legally) visited Havana, where I met Elizardo Sanchez Santa Cruz, who suffered in communist prisons for eight years. He told me that the sanctions policy gives the government a good alibi to justify the failure of the totalitarian model in Cuba.

The embargos cost on Cuban people is immense Crowther 09 --- Colonel Glenn A. Crowther, research professor at Strategic Studies Institute (KISS THE EMBARGO GOODBYE, February 2009, SSI, http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub906.pdf, accessed July 4, 2013,MY) The cost to the Cuban people has been huge. Besides the violence visited upon them by their repressive regime, there is also the economic and quality of life costs of isolation. Castroite resistance to democratic and economic reforms combines with the deleterious effects of the embargo. The Cuban people, who enjoyed one of the largest economies in the Western Hemisphere in 1959, suffer from poverty stemming from a paucity of jobs and medical problems caused by a lack of protein and vitamins in their diet. The one reason that no one mentions is that the embargo provides an excuse for the regimes tyranny. Dissidence is punished
by jail or execution. The 75 dissidents who met with the head of the U.S. interest section in Havana were imprisoned for sentences that averaged 17 years.

The government maintains a relatively large Ministry of the Interior to provide internal security. It also for the Defense of the Revolution [CDR]), which makes neighbors spy on neighbors and family members spy on each other. The government
maintains the Comits para la Defensa de la Revolucin (Committees points to U.S. actions as the reason for that internal security.

The embargo has hurt the Cuban people and caused a human rights violation AAWH 97 - American Association for World Health, private national organization in the U.S. dedicated to funneling a broad spectrum of
critical national and international health information to Americans [Denial of Food and Medicine: The Impact of the U.S. Embargo On The Health And Nutrition In Cuba, American Association for World Health, 3/1997, http://www.cubasolidarity.net/aawh.html, accessed: 6/27/13, JK] After a year-long investigation, the American Association for World Health has determined that the U.S. embargo of Cuba has

dramatically harmed the health and nutrition of large numbers of ordinary Cuban citizens. As documented by the attached report, it is our expert medical opinion that the U.S. embargo has caused a significant rise in suffering-and even deaths-in Cuba. For several decades the U.S. embargo has imposed significant financial burdens on the Cuban health care system. But since 1992 the number of unmet medical needs patients going without essential drugs or doctors performing medical procedures without adequate equipment-has sharply accelerated. This trend is directly linked to the fact that in 1992 the U.S. trade embargo-one of the most stringent embargoes of its kind, prohibiting the
sale of food and sharply restricting the sale of medicines and medical equipment-was further tightened by the 1992 Cuban Democracy Act. A humanitarian catastrophe has been averted only because the Cuban government has maintained a high level of budgetary support for a health care

system designed to deliver primary and preventive health care to all of its citizens. Cuba

still has an infant mortality rate half

that of the city of Washington, D.C.. Even so, the U.S. embargo of food and the de facto embargo on medical supplies has wreaked havoc with the island's model primary health care system. The crisis has been compounded by the
country's generally weak economic resources and by the loss of trade with the Soviet bloc.

Status quo is inhumane. Lloyd, 2011 [Delia Lloyd, Delia, freelance writer and political science professor at the University of Chicago,
Ten Reasons to Lift the Cuba Embargo, Politics Daily, 2011 , http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/24/ten reasons-to-lift-the-cuba-embargo/, Accessed: June 28, 2013, KH) It's inhumane. 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 knows, there's a decidedly enclave-like feel to those areas of the economy where capitalism has been allowed to flourish in a limited sense (e.g. tourism) and the rest of the island, which feels very much like the remnant of an exhausted socialist economic model . When I went there in the 1990s with my 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 Cubans. But 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.

Embargo currently violating human rights Charbonneau 12-Louis Charbonneau, is a journalist working for the Reuters news agency. He is
currently posted at the United Nations. He has been working for Reuters since 2001. He previously worked for BridgeNews (formerly Knight-Ridder Financial) and United Press International.(U.N. urges end to U.S. Cuba embargo for 21st year,reuters.com, Nov 13, 2012, http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/13/us-cuba-embargo-un-idUSBRE8AC11820121113, June 28, 2013, KH) Rodriguez said the "extraterritoriality" of the blockade measures - the fact that Washington pressures other countries to adhere to the U.S. embargo - violates international law. He added that the blockade is not in U.S. interests and harms its credibility. "It leads the U.S. to adopt costly double standards," he said, adding that the embargo has failed to achieve its objectives of pressuring the government to introduce economic and political freedoms and comply with international human rights standards. "There is no legitimate or moral reason to maintain this embargo that is anchored in the Cold War," he said. He said it qualified as a "act of genocide" against Cuba and was a "massive, flagrant and systematic violation of the human rights of an entire people."

Embargo bad hurts Cuban people Karon 10 Tony Karon, senior editor at TIME (Do We Really Need an Embargo Against Cuba?, TIME,
4/21/10, http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,48773,00.html, 7/2/13, ckr) It actually helps keep Castro in power Never mind the fact that it's failed to dislodge him after 38 years, the embargo is

now Castro's catchall excuse for every ill that plagues his decaying socialist society. It helps him paint the U.S. as hostile and an imminent threat in the eyes of the Cuban people, which is how he rationalizes his

authoritarian politics. Opening the floodgates of trade will leave Castro with no excuses, and interaction with the U.S. will hasten the collapse of his archaic system.
What's good for China is good for Cuba

China is a lot more repressive than Cuba, and yet we've normalized trade relations with Beijing on the argument that trade will hasten reform and democratization. We're even lifting sanctions against North Korea despite the fact that their missile program is supposedly a threat to our skies, whereas the Pentagon has long since concluded that Cuba represents no threat to U.S. security. It's nonsensical to argue that
trade induces better behavior from communist regimes in China and North Korea, but will do the opposite in Cuba. It mostly hurts the people it's supposed to help You can be sure Fidel Castro isn't going to bed hungry and or suffering through a headache because

there's no Tylenol to be had. Yet millions of his people are suffering all manner of deprivations that the could be eased by lifting an embargo that's never going to overthrow him anyway. Stopping Cubans from benefiting from trade with the U.S. and interaction with American tourists leaves Castro unscathed, but it deprives the Cuban people of a taste of freedom that could only undermine a repressive regime.

Embargo hurts our international standing and Cuban human rights RT 12- (Condemnedagain: 'Genocidal' US embargo on Cuba slammed by UN for 21st year, 11/14/12, http://rt.com/news/cuba-embargo-un-vote-635/, 7/2/13, CAS) The UN has urged the US to lift the 52-year trade embargo with Cuba in an almost-unanimous vote. Cuba likened the blockade to genocide and said it was disappointed that Obama had not taken measures to
lift the disputed embargo. Of the 193 members of the UN assembly, 188 voted to abolish what is widely perceived as an illegal blockade. The only two nations that got behind the US were Israel and the Pacific nation of Palau, while two countries abstained from the vote. This is the 21st year running that the UN has decried the American economic sanctions against the island nation. Cubas Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez addressed the assembly, voicing Cuban disappointment that despite Obamas pledge to open a new chapter in Cuban -American relations on assuming office four years ago, no steps had been taken the lift the crippling embargo. "The reality is that the last four years have been characterized by the persistent tightening of the embargo," he said. The Cuban government has calculated that since the blockade was enforced in 1960 the total financial

damage to Cubas economy is around US$3 trillion. Rodriguez qualified the maintenance of the embargo as tantamount to genocide and a massive, flagrant and systematic violation of the human rights of the people of Cuba.

Embargo fails, and hurts Cuban human rights and global relations Ratliff 09- William Ratliff, Research Fellow at the Independent Institute and a member of the Board of Advisors of the Institutes Center on Global Prosperity, (Why and How to Lift the U.S. Embargo on Cuba, 5/7/09, http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2496, 7/3/13, CAS) The embargo made sense during the Cold War, but no longer. A majority of Americans and Cubans
now oppose it, including a majority of Cuban dissidents in Cuba and Cuban-Americans in Miami. Only the U.S. Congress still wont move as a body, bound as it is by inertia and domestic political calculations. Al as, its role is critical since the passage of the 1996 Helms Burton Act, which codifies the embargo.

How has the embargo failed? It

has not brought down the Castro brothers, advanced democracy, freedom, human rights or prosperity in Cuba, or gotten compensation for Americans whose assets Cuba seized decades ago. It largely denies Americans the freedom to travel to Cuba, or to trade freely and otherwise interact Cubans on the island. And in recent decades it has given Fidel the scapegoat he needsusto excuse his economic utopianism and brutality. Supporters of the embargo see it as an expression of Americas moral indignation at Castros brutal policies. By limiting the flow of dollars to Cuba we deny some funds to Cuban security forces, as they argue, but we simultaneously withhold support for the daily lives of the Cuban people.
For twenty years the embargo placated the very noisy Cuban American community in Florida, but by late 2008 even a majority of Cuban Americans, according to a Florida International University poll, had turned against it. It isnt that Cuban Americans are going soft on Fidel, but that a majority finally see or admit that this policy is more harmful than positive to its own interests. And it is harmful to U.S. interests as well, which ought to be our primary concern, alienating the

Hemisphere and the world as a whole while having only negative impacts in Cuba. The embargo only strengthens Castro- lifting it will bring change Estevez 12- Carlos Estevez, staff columnist at nyunews.com, (Ending embargo means real freedome for Cuba, 10/22/12, http://nyunews.com/2012/10/22/estevez-3/, Accessed: 6/28/13, CAS) The Cold War has faded into history, but the embargo still haunts the lives of Cubans. More importantly, it breathes life into the Castro regime. A quick glance at the different interest groups vying for and against the embargo reveals
why the status quo persists and how it has divided Cuba. Democrats generally oppose the embargo, advocating compromise and discourse with Cuba. Republicans insist that the embargo is a crucial tool in negotiating a democratic transition within the island. The U.S. political system has essentially transformed this human rights issue into a choice between two diametrically opposed viewpoints. Both sides seek the same goal of attaining freedom for the Cuban people from their government, and both share a common ignorance as to the impact of the embargo on Cubans or on the regime. Politicians have taken strategic stances on this issue for the sake of elections, mainly appeasing the Cuban-American voting bloc with little regard to the people affected by the embargo.

Cuban-Americans have ruled the discourse on the embargo, as they are among the few citizens with an interest in Cuban politics. The unacquainted observer might note that they stand united for keeping the embargo. A closer inspection reveals a highly divided community as diverse as the term Cuban-American, which more accurately describes
50 years of continuous migration rather than a given ethnic group. Many Cubans left at the onset of the revolution, leaving behind all of their belongings. Others left in Operation Peter Pan, in which parents sent their children to the United States due to rumors that the Castro regime would ship kids to the Soviet Union. These politically active groups mainly vote in favor of the embargo, directly influenced by their personal experiences.

Younger generations of Cubans, those who left in the Mariel boatlift of 1980 and the Rafter movement of the 90s, have slowly shifted the Cuban-American stance on the embargo. Perhaps because they lived
through the hardships of the Cuban reality, they see little benefit in keeping the embargo. Even within Cuba, the ruling elite benefits from the embargo while the average citizen suffers. Cuban Communism has made most citizens equally poor, and these poor Cubans oppose the embargo, while the government uses it as an excuse for all of Cubas dilemmas, including frequent electricity, f ood and Internet shortages. For this very reason, the Cuban government would face significant questions if the embargo ended. In fact, the word embargo rarely figures in Cuban politics. Instead, the Castro regime refers to it as a blockade. This implies that the United States blocks Cuba from contact with the outside world, which greatly overestimates the embargos impact on the Cuban economy. This ruling elite does not significantly suffer from the embargo. They enjoy a high standard of living, profiting from Cubas resources. Instead, the embargo only serves to legitimize Cubas revolution as a force struggling against the United States.

Those who seek true freedom for Cubans and the end of the Castro regime should advocate repealing the embargo. Both the Castro regime and U.S. politicians benefit from the status quo at the expense of dividing and subjugating the Cuban people at home and abroad.

Lifting embargo contributes to humanitarian, diplomatic, and economic strength Trani, 6/23 Eugene P. Trani, president emeritus and University Distinguished Professor at Virginia Commonwealth University. (Trani: End the embargo on Cuba, Richmond Times -Dispatch, June 23, 2013, http://www.timesdispatch.com/opinion/their-opinion/columnists-blogs/guest-columnists/end-the-embargoon-cuba/article_ba3e522f-8861-5f3c-bee9-000dffff8ce7.html, accessed: 7/4/13, LR)
What we heard was puzzlement about the embargo and strong feelings that it was hurting the people of Cuba. In fact, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the absolute poverty rate has increased significantly in Cuba. It was also evident that there is visible decline in major infrastructure areas such as housing. Today, there seem to be both humanitarian and economic factors, particularly with the significant growth of the non-governmental section of the economy that could factor in a change in American policy. There is

also a major diplomatic factor in that no other major country, including our allies, follows our policy. What a positive statement for American foreign policy in Latin America and throughout the world it would be for the United States to end its embargo and establish normal diplomatic relations with Cuba. We would be taking both a humanitarian course of action and making a smart diplomatic gesture. The time is right and all our policy makers need is courage to bring about this change.

Travel is a basic human right that we are denied by the embargo. Paul 13 (Ron Paul, Why Cant We All Travel To Cuba?, Antiwar.com, April 16 2013, http://original.antiwar.com/paul/2013/04/15/why-cant-we-all-travel-to-cuba/, Accessed: 7/3/13, EH)
Earlier this month, entertainers Jay-Z and Beyonc were given a license by the US government to travel to Cuba. Because it is not otherwise legal for Americans to travel to Cuba, this trip was only permitted as a cultural exchange by the US Treasury Department. Many suspect that the permission was granted at least partly due to the fame, wealth, and political connections of the couple. Some Members of Congress who continue to support the failed Cuba embargo, demanded that the Administration explain why these two celebrities were allowed to visit Cuba. The trip looked suspiciously like tourism, they argued in a letter to the White House, and American tourism is still not allowed in Cuba. They were photographed eating at the best restaurants, dancing, and meeting with average Cubans, which these Members of Congress frowned on. Perhaps it is true that this couple used their celebrity status and ties to the White House to secure permission to travel, but the real question is, why cant the rest of us go? The Obama administration has lifted some of the most onerous restrictions on travel to Cuba imposed under the previous Bush administration, but for the average American, travel to the island is still difficult if not impossible. However, even those who are permitted to go to Cuba are not allowed to simply engage in tourist activities to spend their money as they wish or relax on a beach. The US government demands that the few Americans it allows to travel to Cuba only engage in what it deems purposeful travel, to support civil society in Cuba; enhance the free flow of information to, from, and among the Cuban people; and help promote their independence from Cuban authorities. They must prove that they maintain a full -time schedule of educational activities, according to Treasury guidelines for people-to-people travel. Leave it to the federal government to make the prospect of visiting that sunny Caribbean island sound so miserable. The reason the US so severely restricts and scripts the activities of the few Americans allowed to travel to Cuba is that it believes travel must promote the goal of taking important steps in reaching the widely shared goal of a Cuba that respects the basic rights of all its citizens. Although I have no illusions about the Cuban government or any government for that matter it is ironic that the US chose to locate a prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba because the indefinite detention and torture that took place there would have been illegal on US soil. Further, the US government continues to hold more than 100 prisoners there indefinitely even though they have not been found guilty of a crime and in fact dozens are cleared for release but not allowed to leave. Does the administration really believe that the rest of the world is not annoyed by its do as we say, not as we do attitude ? We are told by supporters of the Cuba embargo and travel ban that we must take such measures to fight the communists in charge of that country. Americans must be prohibited from traveling to Cuba, they argue, because tourist dollars would only be used to prop up the unelected Castro regime. Ironically, our restrictive travel policies toward Cuba actually mirror the travel policies of the communist countries past and present. Under communist rule in the former

Soviet Union and elsewhere it was only the well-connected elites who were allowed to travel overseas people like Jay-Z and Beyonc. The average citizen was not permitted the right. Although the current administrations slight loosening of the restrictions is a small step in the right direction , it makes no sense

to continue this nearly half-century old failed policy. Freedom to travel is a fundamental right. Restricting this fundamental right in the name of human rights is foolish and hypocritical.

Embargo promotes poverty in Cuba gives Castro more power Henderson 08 David Henderson, research fellow at Stanford Universitys Hoover Institution and is also
associate professor of economics at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California (End the Cuban Embargo, AntiWar, 2/21/08, http://antiwar.com/henderson/?articleid=12395, accessed: 7/4/13, ckr) Which brings us to the second argument for the embargo, which seems to go as follows.

By squeezing the Cuban economy enough, the U.S. government can make Cubans even poorer than Fidel Castro has managed to over the past 48 years, through his imposition of Stalin-style socialism.
Ultimately, the theory goes, some desperate Cubans will rise up and overthrow Castro. There are at least three problems with this "make the victims hurt more" strategy. First, it's

profoundly immoral. It could succeed only by making average Cubans already living in grinding poverty even poorer. Most of them are completely innocent and, indeed, many of them already want to get rid of Castro. And consider the irony: A defining feature of socialism is the prohibition of voluntary exchange between people. Proembargo Americans typically want to get rid of socialism in Cuba. Yet their solution prohibiting trade with Americans is the very essence of socialism.
The second problem is more practical: It hasn't worked. To be effective, an embargo must prevent people in the target country from getting goods, or at least substantially increase the cost of getting goods. But competition is a hardy weed that shrugs off governmental attempts to suppress it. Companies in many countries, especially Canada, produce and sell goods that are close substitutes for the U.S. goods that can't be sold to Cuba. Wander around Cuba, and you're likely to see beach umbrellas advertising Labatt's beer, McCain's (no relation) French fries, and President's Choice cola. Moreover, even U.S. goods for which there are no close substitutes are often sold to buyers in other countries, who then resell to Cuba. A layer of otherwise unnecessary middlemen is added, pushing up prices somewhat, but the price increase is probably small for most goods.

Some observers have argued that the very fact that the embargo does little harm means that it should be kept because it's a cheap way for U.S. politicians to express moral outrage against Castro. But arguing for a policy on the grounds that it's ineffective should make people question the policy's wisdom. Third, the policy is politically effective, but not in the way the embargo's proponents would wish. The embargo surely makes Cubans somewhat more anti-American than they would be otherwise, and it makes them somewhat more in favor of or at least less against Castro. Castro has never talked honestly about the embargo: he has always called it a blockade, which it manifestly is not. But he has gotten political mileage by blaming the embargo, rather than socialism, for Cuba's awful economic plight and reminds his subjects ceaselessly that the U.S. government is the instigator.
Some Cubans probably believe him.

Empirics prove- trade helps human rights Farrell 09- Chris Farrell, graduate of Stanford and the London School of Economics and economics editor of Marketplace Money, (Benefits of lifting the Cuban embargo, 4/16/09, https://www.marketplace.org/topics/world/benefits-lifting-cuban-embargo, 7/3/13, CAS)

Farrell: I think the real lesson that you take from this is that trade is

revolutionary, commerce is revolutionary. And trade is not just money and entrepreneurial opportunities. It also means exposing an economy to different ideas, and ideas that are an anathema to a bureaucracy that is in power. And we have a very good counter-example. Remember in the 1990's, the Clinton administration came under a lot of pressure to set up trade embargoes with China because a lot of the human rights violations. And I'm
not minimizing, by the way -- I am not minimizing human rights violations in China, I am not minimizing human rights violations in Cuba. But the administration continued the trade with China, and it was the right move -- China is now more integrated into the global economy, there's a lot more information in that economy, it's moving in the right direction. And so that's what I want to see trade with Cuba. I think that's the real lesson to take here.

Embargo a form of Genocide Sympatico 10 (Is the U.S. Embargo on Cuba a Form of Genocide?, Amnesty International, September 8, 2010,
http://www3.sympatico.ca/danchristienses/CubaFAQ137.html, Accessed: July 2, 2013, SD)

What is genocide? To answer this question, we must define what is meant by genocide. According to Oxford English Dictionary, genocide is

"the mass extermination of human beings, esp. of a particular race or nation." The Law Under

international law the legal definition is given in Article 2 of the UN Genocide Convention and covers a much wider range of crimes. Article
2 states: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a)

Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. Item (c) would seem to be the most relevant in the case of the US embargo on Cuba. It tells us that, to prove the
perpetrators of these sanctions are guilty of genocide, we do not need to prove that any deaths were directly attributable to these sanctions. We are

required only to prove that the perpetrators deliberately inflicted on the Cuban people conditions of life calculated to bring about the group's physical destruction in whole or in part. This is relatively easy to prove. A Brief History The US embargo first came into effect during the Kennedy administration in 1962. Thirty years later in
1992, shortly after the collapse of Cuba's main trading partner, the former USSR, the US regime moved in for the kill with intensified trade sanctions under its so-called Cuban Democracy Act, also known as the Torricelli Act. Four years later in 1996, with the Cuban people having weathered the worst of the economic collapse and as defiant as ever, the US embargo was tightened further still with the introduction of the socalled Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, also known as the Helms-Burton Act. Today, while there have since been limited openings in one-way trade in food and medicine, these two laws form the

legislative underpinning of the US embargo, a master plan to wreck the Cuban economy and thereby deprive the population of many of the essentials of life. The all too predictable outcomes have been documented by various international humanitarian and human rights groups. From "The
US attack on Cuba's health," Canadian Medical Association Journal, August 1, 1997: In 1992 Cuba was in a severe economic depression, largely resulting from a loss of preferential trade with the Soviet bloc. Cuba turned to US foreign subsidiaries, from whom it received $500-600 million per year in imports -- 90% of which was food and medicine. The American Public Health Association warned the US government that tightening the embargo would lead to the abrupt cessation of this supply of essential goods and result in widespread famine. Indeed, 5 months after passage of the CDA [Cuba Democracy Act] , food shortages in Cuba set the scene for the worst epidemic of neurologic disease this century. More than 50,000 people suffered from optic neuropathy, deafness, loss of sensation and pain in the extremities, and a spinal cord disorder that impaired walking and bladder control. That the US embargo has harmed the Cuban people has also been documented by the American Association for World Health. It performed a year-long review of the implications of embargo restrictions which included on-site visits to 46 treatment centers and related facilities, 160 interviews with medical professionals and other specialists, government officials, representatives of non-governmental organizations, churches and international aid agencies. Their 300 page report, "Denial of Food and Medicine: THE IMPACT OF THE U.S. EMBARGO ON HEALTH AND NUTRITION IN CUBA," dated March 1997, concluded: After a year-long investigation, the American Association for World Health has determined that the U.S. embargo of Cuba has dramatically harmed the health and nutrition of large numbers of ordinary Cuban citizens. As documented by the attached report, it is our expert medical opinion that the U.S. embargo has caused a significant rise in suffering -- and even deaths -- in Cuba. For several decades the U.S. embargo has imposed significant financial burdens on the Cuban health care system. Clearly then these sanctions were meant to kill. It was only thanks to the renowned fighting spirit of the Cuban people, and countless acts of international solidarity, that the death count was kept to a minimum. Despite these cruel sanctions, Cuba's health care system actually continued to improve and is widely regarded as the best in Latin America. This in no way, however, diminishes the criminal responsibility of the US regime. In 2003, even Amnesty

International, after years of dithering, was finally forced to

concede in a report actually critical of Cuba that, yes, the US embargo is: (a) "highly detrimental to Cubans' enjoyment of a range of economic, social and cultural rights... (b) "has had a very significant negative impact on the overall performance of the national economy, diverting the optimal allocation of resources from the prioritized areas and affecting the health programmes and services... (c) "compromises the quality of life of the population, specifically the children, the elderly and the infirm... (d) "is used to harm the most vulnerable members of society." And how did the Bush regime respond to these shocking revelations at the time? Had it immediately lifted the embargo, it
might be argued that these outcomes were unintentional. But the regime did just the opposite -- in 2004 they actually moved to intensify these cruel sanctions! Remittances and family visits were severely curtailed in hopes of cutting off an important source of hard currency and material support for Cuban families, along with unprecedented financial restrictions on payments for shipments of food and medicine bound for Cuba. The amount of food exported to Cuba from the US declined each year for several years immediately afterward. In another report critical of Cuba in 2004 (and reiterated in March 2005), the UN Human Rights Commission, as well, was forced to concede that, "It is also impossible to ignore the disastrous and lasting economic and social effects of the embargo imposed on the Cuban population over 40 years ago." In January of 2005 (and 2006), Human Rights Watch reiterated that, "The U.S. economic embargo on Cuba, in effect for more than four decades, continues to impose indiscriminate hardship on the Cuban people." In September, 2006, Christine Chanet,

the Personal Representative of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, in another of her reports critical of Cuba, explicitly criticized the "severe restrictions caused by a disastrous embargo, exacerbated in 2004 by unbearable restrictions on the movement of persons and goods." She also said that the US embargo, which she "deplores," was "not a path to democracy (sic), and should not continue." (UN HRC discussion) In November, 2006, the Miami Herald gleefully reported: The Bush administration's vow to
enforce U.S. regulations is stifling Cuba's ability to operate in international markets... U.S. companies are allowed to export agricultural products to Cuba, provided they receive cash payments before the goods are delivered. But even cash payments must move through banks, so the restrictions are giving U.S. corporations headaches... ''It's the hassle factor,'' said John Kavulich, senior policy advisor with the U.S.-Cuba Trade and Economic Council, which tracks bilateral economic relations. "They've coupled rhetoric with enforcement, and it's worked!'' In January 2007, Amnesty International confirmed again that: Amnesty International has called for the US embargo against Cuba to be lifted, as it is highly detrimental to Cubans' enjoyment of a range of economic, social and cultural rights, such as the right to food, health and sanitation -- particularly affecting the weakest and most vulnerable members of the population. Conclusion The

genocidal intent of the Bush regime had never been more clear. Therefore, under the terms of the of the UN Genocide Convention, the US embargo does indeed appear to be a form of genocide. Follow-up, March 2009 Amnesty International reiterates its condemnation of the
US embargo two months into the mandate of the new Barack Obama administration: Amnesty International urges the US government to lift the nearly five-decade long economic and trade embargo against Cuba as it is detrimental to the fulfillment of the economic and social rights of the Cuban people. It obstructs and constrains efforts by the Cuban government to purchase essential medicines, medical equipment and supplies, food and agricultural products, construction materials and access to new technologies. Source: "Cuba and the Fifth Summit of the Americas," Amnesty International, March 2009 Follow-up, September 2009 By September 2009, very little seemed to have actually changed as far as the US embargo was concerned. Eight months into President Obama's mandate, it seemed to this writer that Amnesty International had all but called for the arrests of the perpetrators of these crimes against the Cuban people! Citing the continued blocking and constraining of vital imports of medicines, supplies and technology, Amnesty called called these cruel and inhumane sanctions "immoral" and demanded that it be "lifted without further delay": The US embargo against Cuba is immoral and should be lifted. Its preventing millions of Cubans from benefiting from vital medicines and medical equipment essential for their health. Source: "President Obama should take lead in lifting embargo against Cuba," Amnesty International, September 2009 Amnesty International calls on the US Congress to take, without further delay, the necessary steps towards lifting the economic, financial and trade embargo against Cuba.... The UN General Assembly has repeatedly condemned the US embargo as contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and international law.... The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has also reiterated its position regarding the impact of such sanctions on the human rights of the Cuban people and, therefo re, insists that the embargo be lifted...." [E]xports of food and agricultural products to Cuba remain regulated by the Department of Commerce and require a licence for export or re-export. The export of medicines and medical supplies continues to be severely limited.... The restrictions imposed by the embargo help to deprive Cuba of vital access to medicines, new scientific and medical technology, food, chemical water treatment and electricity.... The impact of economic sanctions on health and health services is not limited to difficulties in the supply of medicine. Health and health services depend on functioning water and sanitation infrastructure, on electricity and other functioning equipment such as X-ray facilities or refrigerators to store vaccines. The financial burden and commercial barriers have led to shortages or intermittent availability of drugs, medicines, equipment and spare parts. It has also hindered the renovation of hospitals, clinics and care centres for the elderly. Source: "The US embargo against Cuba: Its impact on economic and social rights," Amnesty International, September 2009 In addition to blocking essential imports, the US embargo also continued to impose a significant drag on the development of the Cuban economy, especially in the areas of agriculture and food production. According to at least one US agricultural expert, simply

lifting the economic and financial restrictions imposed on Cuban farmers by the US embargo would have a dramatic impact on their production levels: Cuban agriculture has such a big potential that if it were to be totally developed it could surpass the volume of production of the Free Trade Treaty [the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) presumed]. William A. Messina Jr., of the University of Florida's Agriculture Science Institute, said, that the communist island "has such good soil and it represents a challenge of such magnitude that, with the end of the embargo, the agricultural market impact on the continent would be larger that of the Free Trade Treaty.'' Source: "Cuba's agriculture
shows promise," Miami Herald, September 29, 2009 Follow-up, September 2010 Amnesty International reiterates its condemnation of the US embargo: [The US embargo's is] negatively affecting Cubans access to medicines and medical technologies and endangering the health of

millions. United Nations agencies and programs operating in Cuba, such as UNICEF, UNAIDS and UNFPA, have reported that the US embargo has undermined the implementation of programs aimed at improving the living conditions of Cubans. Source: "Amnesty International criticises President Obama's decision on Cuba," Amnesty International, September 8, 2010 Follow-up, October 2010 On October 26, 2010 the UN General Assembly voted overwhelmingly again to condemn the US embargo. Only Israel voted with the US against the resolution. Israel trades freely with Cuba, so even this single vote cannot be seen as support for these cruel and inhumane sanctions. On this the US is truly isolated on the world stage. The only abstentions were the tiny US-island colonies in the South Pacific: Palau (pop. 20,000), Micronesia (pop. 110,000) and the Marshall Islands (pop. 60,000).

The US has a moral obligation to uphold human rights around the world-especially Cuba Edghill 12- Michael W. Edghill, teaches courses in US Government and in Latin America & the Caribbean in
Fort Worth, Texas. He is a contributor to Caribbean Journal. His work has also appeared in the Yale Journal of International Affairs, Diplomatic Courier, and others,(The Moral Obligation Next Door, International Policy Digest, June 29, 2012, http://www.internationalpolicydigest.org/2012/06/29/the-moral-obligation-next-door/, Accessed: June 28, 2013, KH) But the

US is still the most powerful nation in the world. With that power often comes the expectation that the US should be the great force for peace and justice globally. If American
exceptionalism is still the modus operandi, then the US should be venturing to solve grand problems. The idea that great power brings with it a moral obligation to help those who are helpless is widely accepted in both domestic policy and in foreign policy. Much of the coming campaign will revolve around what our priorities should be and how the government can best help the American people. Additionally, the time has come for the US to reprioritize its foreign policy.
US foreign policy over the last 30 years has been dominated by a series of interventions, diplomatically and militarily, in the Middle East with cursory glances towards the trouble spots in the world at that time. That focus has translated into a disproportionate amount of American resources being tied up in that region for a full generation.

It is not to say that the United States does not have an obligation to come to the aid of those that are being oppressed. Assisting in the removal of violent and dangerous dictators can be seen as a just cause and something that only the US has the ability to do. There is a role for the US to play in stopping the assault on Syrian citizens by the Assad regime. There is a role for the US in standing up for pro-democracy forces in the Middle East. There is absolutely a role for the US to play when large scale humanitarian crises are present from the horn of Africa to the Hindu Kush.
Unfortunately, as the riots aimed at the US by angry Afghan citizens prove, the blood and treasure spent by the United States in the Middle East may only be marginally effective. The problem, and the need to reprioritize, lay in the fact that while the State Department has been intensely focused on the Middle East, the problems of the Western Hemisphere have been largely ignored. While the moral obligation to aid the humanitarian crises in east Africa have been well documented, the humanitarian crisis of Haiti has fallen off of the radar since the immediate response after the earthquake. The UNDP Human Development Index, which ranks countries based on citizen education, life expectancy, and standard of living, consistently ranks Haiti in the bottom tier of nations along with Afghanistan and many African countries. At a time when government officials are talking of budget cuts and debt reduction, the need to have American aid dollars go towards meeting a need in a productive way is paramount. And unlike some other foreign policy investments, investments in Haiti appear to be productive according to USAID statistics which show a 6% growth in Haitian GDP in 2011. While the US government wrestles with how to effectively end the government assault on citizens in Syria, many in and out of government speak passionately about the obligation that the US has to aid in this blatant violation of human rights. Yet we rarely hear of the continued human rights abuses that occur on a daily basis just across the Florida Straits.

The governmental assault on the people of Cuba is well-hidden by Castros government. The principle is the same though. The people that oppose the government are assaulted and in many cases, taken away to be abused in a myriad of inhumane ways in Cuban prisons. The government that holds high the banner of defending human rights should be beating the drum every day and relentlessly calling for an end to human rights abuses in Cuba. Dissident bloggers and groups like the Ladies in White should know that they have the
attention of the US government and that the continued violation of human rights 90 miles from US shores is at least as important as human rights violations halfway around the world. While the inability to provide for citizen security in many areas of the world leads to the acute fear of a failed state, similar conditions in the Western Hemisphere very rarely receive mention. Over the last decade, the American public has grown weary of nation-building and would be very reluctant to support the rebuilding of a failed state. It would be wise to be proactive in ensuring that this does not happen, especially in the Americas. The most common cause of a failed state is when the government loses the ability to maintain order and protect the security of its citizens. While the US has been deploying assets to the Middle East over the last 10 years to help secure those populations, there has been a disturbing trend in

the Caribbean. The 2012 UNDP Caribbean Human Development Report cited that while most parts of the world show decreasing or stable homicide rates, the trend of violent crime in the Caribbean is increasing. Outside of war torn Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean is the most violent region in the world. A good percentage of the violence that takes place regionally is a result of drug cartel activity. Few other foreign policy issues present themselves on the streets of the United States on a daily basis in the same way that the inability of Latin American and Caribbean governments to effectively combat narcotics traffickers does. Drug consumption is linked to violence and poverty in American cities and drug trafficking is responsible for extreme violence and political instability in Latin America and the Caribbean. Yet, by way of financial assistance and directed attention, it appears that US foreign policy neglects to sincerely address these issues. The argument of whether or not the US has a moral obligation to help the vulnerable in the world is one that will continue to engage American politicians and policy makers for years to come.

If we assume however, that a moral obligation does exist, then the United States should not focus so intensely on humanitarian issues halfway around the world that they miss the moral obligations that exist right next door.

Human rights Oppression Extns.


Embargo fails nowsanctions dont promote human rights Amash 12-- Brandon Amash, Prospect Journal writer at UCSD (EVALUATING THE CUBAN EMBARGO,
Prospect Jounral of International Affairs at UCSD, 7/23/12, http://prospectjournal.org/2012/07/23/evaluating-thecuban-embargo/, Accessed 7/3/12, jtc)

The American embargo is not sufficient to democratize Cuba and improve human rights. Without the help and support of multilateral institutions, economic sanctions on Cuba have been ineffective.
As other states trade and interact freely with Cuba, the lack of partnership with America is only a minor hindrance to Cubas economy. Moreover, the sanctions are detrimental to the United States economy, as Cuba could potentially be a geostrategic economic partner. More importantly,

since economic sanctions are not directly related to the goal of improved human rights, the effect of these sanctions is also unrelated; continued economic sanctions against Cuba create no incentive for the Cuban government to promote better human rights, especially when the sanctions do not have international support.
Empirically, it is clear that since its inception, the policy has not succeeded in promoting democratization or improving human rights. Something more must be done in order to improve the situation.

Lifting the embargo solves Cuban human rights violations Perez 10 Louis A. Perez Jr. Professor of history and the director of the Institute for the Study of the Americas at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. (Want change in Cuba? End U.S. embargo, CNN, September 21 2010, http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/09/20/perez.cuba.embargo/index.html , Accessed: 7/3/13, EH)
In April 2009, the White House released a presidential memorandum declaring that democracy and human rights in Cuba were "national interests of the United States." Assistant Secretary of State Arturo Valenzuela repeated the message in May of this year to the Cuban-American National Foundation in Miami. The Obama administration, he said, wanted "to promote respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms ... in ways that will empower the Cuban people and advance our national interests." Fine words. But if the administration really wanted to do something in the national interest, it would end the 50year-old policy of political and economic isolation of Cuba. The Cuban embargo can no longer even pretend to be plausible. On the contrary, it has contributed to the very conditions that stifle democracy and human rights there . For 50 years, its brunt has fallen mainly on the Cuban people. This is not by accident. On the contrary, the embargo was designed to impose suffering and hunger on Cubans in the hope that they would rise up and overturn their government. "The only foreseeable means of alienating internal support," the Department of State insisted as early as April 1960, "is through disenchantment and disaffection based on economic dissatisfaction and hardship." The United States tightened the screws in the post-Soviet years with the Torricelli Act and the Helms-Burton Act -- measures designed, Sen. Robert Torricelli said, "to wreak havoc on that island." The post-Soviet years were indeed calamitous. Throughout the 1990s, Cubans faced growing scarcities, deteriorating services and increased rationing. Meeting the needs of ordinary life took extraordinary effort. And therein lies the problem that still bedevils U.S. policy today. Far from inspiring the Cuban people to revolution, the embargo keeps them down and distracted. Dire need and urgent want are hardly optimum circumstances for a people to contemplate the benefits of democracy. A people preoccupied with survival have little interest or inclination to bestir themselves in behalf of anything else. In Cuba, routine household errands and chores consume overwhelming amounts of time and energy, day after day: hours in lines at the local grocery store or waiting for public transportation. Cubans in vast numbers choose to emigrate. Others burrow deeper into the black market, struggling to make do and carry on. Many commit suicide. (Cuba has one of the highest suicide rates in the world; in 2000, the latest year for which we have statistics, it was 16.4 per 100,000 people.) A June 2008 survey in The New York Times reported that less than 10 percent of Cubans identified the lack of political freedom as the island's main problem. As one Cuban colleague recently suggested to me: "First necessities, later democracy." The United States should consider a change of policy, one that would offer Cubans relief from the all-consuming ordeal of daily life. Improved material circumstances would allow Cubans to turn their attention to other aspirations. Ending the embargo would also imply respect for the Cuban people , an acknowledgment that they have the vision and vitality to enact needed reforms, and that transition in Cuba, whatever form it may take, is wholly a Cuban affair.

A good-faith effort to engage Cuba, moreover, would counter the common perception there that the United States is a threat to its sovereignty. It would deny Cuban leaders the chance to use U.S. policy as pretext to limit public debate and stifle dissent -- all to the good of democracy and human rights.
And it would serve the national interest.

Cuba is a massive violator of human rights. Perales 2010 [ Jose Perales. Perales is a senior program associate at the Woodrow Wilson Center Latin American Program.
Christopher Sabatini is the senior director of policy at the Americas Society and Council of the Americas. The Woodrow Wilson Center is one of Washingtons most respected institutions of policy research and public dialogue. Created by an act of Congress in 1966, the Center is a living memorial to President Woodrow Wilson and his ideals of a more informed public policy community in Washington. It supports research on in- ternational policy issues; organizes conferences, seminars, and working groups; and offers resi- dential fellowships for scholars, journalists and policymakers. Center director Lee H. Hamilton is a widely respected former member of Congress who chaired the House International Relations Committee. The Latin American Program focu- ses attention on U.S.-Latin American relations and important issues in the region, including democratic governance, citizen security, peace processes, drug policy, decentralization, and economic development and equality. The United States and Cuba: Implications of an Economic Relationship WOODROW WILSON CENTER LATIN AMERICAN PROGRAM. http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/LAP_Cuba_Implications.pdf August 2010 Accessed: July 3, 2013. AK] Whether or not one agrees with the U.S. embargo against Cuba, what must be kept in mind is the fact that the embargo

is there for reasons of human rights, argued Christopher Sabatini, policy director at the Council of the Americas, and that has been how the embargo been defended. And in this we cant lose sight of the fact that Cubas record on human rights is abysmal. The regime currently has detained over 200 political prisoners, many of whom have been arrested for the vague charge of dangerousness. Cuba violates freedom of association, strictly limits freedom of expression, and systematically violates the core covenants of the International Labour Organization (ILO). When the debate strays from this
central issue of rights, Sabatini stated, we lose sight of the real issues facing Cuba and Cuban citizens today. For this reason, any and all changes to the U.S. embargo must first and foremost be geared toward strengthening the hand of the islands independent sectors. According to Sabatini, there is broad scope in the United States for the executive to make regulatory changes that can give U.S. businesses and institutional actors greater scope to begin developing closer relations inside Cuba.This is important because any change to the status quo in bilateral economic relations will start with the executives authority over the embargos regulations. Indeed, a quick perusal of past efforts at dismantling U.S. embargoesin particular, against Vietnamreveals that terminating an embargo has never been the result of a straight up-or-down congressional vote. Instead, this has been the result of slight, incremental regulatory changes that have served to allow independent actors to develop their own contacts with counterparts on the island and empower people. These made the incentives for change easier to recognize, built an active, vested coalition supporting broader change, and made dismantling more palatable to political audiences.

Human rights Solvency Extns.


Lifting the embargo solves Cuban human rights violations Perez 10 Louis A. Perez Jr. Professor of history and the director of the Institute for the Study of the Americas at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. (Want change in Cuba? End U.S. embargo, CNN, September 21 2010, http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/09/20/perez.cuba.embargo/index.html , Accessed: 7/3/13, EH)
In April 2009, the White House released a presidential memorandum declaring that democracy and human rights in Cuba were "national interests of the United States." Assistant Secretary of State Arturo Valenzuela repeated the message in May of this year to the Cuban-American National Foundation in Miami. The Obama administration, he said, wanted "to promote respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms ... in ways that will empower the Cuban people and advance our national interests." Fine words. But if

the administration really wanted to do something in the national interest, it would end the 50-year-old policy of political and economic isolation of Cuba. The Cuban embargo can no longer even pretend to be plausible. On the contrary, it has contributed to the very conditions that stifle democracy and human rights there.
For 50 years, its brunt has fallen mainly on the Cuban people. This is not by accident. On the contrary, the embargo was designed to impose suffering and hunger on Cubans in the hope that they would rise up and overturn their government. "The only foreseeable means of alienating internal support," the Department of State insisted as early as April 1960, "is through disenchantment and disaffection based on economic dissatisfaction and hardship." The United States tightened the screws in the post-Soviet years with the Torricelli Act and the Helms-Burton Act -- measures designed, Sen. Robert Torricelli said, "to wreak havoc on that island." The post-Soviet years were indeed calamitous. Throughout the 1990s, Cubans faced growing scarcities, deteriorating services and increased rationing. Meeting the needs of ordinary life took extraordinary effort. And therein lies the problem that still bedevils U.S. policy today. Far from inspiring the Cuban people to revolution, the embargo keeps them down and distracted. Dire need and urgent want are hardly optimum circumstances for a people to contemplate the benefits of democracy. A people preoccupied with survival have little interest or inclination to bestir themselves in behalf of anything else. In Cuba, routine household errands and chores consume overwhelming amounts of time and energy, day after day: hours in lines at the local grocery store or waiting for public transportation. Cubans in vast numbers choose to emigrate. Others burrow deeper into the black market, struggling to make do and carry on. Many commit suicide. (Cuba has one of the highest suicide rates in the world; in 2000, the latest year for which we have statistics, it was 16.4 per 100,000 people.) A June 2008 survey in The New York Times reported that less than 10 percent of Cubans identified the lack of political freedom as the island's main problem. As one Cuban colleague recently suggested to me: "First necessities, later democracy." The United States should consider a change of policy, one that would offer Cubans relief from the all-consuming ordeal of daily life. Improved material circumstances would allow Cubans to turn their attention to other aspirations.

Ending the embargo would also imply respect for the Cuban people, an acknowledgment that they have the
vision and vitality to enact needed reforms, and that transition in Cuba, whatever form it may take, is wholly a Cuban affair.

A good-faith effort to engage Cuba, moreover, would counter the common perception there that the United States is a threat to its sovereignty. It would deny Cuban leaders the chance to use U.S. policy as pretext to limit public debate and stifle dissent -- all to the good of democracy and human rights.
And it would serve the national interest.

Lifting tourism ban supports human rights Schlesinger 09-- Robert Schlesinger, managing editor for opinion at U.S. News and World Report, author of
"White House Ghosts: Presidents and Their Speechwriters." (It's Time to End the Cuba Travel Ban (the Embargo Too), U.S. News, 4/1/2009, http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2009/04/01/its-time-to-endthe-cuba-travel-ban-the-embargo-too, Accessed 7/3/13, jtc)
To be clear: The trade embargo would still be in place, but tourism would be good to go. So a company couldn't do business in Cuba, but any of us could fly down there and flood the place with dollars. It's a start, and I'll take it. Speaking of floods of dollars, the L.A. Times cites a

2002 study that estimates lifting the travel ban would produced between $1.2 billion and $1.6 billion annually and create as many as 23,000 new jobs. I'll take that too. Of course, much like their nemesis, the anti-Castro hard-liners in Congress hold

on: Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) strongly opposes the measure. He warned that flooding Cuba with tourists and dollars would only sustain the Castro regime. ... Martinez accused the Chamber of Commerce and business interests of seeking profits at the expense of freedom and democracy. "They are not acting from a moral standpoint," he said. "They are simply acting from an economic advantage standpoint." Three points here: The

embargo does more to help the Castro regime than hurt it, by giving the Cuban government a standing excuse for whatever troubles the country has and an enemy against which to rally their citizens. Second, since Senator Martinez is so concerned about morality of international trade, I assume that he plans to introduce legislation imposing a similar trade and travel embargo on China, right? Third, speaking of oppressive governments, Kevin Drum makes a great point about the travel ban: The trade embargo against Cuba has long outlived whatever usefulness it might have had. It accomplishes nothing and has turned us into an international joke. Still, it's well within the bounds of normal international relations. I don't like it,
but it's not fundamentally antidemocratic or an assault on basic freedoms. The travel ban has always been in a separate class. Autocracies and dictatorships control the movements of their subjects, but free America, not North Korea.

citizens of a liberal democracy should be able to travel wherever they want. So whatever happens with the trade embargo, removing the travel ban should be a no-brainer. This is

US Should lift embargo to improve Cuban human rights Amash 12-- Brandon Amash, Prospect Journal writer at UCSD (EVALUATING THE CUBAN EMBARGO,
Prospect Jounral of International Affairs at UCSD, 7/23/12, http://prospectjournal.org/2012/07/23/evaluating-thecuban-embargo/, Accessed 7/3/12, jtc) Although Americas previous policies of intervention, use of force and economic sanctions have all failed at achieving democratization in Cuba, not all options have been exhausted. One policy alternative for promoting democracy and human rights in Cuba that the United States has not attempted is the exact opposite of the approach it has taken for the past half century. Namely, the United States should

lift the embargo on Cuba and reopen diplomatic relations in order to work internationally on improving human rights in Cuba. Unless Cuba, as a rogue state, is isolated internationally, rather than merely
by the United States, the human rights situation in Cuba may never improve. A fresh policy of engagement towards Cuba has been delayed long enough.

Improved relations leads to international promotion of human rights in Cuba Amash 12-- Brandon Amash, Prospect Journal writer at UCSD (EVALUATING THE CUBAN EMBARGO,
Prospect Jounral of International Affairs at UCSD, 7/23/12, http://prospectjournal.org/2012/07/23/evaluating-thecuban-embargo/, Accessed 7/3/12, jtc)

With diplomatic relations in place, the United States may directly promote human rights in the country through negotiations, conferences, arbitration and mediation. Providing the support, resources, and infrastructure to promote democratic systems in Cuba could produce immense improvements to the human rights situation in the nation. Normalizing diplomatic relations with the state will also allow America to truly support freedom of opinion and expression in Cuba, which it cannot currently promote under the isolationist policy. Furthermore, through diplomatic relations and friendly support, Cuba will be more willing to participate in the international system, as well as directly with the United States, as an ally. As the United States, along with the international community as a whole, helps and supports Cubas economic growth, Cuban society will eventually push for greater protection of human rights.

Lifting travel restrictions is key to more human rights Sullivan 3/29 --- Mark P. Sullivan, Specialist in Latin American Affairs for the Congressional Research Office (Cuba: U.S. Policy and Issues for the 113th Congress, March 29, 2013, FAS, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R43024.pdf, accessed July 3, 2013, MY) A U.S. State Department spokesman said that it welcomes any changes that would allow Cubans to depart from and return to their country freely. According to the State Department, Cubas announced change is consistent with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in that everyone should have the rights to leave any country, including their own, and return.86 At the same time, however,
Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Roberta Jacobson cautioned that it is uncertain yet how the changes are to be implemented. She raised questions regarding whether Cuba would impose some controls on p assports and whether everyone would be free to travel.87 As noted above, Internet blogger Yoani Snchez, who had been denied an exit permit for several years, received a n ew passport under the new policy and in February 2013 began a multi-nation trip that brought her to the United States in mid-March 2013. A number of dissidents,

In light of Cubas new travel policy, some analysts have raised the question as to whether the United States should review its policy toward Cuban migrants, as set forth in the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966 (P.L. 89-732), in which those Cubans arriving in the United States are allowed to apply for permanent resident status in one
however, including those political prisoners who have been released on parole, have been restricted from traveling abroad. year.88

US trade restrictions are halting political and economic revolution HelmsBurtan feeds Cuban fascism and repression Bilbao 13 Tomas Bilbao(Executive Director of the Cuba Study Group. Prior to joining the CSG, Mr. Bilbao served as Director of Transition
for Senator-elect Mel Martinez and Director of Operations for Mel Martinez for U.S. Senate),Restoring Executive Authority Over U.S. Poli cy Toward Cuba,cubastudrygroup.org,2/13,http://www.cubastudygroup.org/index.cfm/files/se rve?File_id=7f2193cf-d2ef-45c8-91de-0b1f88d30059

Helms-Burton has failed to advance the cause of freedom and prosperity for the Cuban people. This is not
surprising, since never in modern history has there been a democratic transition in a country under a unilateral sanctions framework
as broad and severe as the one codified in Helms-Burton. Its

blanket sanctions lack ethical or moral consideration since they indiscriminately impact all levels of Cuban society, from senior Cuban officials to democracy advocates and private entrepreneurs. While it is no secret that Cuban government policies are primarily to blame for the Islands economic crisis, their impact has only been exacerbated and made disproportionately greater among the most vulnerable segments of the population by the blanket sanctions codified under Helms-Burton. In addition, these sanctions deny Cuba access to the international financial institutions it would need to implement the type of macroeconomic reforms that U.S. policy has sought for more than 50 years. Helms-Burton preconditions the lifting of its blanket sanctions on sweeping political change in Cuba. In practice, this waiting game has strengthened the relative power of the Cuban government vis--vis the Cuban people while simultaneously giving the former a convenient scapegoat for its oppressive practices and economic
blunders. Cuban blogger and democracy advocate Yoani Sanchez best illustrated the impact of the waiting game enabled by Helms-Burton

five decade prolongation of the blockade [as the embargo is referred to in Cuba] has allowed every setback weve suffered to be explained as stemming from it, justified by its effects...To make matters worse, the economic fence has helped to fuel the idea of a place besieged, where dissent comes to be equated with an act of treason. The exterior blockade has strengthened the interior blockade.ix Former political prisoner and independent economist Oscar Espinosa Chepe agrees,
when she wrote: The writing that Helms-Burtons blanket sanctions have only served to give the Cuban government an alibi to declare Cuba a fortress under siege, to justify repression and to (pass) the blame for the economic disaster in Cuba.x Conditioning

our policy of resource denial on sweeping political reforms strengthens the Cuban state because the scarce resources available in an authoritarian Cuba have been and will continue to be allocated primarily based on political priorities, thereby increasing the states relative power and its ability to control its citizens. History has
shown that the negative effects of such isolation can be long lasting and counterproductive to change. During the Cold War, U.S. policy toward Eastern Europe was not based on isolation or resource denial. Indeed, an analysis of these transitions reveals an extraordinary correlation between the degree of openness toward former communist countries and the success of their transitions to democracies and market

economies.xi In recent years, ongoing political and economic reforms in Burma suggest that U.S. policy toward this Asian country could offer a viable model for the United States to follow in its policy approach toward Cuba. Since their enactment in 1990, Burma sanctions have allowed for unrestricted travel by U.S. citizens and travel-related financial services.xii Burma sanctions have also allowed for the export of most U.S. goods and services and offer broad discretion to the President on which Burmese products it allows to be imported into the United States. The broad political reforms taking place in Burma today offer a sharp contrast to the narrow reforms that have taken place in Cuba during the same period and underscore the ineffectiveness of blanket unilateral sanctions.

Human rights - Poverty Impact


Embargo promotes poverty in Cuba gives Castro more power Henderson 08 David Henderson, research fellow at Stanford Universitys Hoover Institution and is also
associate professor of economics at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California (End the Cuban Embargo, AntiWar, 2/21/08, http://antiwar.com/henderson/?articleid=12395, accessed: 7/4/13, ckr) Which brings us to the second argument for the embargo, which seems to go as follows.

By squeezing the Cuban economy enough, the U.S. government can make Cubans even poorer than Fidel Castro has managed to over the past 48 years, through his imposition of Stalin-style socialism.
Ultimately, the theory goes, some desperate Cubans will rise up and overthrow Castro. There are at least three problems with this "make the victims hurt more" strategy. First, it's

profoundly immoral. It could succeed only by making average Cubans already living in grinding poverty even poorer. Most of them are completely innocent and, indeed, many of them already want to get rid of Castro. And consider the irony: A defining feature of socialism is the prohibition of voluntary exchange between people. Proembargo Americans typically want to get rid of socialism in Cuba. Yet their solution prohibiting trade with Americans is the very essence of socialism.
The second problem is more practical: It hasn't worked. To be effective, an embargo must prevent people in the target country from getting goods, or at least substantially increase the cost of getting goods. But competition is a hardy weed that shrugs off governmental attempts to suppress it. Companies in many countries, especially Canada, produce and sell goods that are close substitutes for the U.S. goods that can't be sold to Cuba. Wander around Cuba, and you're likely to see beach umbrellas advertising Labatt's beer, McCain's (no relation) French fries, and President's Choice cola. Moreover, even U.S. goods for which there are no close substitutes are often sold to buyers in other countries, who then resell to Cuba. A layer of otherwise unnecessary middlemen is added, pushing up prices somewhat, but the price increase is probably small for most goods.

Some observers have argued that the very fact that the embargo does little harm means that it should be kept because it's a cheap way for U.S. politicians to express moral outrage against Castro. But arguing for a policy on the grounds that it's ineffective should make people question the policy's wisdom. Third, the policy is politically effective, but not in the way the embargo's proponents would wish. The embargo surely makes Cubans somewhat more anti-American than they would be otherwise, and it makes them somewhat more in favor of or at least less against Castro. Castro has never talked honestly about the embargo: he has always called it a blockade, which it manifestly is not. But he has gotten political mileage by blaming the embargo, rather than socialism, for Cuba's awful economic plight and reminds his subjects ceaselessly that the U.S. government is the instigator.
Some Cubans probably believe him.

Embargo increases poverty in Cuba Trani 6/23 Eugene Trani, University Distinguished Professor at Virginia Commonwealth University (End the
embargo on Cuba, Times Dispatch, 6/23/13, http://www.timesdispatch.com/opinion/their-opinion/columnistsblogs/guest-columnists/end-the-embargo-on-cuba/article_ba3e522f-8861-5f3c-bee9-000dffff8ce7.html, accessed: 7/4/13, ckr) My own trip to Cuba reinforced the call for such actions. We spent four days visiting with many different kinds of groups in Havana, community projects, senior citizens, a health clinic, youth programs, artist and recording facilities, musical ensembles, historic sites such as Revolution Square and the Ernest Hemingway house and an environmental training facility, and not once did we hear anger toward the United States or the American people.

What we heard was puzzlement about the embargo and strong feelings that it was hurting the people of Cuba. In fact, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the absolute poverty rate has increased significantly in Cuba. It was also evident that there is visible decline in major infrastructure areas such as housing. Today, there seem to be both humanitarian and economic factors, particularly with the significant growth of the non-governmental section of the economy that could factor in a change in American policy. There is also a major diplomatic factor in that no other major country, including our allies,
follows our policy.

What a positive statement for American foreign policy in Latin America and throughout the world it would be for the United States to end its embargo and establish normal diplomatic relations with Cuba. We would be taking both a humanitarian course of action and making a smart diplomatic gesture. The time is right and all our policy makers need is courage to bring about this
change.

Embargo toll high affects Cuban citizens and US trade Brown 3/16 Jamila Brown, Social entrepreneur, political commentator, and freelance writer skilled in international relations as it relates to human rights, development, community empowerment, corporate social responsibility, and government accountability. Specializes in congressional lobbying, grant and proposal writing and development, translation services, conflict mediation, public relations, international trade and development, risk assessment analysis, and corporate social responsibility. (El Momento Es Ahora End The Cuban Embargo, The Village, April 16, 2013, http://www.cbcfinc.org/thevillage/?p=297, accessed: 7/4/13, LR) Even Cubans in opposition to the communist government, among them dissident blogger Yoani Snchez, support an end to the U.S. embargo against Cuba saying the embargo is anti-Cuban and not antiCastro.
When I traveled to Cuba in 2010 with the US Women and Cuba Collaboration to meet with Afro-Cuban women to discuss gender and racial equality, signs of the embargo were evident even before arriving at our destination. CubanAmerican families brought with them an abundance of gifts for their relatives mainly clothing and household items many of us take for granted. On the island itself universal healthcare is juxtaposed by the lack of access to high-quality medical equipment and medicines (most of which carry U.S. patents and therefore are prohibited) and the benefit of free education comes at a cost of limited school supplies. American policy is not only aberrant in comparison to the rest of the world that regularly trades with Cuba, but it highlights the stark contradictions in U.S. foreign policy. As Jay-Z rhymed, the United States has normalized, albeit at times contentious, relations with communist China. Moreover, its vow to penalize Cuba for its humanitarian record brings into question its relationship with other noted oppressive regimes such as Saudi Arabia and Bahrain whom the American government counts as close allies. After five decades the US-Cuban embargo has only succeeded in pushing residents of the island deeper into poverty and with American economic constraints unable to sway Cuban political will, it is time for a new approach to Cuba. While visiting a school in Matanzas, Cuba that trains students to become art, music, and dance teachers in efforts to preserve Cuban culture, I was struck by the talent of this singer and composer who performed his song El Momento Es Ahora (The Moment Is Now). Indeed it is.

Poverty causes nuclear war. Caldwell 2000 - Joseph George Caldwell, PhD (Statistics) Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology (On Human Population, Global Nuclear War and the Survival of Planet Earth, Foundation Website 10/26/00, http://www.foundationwebsite.org/arti1000.htm Accessed 7/10/13 AT) It would appear that global nuclear war will happen very soon, for two main reasons, alluded to above. First, human poverty and misery are increasing at an incredible rate. There are now three billion more desperately poor people on the planet than there were just forty years ago. Despite decades of industrial development, the number of wretchedly poor people continues to soar. The pressure for war mounts as the population explodes. Second, war is motivated by resource scarcity -- the desire of one group to acquire the land, water, energy, or other resources possessed by another. With each passing year, crowding and misery increase, raising the motivation for war to higher levels. Poverty kills millions and outweighs nuclear war Abu-Jamal 98 Mumia Abu-Jamal, prominent social activist and author, quotes James Gilligan, American psychiatrist and author, director of mental health for the Massachusetts prison system, President of the International Association for Forensic Psychotherapy. (A Quiet and Deadly Violence, Al-Ahram Online Sept 19 1998, http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/1998/400/in5.htm Accessed 7/10/13 AT) We live, equally immersed, and to a deeper degree, in a nation that condones and ignores wide-ranging "structural' violence, of a kind that destroys human life with a breathtaking ruthlessness. Former Massachusetts prison official and writer, Dr. James Gilligan observes; By
"structural violence" I mean the increased rates of death and disability suffered by those who occupy [at] the bottom rungs of society, as contrasted by those who are above them. Those excess deaths (or at least a demonstrably large proportion of them) are a function of the class structure; and that structure is itself a product of society's collective human choices, concerning how to distribute the collective wealth of the society. These are not acts of God. I am contrasting "structural" with "behavioral violence" by which I mean the non-natural deaths and injuries that are caused by specific behavioral actions of individuals against individuals, such as the deaths we attribute to homicide, suicide, soldiers in

This form of violence, not covered by any of the majoritarian, corporate, ruling-class protected media, is invisible to us and because of its invisibility, all the more insidious. How dangerous is it--really? Gilligan notes: [E]very fifteen years, on the average, as many people die because of relative poverty as would be killed in a nuclear war that caused 232 million deaths; and every single year, two to three times as many people die from poverty throughout the world as were killed by the Nazi genocide of the Jews over a six-year period. This is, in effect, the equivalent of an ongoing, unending, in fact accelerating, thermo nuclear war, or genocide on the weak and poor every year of every decade, throughout the world.
warfare, capital punishment, and so on. --(Gilligan, J., MD, Violence: Reflections On a National Epidemic (New York: Vintage, 1996), 192.)

Human rights - Trade Solves


Privatization creates competitive labor markets that solves government exploitation Seiglie 01 Carlos Seiglie - Associate Professor of Economics at Rutgers University,(Cubas Road to
Serfdom,cato.org,winter/2001,http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/2001/1/cj20n3-6.pdf,Accessed:7/3/13,JW)

Creating a free labor market in Cuba would benefit Cuban workers by increasing their real wages and increasing the number of jobs . The net gain to society from this change in policy would be quite large. As the
government permited workers to deal directly with foreign firms, the equilibrium wage and the level of employment would rise, which would increase production. The net gain to society is measured by the difference between this increase in output and the opportunity cost of the incremental workers hired (see Harberger 1971). Stated differently, the

Cuban governments current policy of not permitting Cuban workers to deal directly with foreign firms imposes a deadweight loss on society. The size of the deadweight loss can be estimated as follows. Suppose that the average monthly wage received by the Cuban
government per worker employed in joint ventures is $500.00 as reported. At the current exchange rate, the average Cuban worker receives approximately $14.00 a month of this from the state. The most conservative estimate is that 75,000 workers are employed in joint enterprises. Furthermore, suppose the uncompensated wage elasticity of hours worked (elasticity of labor supply) is 0.5. Then, assuming the supply and demand for labor are linear, the

loss in production is $16 million dollars a month or $192 million dollars a year below where it would be if the government permitted a competitive labor market to exist that resulted in Cuban wages rising to $50 a month or to a $600 annual salary. The deadweight loss to society is
$170 million dollars a year. If competitive labor market conditions raised average Cuban wages to $100 a month or to a $1,200 annual salary, the estimates

for the loss in production from failing to enact this policy rises to $27.5 million a month or $331 million dollars annually. This amount is twice the annual amount invested in Cuba by foreigners over the last decade. The social welfare losses from continuing the current policy would be $268 million dollars annually. These estimates rise dramatically if we assume that the wage elasticity of hours
worked is higher than 0.5. It is clear that Cuba is paying a high price for regressing to serfdom. Yet, as large as this cost may be, it is only a fraction of the total cost that the governments policy imposes on society. The reason is that for

the state to remain a monopsonist in the labor market and, therefore, to continue to extract the rents granted by having this privileged position, it has been essential for the state to deny Cubans the right to freedom of contract in the labor market and the right to own private property. If the government enacted the economically sound policy of massive privatization, labor markets would become competitive. The governments monopsony
power would break down since each worker would have the option of either working at the governments lower wageseeking individually or collectively to buy out some state-owned firm and become the recipient of the residual incomeor instead work for some other domestic private firm that offers them higher compensation, possibly in the form of an equity stake in the enterprise. The

power of the Cuban government to exploit the workers would therefore be eliminated. Finally, it should be pointed out that since the
current policy reduces the level of employment, the marginal productivity of capital and return to capital (net of risk) is currently lower in Cuba than it would be if the Castro government initiated the appropriate reforms. Cuba

cannot develop economically if it continues to permit only foreigners, and not its citizens, to own private property. Granting workers the right to own property will result in an increase in saving and development of the capital markets. Equally, reforming the capital markets so that all Cubans may borrow and lend will lead to the development of small businesses which are so essential in achieving a high level of development.

Empirics prove- trade helps human rights Farrell 09- Chris Farrell, graduate of Stanford and the London School of Economics and economics editor of Marketplace Money, (Benefits of lifting the Cuban embargo, 4/16/09, https://www.marketplace.org/topics/world/benefits-lifting-cuban-embargo, 7/3/13, CAS)

Farrell: I think the real lesson that you take from this is that trade is

revolutionary, commerce is revolutionary. And trade is not just money and entrepreneurial opportunities. It also means exposing an economy to different ideas, and ideas that are an anathema to a bureaucracy that is in power. And we have a very good counter-example. Remember in the 1990's, the Clinton administration came under a lot of pressure to set up trade embargoes with China because a lot of the human rights violations. And I'm
not minimizing, by the way -- I am not minimizing human rights violations in China, I am not minimizing human rights violations in Cuba. But the administration continued the trade with China, and it was the right move -- China is now more integrated into the global economy, there's a lot more information in that economy, it's moving in the right direction. And so that's what I want to see trade with Cuba. I think that's the real lesson to take here.

Human rights - Turns Foreign Policy


US International Human Rights policy key to success of foreign policy Moravcsik 02-- Andrew Moravcsik, Professor of Politics and director of the European Union Program at
Princeton University (Why Is U.S. Human Rights Policy So Unilateralist? in Multilateralism and U.S. Foreign Policy: Ambivalent Engagement edited by Stewart Patrick and Shepard Forman, Lynne Rienner Publishers, http://books.google.com/books?id=z_w3DkdSdhsC&pg=PA345&lpg=PA345&dq=Why+Is+U.S.+Human+Rights+ Policy+So+Unilateralist?+Andrew+Moravcsik&source=bl&ots=sgoPuAs4XW&sig=mIsfmf9uJ0E_FS346bhWUr14 PUo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=dm3dUZiJA8fe4AONk4CIAQ&ved=0CEcQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Why%20Is%20U.S. %20Human%20Rights%20Policy%20So%20Unilateralist%3F%20Andrew%20Moravcsik&f=false, Print, accessed 7/10/13, jtc) One common argument for multilateral commitments is that human rights ideology is required to legitimate U.S. foreign policy, in particular, U.S. in- ternational human rights policy. The idea underlying such arguments is that full adherence to multilateral treaties is in the national interest.59 The international promotion of human rights, we often read, expresses core U.S. values; indeed, public opinion demands it.60 This tendency is in- dependent of partisan attachment. Patrick Anderson, Carters chief speech- writer during the 1976 campaign, observed that liberals liked human rights because it involved political freedom and getting liberals out of jail in dic- tatorships, and conservatives liked it because it involved criticisms of Rus- sia.al Hence advocates of a human rights policy, liberal and conservative, tend to agree, in the words of Jeanne Kirkpatrick (a trenchant critic of Jimmy Carters human rights policy), not only that human rights [should] play a central role in U.S. foreign policy, but also that no U.S. foreign policy can possibly succeed that does not accord them a central role.62 The Reagan administration, which began with outright opposition to any human rights policy, except that aimed at the Soviet Union, ended up adopting many human rights policies and exploiting human rights rhetoric.63

Human rights - Turns Democracy


International Human rights enforcement strengthens democracy Moravcsik 02-- Andrew Moravcsik, Professor of Politics and director of the European Union Program at
Princeton University (Why Is U.S. Human Rights Policy So Unilateralist? in Multilateralism and U.S. Foreign Policy: Ambivalent Engagement edited by Stewart Patrick and Shepard Forman, Lynne Rienner Publishers, http://books.google.com/books?id=z_w3DkdSdhsC&pg=PA345&lpg=PA345&dq=Why+Is+U.S.+Human+Rights+ Policy+So+Unilateralist?+Andrew+Moravcsik&source=bl&ots=sgoPuAs4XW&sig=mIsfmf9uJ0E_FS346bhWUr14 PUo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=dm3dUZiJA8fe4AONk4CIAQ&ved=0CEcQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Why%20Is%20U.S. %20Human%20Rights%20Policy%20So%20Unilateralist%3F%20Andrew%20Moravcsik&f=false, Print, accessed 7/10/13, jtc) A second factor contributing to U.S. ambivalence toward multilateral human rights commitments is the exceptional stability of democratic governance inside its borders. This assertion may seem puzzling at first glance. It is widely believed that well-established democracies are the strongest supporters of inter national human rights enforcement. Most interpretations of international human rights regimes stress the spread of democratic ideas outward from liberal societies through the actions of NGOs and public opinion, as well as the direct exercise of state power by established democracies.ts In the broad sweep of history, to be sure, enforcement of human rights is closely linked to the spread of liberal democracy. Publics and politicians in established democracies have long encouraged and assisted democracy abroad, and even fought bitter wars to uphold that very institution, both for idealistic reasons and because they tend to view democracycorrectly so, it now ap- pears-as integrally linked to world peace.17 Yet the relationship between stable democratic governance and intemational human rights regimes is more ambivalent than this simple account sug- gests. Established democracies are often skeptical of effective enforcement of Why Is U.S. Human Rights Policy So Unilateralist? 351 international human rights norms. This underlying ambivalence, I have argued elsewhere, was particularly evident at the founding moment of the major postwar international human rights regimes under the European Con- vention on Human Rights, the American Convention on Human Rights, and the UN system. In each case, the most stable and established democracies consistently opposed

effective enforcement of international norms, a posi- tion that led them into alliances with their most repressive neighbors.

Human rights - Spreads US Interests


US Human Rights leadership spreads US interests Griffey 11 Brian Griffey, human rights researcher and communications specialist, who has worked for the
United Nations, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International USA and as an investigative journalist [U.S. leadership on human rights essential to strengthen democracy abroad, The Hill, 3/18/11, http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/150667-us-leadership-on-human-rights-essential-tostrengthen-democracy-abroad, accessed: 7/10/13, JK]

U.S. leadership on human rights offers clear opportunities to advance not only international peace and security a fundamental purpose of the U.N. but also conjoined US political and economic interests at home and abroad. The U.S. is presently demonstrating exactly how crucial such involvement is as an elected member of the Human Rights Council, participating in vital negotiations on how best to
Nonetheless, mitigate widespread abuses responding to ongoing unrest in the Middle East and North Africa, including by strategic US allies in global security and trade. As

, joining the Council has proven to be a good decision, because weve been able to influence a number of actions that we otherwise would have been on the outside looking in. In its first submission to the body, the U.S. likewise recognized that
Secretary Clinton expressed en route to Geneva to participate in recent talks on human rights violations in Libya participation in the Councils peer-review system allows the U.S. not only to lead by example and encourage others to strengthen their commitments to human

By leading international discourse on human rights, the U.S. will be in a better position both to advance observation of human rights abroad, and to take on new treaty commitments that demonstrate adherence of our own system to the vaulting principles we identify with our democracy. While the U.S. is party to more than 12,000 treaties, it has dodged most human rights
rights, but also to address domestic human rights shortcomings. treaties drafted since World War II through the U.N., and has ratified only a dozen. Upon transmission of four core human rights treaties to the Senate in 1978, President Carter observed: Our failure to become a party increasingly reflects upon our attainments, and prejudices United States participation in the development of the international law of human rights. The Senate ratified two of those treaties 15 years later. The others con tinue to languish in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, still awaiting ratification after 32 years. It likewise took the Senate almost 40 years to approve a treaty punishing genocide, after signing it in 1948 following the Holocaust. Other human rights treaties U.S. presidents have signed but the Senate has yet to agree to include U.N. conventions protecting the rights of women, children, and persons with disabilities. The U.S. is the only nation in the world that hasnt ratified the Conventi on on the Rights of the Child, with the

As we watch the contours and nature of power being reshaped in the Middle East and North Africa, the U.S. must have a singular message on human rights both at home and abroad: Human rights go hand-in-hand with a healthy democracy, and demand a concerted and collective effort to be upheld, especially in times of crisis. Greater U.S. participation in U.N. human rights treaties would ensure that the country has not only a seat at the table, but also an authoritative voice on matters vital to advancing democracy abroad, and our national security. A welcome consequence would be a more prominent place for the human rights lens in our vision of U.S. democracy and perhaps a stronger resolve to ameliorate the plights of those least well off in our own society.
exception of war-torn Somalia, which lacks a functioning government and control over much of its territory.

US-Cuba Relations 1AC


Embargo and terror list kill US-Cuba cooperation Haven, Armario, and Lee 6/21- PAUL HAVEN, Christine Armario, and Matthew Lee, Paul Have: the Associated Press
bureau chief in Havana, Cuba , Christine Armario: Education-Reporter, Associated Press, Mathew Lee: Education-Reporter, Associated Press, (US haltingly move to thaw? Associated Press, Published: Friday, June 21, 2013 at 9:30 a.m, http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20130621/WIRE/130629941/2055/NEWS?p=4&tc=pg, Accessed: 6/28/13 MC) They've hardly become allies, but Cuba and the U.S. have taken some baby steps toward rapprochement in recent weeks that have people on this island and in Washington wondering if a breakthrough in relations could be just over the horizon.

Skeptics caution that the Cold War enemies have been here many times before, only to fall back into old recriminations. But there are signs that views might be shifting on both sides of the Florida Straits. In the past week, the two countries have held talks on resuming direct mail service, and announced a July 17 sit-down on migration issues. In May, a U.S. federal judge allowed a convicted Cuban intelligence agent to return to the
island. This month, Cuba informed the family of jailed U.S. government subcontractor Alan Gross that it would let an American doctor examine him, though the visit has apparently not yet

Raul Castro has also ushered in a series of economic and social changes, including making it easier for Cubans to travel off the island. Under the radar, diplomats on both sides describe a sea change in the tone of their dealings. Only last year, Cuban state television was broadcasting grainy footage of American diplomats meeting with dissidents on Havana streets and publically accusing them of being CIA front-men. Today, U.S. diplomats in Havana and Cuban Foreign Ministry officials have easy contact, even sharing home phone numbers. Josefina Vidal, Cuba's top diplomat for North American affairs, recently traveled to Washington and met twice with State Department officials a visit that came right before the announcements of resumptions in the two sets of bilateral talks that had been suspended for more than two
happened. President

years. Washington has also granted visas to prominent Cuban officials, including the daughter of Cuba's president. "These recent steps indicate

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

Among the things that have changed, John Kerry has taken over as U.S. secretary of state after being an outspoken critic of Washington's policy on Cuba while in the Senate. President Barack Obama no longer has re-election concerns while dealing with the Cuban-American electorate in Florida,
where there are also indications of a warming attitude to negotiating with Cuba.

Castro, meanwhile, is striving to overhaul the island's Marxist economy with a dose of limited free-market capitalism and may feel a need for more open relations with the U.S. While direct American investment is still barred on the island, a rise in visits and money transfers by CubanAmericans since Obama relaxed restrictions has been a boon for Cuba's cash-starved economy.
Under the table, Cuban-Americans are also helping relatives on the island start private businesses and refurbish homes bought under Castro's limited free-market reforms. Several prominent dissidents. Likewise, a

Cuban dissidents have been allowed to travel recently due to Castro's changes. The trips have been applauded by Washington, and also may have lessened Havana's worries about the threat posed by U.S. federal judge's decision to allow Cuban spy Rene Gonzalez to return home was met with only muted criticism inside the United States, perhaps emboldening U.S. diplomats to seek further openings with Cuba. To be sure, there is still far more that separates the long-time antagonists than unites them. The State Department has kept Cuba on a list of state sponsors of terrorism and another that calls into question Havana's commitment to fighting human trafficking. The Obama administration continues to
demand democratic change on an island ruled for more than a half century by Castro and his brother Fidel.

For its part, Cuba continues to denounce Washington's 51-year-old economic embargo. Now key to US-Cuban rapprochement Castros efforts to improve econ and support from Cuban-Americans Padgett 7/3 - Tim Padgett, Bureau Chief of Mexico for Newsweek and of Latin America for Time (Why This
Summer Offers Hope For Better U.S.-Cuba Relations WLRN Miami Herald News, 7/3/13, http://wlrn.org/post/why-summer-offers-hope-better-us-cuba-relations, Accessed 7/4/13, AM) And yet, despite all that recent cold-war commotion, could this finally be the summer of love on the Florida Straits? Last month the Obama Administration and the Castro dictatorship started talks on re-establishing direct mail service; this month theyll discuss immigration guidelines. Diplomats on both sides report a more cooperative groove. New Diplomacy So what happened thats suddenly making it possible for the two governments to start some substantive diplomatic outreach for the first time in years? First, Castro finished crunching the numbers on Cubas threadbare economy, and the results scared him more than one of Yoani Snchezs dissident blog posts. To wit, the islands finances are held up by little more than European tourists and oil charity from socialist Venezuela. Hes adopted limited capitalist reforms as the remedy, and to make them work he has to loosen the repressive screws a turn or two. That finally includes letting Cubans travel freely abroad, which gives them better opportunities to bring back investment capital. As a result, says Carlos Saladrigas, a Cuban-American business leader in Miami and chairman of the Washington-based Cuba Study Group, The timing is right for some U.S.-

Cuban rapprochement. Cuba is clearly in a transitionary mode, says Saladrigas. They need to change to reinsert themselves in
the global order, they need to become more normal in their relations with other nations. Changing Attitudes Second, although the White House is still intimidated by the Cuban exile lobby, its had its own numbers to ponder -- namely, poll results from South Floridas Cuban-American community. Over the past five years, surveys have consistently shown that Cuban-Americans, especially the more

moderate younger generation and more recently arrived Cubans, favor engagement with Cuba as a way of promoting democratization there. Some polls even indicate that a majority want to ditch the failed 51-year-old U.S. trade embargo against Cuba. As a result, Obama -- who according to one exit poll won 48% of Floridas Cuban vote in last years presidential election, which would be a record for a Democratic candidate -- feels more elbow room for dilogo with the Castro regime. The Administration even recently let Gonzlez return to Cuba.
The Cuban-American community in Miami is definitely changing, says Cuban -American Elena Freyre, president of the Foundation for Normalization of U.S.-Cuba Relations in Miami. Its reached kind of a critical mass at this point, and I think people are ready to try something different. Freyre notes that Obamas appointment this year of former Massachusetts Senator John Kerry as the new U.S. secretary of state is also having an impact. Mr. Kerry has always felt [the U.S.s] position with Cuba made no sense, she says. Hes been very vocal about thinking that if we engage Cuba we will get a lot further. Kerry, for example, believes the U.S. should lift its ban on U.S. citizen travel to Cuba.

The plan is key to relationseven if Castro steps down in 2018 it wont be sufficient to solve relations Allam 2/25- Hannah Allam, writer for the McClatchy newspaper, (Even if Raul Castro steps down in 2018, U.S. Cuba relations may not thaw, 2/25/13, http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/02/25/3253690_p2/even-if-raulcastro-steps-down.html, Accessed: 2/25/13, zs) Cuban President Raul Castros announcement over the weekend that hell step down in

2018

after the five-year term he just began ends starts the countdown for U.S. officials contemplating a thaw in relations with the island nation. But analysts caution that so far the regimes reforms amount to window dressing.
By law, the United States is restricted from normalizing relations with Cuba as long as the island is ruled by the Castro brothers: ailing revolutionary leader Fidel, 86, and his brother Raul, 81. Raul Castro said Sunday that not only would he step aside in 2018, he also would propose term limits and age caps for future presidents, the latest in a series of moves that are hailed by some Cuba observers as steps toward reform but dismissed by others as disingenuous. But those are hardly the kinds of breakthrough reforms that State Department and independent analysts say will be needed to improve U.S.-Cuba relations, which froze after the Cuban revolution of 1959 that saw Fidel Castro align himself with the communist bloc and the United States impose a trade embargo that 54 years later remains in place. Each side is making small, subtle

moves, but since its a glacier, its not going to melt overnight, said Alex Crowther, a former U.S. Army
colonel and Cuba specialist whose published commentaries on bilateral relations include a 2009 essay calling for an end to the embargo. Analysts of U.S.-Cuban relations said that the latest moves are primarily self-serving for the regime, allowing the two elderly brothers to handpick an acceptable successor before theyre too infirm to administer the country. Raul Castros anointing of Communist Party stalwart Miguel Diaz-Canel, 52, as the favored successor was the most important takeaway from the presidents speech, several analysts agreed. It doesnt mean hes being chosen to succeed Raul, but it does mean theyre leaving the gerontocracy and opening up the aperture to younger leaders, Crowther said. Diaz-Canel is an impressive career politician, said Jorge Dominguez, a Cuban American professor of Mexican and Latin American politics and economics at Harvard University. He moved through the Communist Party ranks, serving as a provincial first secretary, minister of higher education, a member of the partys political bureau and one of the Castros gaggle of vice presidents. In those roles, he has a wider array of responsibilities that have positioned him well for the

eventual succession, Dominguez said. He has also been traveling abroad with Raul to add foreign experience to what had been principally a domestic-policy resume. When Castro elevated
Diaz-Canel to first vice president and set a date for his own stepping aside, for the first time there was an expiration date for Castro rule of Cuba. It is true that other would-be successors appeared from time to time, but none was anointed, and none had a formal designation as the successor, Dominguez said. Sure, there will be political fights in the future . Theirs is a

political party, after all, and politicians will jockey for power and position. But Diaz-Canel is now the frontrunner.
The Castro brothers know by now that such moves also play well in the United States, where they just got a public relations boost with the remarks of a U.S. senator who led a delegation to Cuba this month to seek the release of Alan Gross, an American imprisoned on the island for illegally importing communications equipment while on a USAID-funded democracy-building program. After meeting Castro, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., told reporters that it was time to move on from the U.S. Cold War mentality toward Cuba. The State Department was publicly resistant Monday to calls for a softening of the U.S. stance toward Cuba, with a spokesman bluntly dismissing Raul Castros promise to step down as not a fundamental change for Cuba because it lacked concrete measures toward democratic rule. We remain hopeful for the day that the Cuban

people get democracy, when they can have the opportunity to freely pick their own leaders in an open democratic process and enjoy the freedoms of speech and association without fear of reprisal,

State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell told reporters Monday . Were clearly not there yet. In the 35minute speech he gave when he was ratified for a second term as president, Raul Castro made clear that he had no intention of moving away from his socialist roots. I was not chosen to be president to restore capitalism to Cuba. I was elected to defend, maintain and continue to perfect socialism, not destroy it, Castro told Parliament, according to a translation published in news reports. That message is why longtime Cuba observers find it hard to swallow that such an entrenched regime would willingly push reforms that could hasten the demise of Communist Party rule. Critics say Cubans are less likely to see a shift in U.S. policy than a rise in domestic unrest that forces change from within as Cubans grow impatient for promised reforms. Its political kabuki and Im not sure it can hold together for another five years, said Jason Poblete, a Cuban-American attorney in Washington and an outspoken critic of the Castro regime.

Cuban instability results in Latin American instability, terrorism, democratic backsliding, and distracts the US from hotspots including Africa, the Caucus, and North Korea Gorrell 5- Tim Gorrell, Lieutenant Colonel (CUBA: THE NEXT UNANTICIPATED ANTICIPATED STRATEGIC CRISIS?
3/18/05, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA433074, Accessed: 7/4/13, zs)

Regardless of the succession, under the current U.S. policy, Cubas problems of a post Castro transformation only worsen. In addition to Cubans on the island, there will be those in exile who will return claiming authority. And there are remnants of the dissident community within Cuba who will attempt to exercise similar authority. A power vacuum or absence of order will create the conditions for instability and civil war . Whether Raul or another successor from within the current government can hold power is debatable. However, that individual will nonetheless extend the current policies for an indefinite period, which will only compound the Cuban situation. When Cuba finally collapses anarchy is a strong possibility if the U.S. maintains the wait and see approach. The U.S. then must deal with an unstable country 90 miles off its coast. In the midst of this chaos, thousands will flee the island. During the Mariel boatlift in 1980 125,000 fled the island.26 Many were criminals; this time the number could be several hundred thousand flee ing to the U.S., creating a refugee crisis. Equally important, by adhering to a negative containment policy, the U.S. may be creating its next series of transnational criminal problems. Cuba is along the axis of the drug-trafficking flow into the U.S. from Columbia. The Castro government as a matter of policy does not support the drug trade. In fact, Cubas actions have shown that its stance on drugs is more than hollow rhetoric as indicated by its increasing seizure of drugs 7.5 tons in 1995, 8.8 tons in 1999, and 13 tons in
2000.27 While there may be individuals within the government and outside who engage in drug trafficking and a percentage of drugs entering the U.S. may pass

the Cuban government is not the path of least resistance for the flow of drugs. If there were no Cuban restraints, the flow of drugs to the U.S. could be greatly facilitated by a Cuba base of operation and accelerate considerably. In the midst of an unstable Cuba, the opportunity for radical fundamentalist groups to operate in the region increases. If these groups can export terrorist activity from Cuba to the U.S. or throughout the hemisphere then the war against this extremism gets more complicated . Such activity could increase direct attacks and disrupt the economies, threatening the stability of the fragile democracies that are budding throughout the region. In light of a failed state in the region, the U.S. may be forced to deploy military forces to Cuba, creating the conditions for another insurgency . The ramifications of this action could very well fuel greater antiAmerican sentiment throughout the Americas. A proactive policy now can mitigate these potential future problems. U.S.
through Cuba, domestic political support is also turning against the current negative policy. The Cuban American population in the U.S. totals 1,241,685 or 3.5% of the population.28 Most of these exiles reside in Florida; their influence has been a factor in determining the margin of victory in the past two presidential elections. But this election strategy may be flawed, because recent polls of Cuban Americans reflect a decline for President Bush based on his policy crackdown. There is a clear softening in the Cuban-American community with regard to sanctions. Younger Cuban Americans do not necessarily subscribe to the hard-line approach. These

changes signal an opportunity for a new approach to U.S.-Cuban relations. (Table 1) The time has come to look realistically at the Cuban issue. Castro will rule until

The U.S. can little afford to be distracted by a failed state 90 miles off its coast. The administration, given the present state of world affairs, does not have the luxury or the resources to pursue the traditional American model of crisis management. The President and other government and military leaders have warned that the GWOT will be long and protracted. These warnings were sounded when the
he dies. The only issue is what happens then? administration did not anticipate operations in Iraq consuming so many military, diplomatic and economic resources. There is justifiable concern that

Africa

region are potential hot spots for terrorist activity, so these areas should be secure. North Korea will continue to be an unpredictable crisis in waiting. We also cannot ignore China . What if China resorts to aggression to resolve the Taiwan situation? Will the U.S. go to war over Taiwan? Additionally, Iran could conceivably be the next target for U.S. pre-emptive action. These are known and potential situations that could easily require all or many of the elements of national power to resolve. In view of such global issues, can the U.S. afford to sustain the status quo and simply let the Cuban situation play out? The U.S. is at a crossroads: should the policies of the past 40 years remain in effect with vigor? Or should the U.S. pursue a new
and the Caucasus
approach to Cuba in an effort to facilitate a manageable transition to post-Castro Cuba?

U.S-Cuba relations key to solve TB Juventud Rebelde 11 Juventud Rebelde, The Newspaper for Cuban Youth. (Cuba Denounces US Seizure of Health Funds, Juventud Rebelde, 2011-03-12, http://www.juventudrebelde.co.cu/international/2011-03-12/cuba-denounces-us-seizure-ofhealth-funds, Accessed: July 10, 2013, SD)
Havana, March 11. On Friday, Cuba denounced another outrage committed by the United States as part of its half-century long blockade, this time the

seizure by US officials of more than 4 million dollars in funds allocated to Cuba by the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria for the first quarter of 2011. Sadly, this latest disgrace is just one example of a long list of extraterritorial application of the US economic, commercial and financial blockade
against Cuba, said Orlando Hernandez, Cuban vice minister of Foreign Trade and Investment, reported Prensa Latina. The US Treasury Departments Office of Foreign Assets Control froze the funds granted to the Cuban healthcare system in January, according to a January report by the United Nations Development Program, said Hernandez. This annual financing had been allocated by the World Fund against AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria for projects in Cuba The

seizure of funds is an illegal act that seriously obstructs the international cooperation provided by the UN system through its funds and programs. Worse still, the seized funds are for combating and preventing pandemics that the Cuban government and international community are devoting their greatest efforts to eradicate, said Hernandez. The official statement emphasized that this unilateral measure by the US would affect the implementation and continuation of social projects focused on vulnerable groups of the Cuban population, as well as the universal nature of UN agencies, funds and programs. The Global Fund is a unique
global public/private partnership dedicated to attracting and disbursing additional resources to prevent and treat HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. This partnership between governments, civil society, the private sector and affected communities represents a new approach to international health financing. The Global Fund works in close collaboration with other bilateral and multilateral organizations to supplement existing efforts dealing with the three diseases. Since its creation in 2002, the

Global Fund has become the dominant

financier of programs to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, with approved funding of US$ 21.7 billion for more than 600 programs in
150 countries. To date, programs supported by the Global Fund have saved 6.5 million lives through providing AIDS treatment for 3 million people, anti-tuberculosis treatment for 7.7 million people and the distribution of 160 million insecticide-treated bed nets for the prevention of malaria. Global Fund financing is enabling countries to strengthen health systems by, for example, making improvements to infrastructure and providing training to those who deliver services. The Global Fund remains committed to working in partnership to scale up the fight against the diseases and to realize its vision a world free of the burden of AIDS, TB and malaria.

TB kills millions

Global Alliance for TB Drug Development 13 Global Alliance for TB Drug Development, The Global Alliance for
TB Drug Development (TB Alliance) was established in 2000 as a not-for-profit product development partnership to lead the search for new TB regimens and catalyze global efforts for new TB regimens that can bring hope, and health, to millions. (The TB Pandemic, TB Alliance, 2013, http://www.tballiance.org/why/the-tb-pandemic.php, Accessed: July 10, 2013, SD) Tuberculosis (TB)

is a global pandemic, killing someone approximately every 25 seconds nearly 1.4 is second only to HIV as the leading infectious killer of adults worldwide. It is among the three greatest causes of death of women aged 15-44 and is the leading infectious cause of death among people with HIV/AIDS.
million in 2010 alone. TB TB is global. The WHO estimates that two billion people one third of the world's population are infected with Mycobacterium tuberculosis (M.tb), the bacillus that causes the disease. M.tb's unique cell wall, which has a waxy coating primarily composed of mycolic acids, allows the bacillus to lie dormant for many years. The body's immune system may restrain the disease, but it does not destroy it. While some people with this latent infection will never develop active TB, five to 10 percent of carriers will become sick in their lifetime. TB

KILLS: 1.4 MILLION PEOPLE EVERY YEAR OVER 3,800 EVERY DAY ONE PERSON EVERY 25 SECONDS Once active, TB attacks the respiratory system and other organs, destroying body tissue. The disease is contagious, spreading through the air by coughing, sneezing, or even talking. An estimated nine million new active cases develop each year. At any given moment, more than 12 million people around the world are suffering from an active infection. Despite enormous advances in provision of services in recent years, TB's deadly synergy with HIV/AIDS and a surge in drug-resistant strains are threatening to destabilize gains in TB control. While incidence is stable or falling in many regions of the world, global rates of new infections are still rising
in many navar areas where TB goes hand-in-hand with HIV/AIDS and the effects of poverty.

US-Cuba Relations Caribbean Insecurity Impact


US Cuba relations key to Caribbean security Birns 13 Larry Birns, Council on Hemispheric Affairs Director *Best Time for U.S. Cuba Rapprochement Is Now, COHA, 1/30/13,
http://www.coha.org/best-time-for-u-s-cuba-rapprochement-is-now/, accessed: 7/4/13, JK] The Obama Administration should

be prepared to take, in quick progression, three important initial steps to trigger a speedy rapprochement with Cuba: immediately phase out the embargo, free the Cuban five, and remove Havana from the spurious State Department roster of nations purportedly sponsoring terrorism. These measures should be seen as indispensable if Washington is to ever mount a credible regional policy of mutual respect among nations and adjust to the increased ideological diversity and independence of the Latin American and Caribbean regions. Caribbean insecurity causes bioterrorism, LNG explosions, terrorism Bryan 1 - Anthony T. Bryan, Director of the Caribbean Program North/South Center, and Stephen E. Flynn, Senior Fellow Council on
Foreign Relations [Terrorism, Porous Borders, and Homeland Security: The Case for U.S. -Caribbean Cooperation, CFR, 11/21/01, http://www.cfr.org/publication/4844/terrorism_porous_borders_and _homeland_ security.html, accessed: 7/4/13, JK]

Terrorist acts can take place anywhere. The Caribbean is no exception. Already the linkages between drug

trafficking and terrorism are clear in countries like Colombia and Peru, and such connections have similar potential in the Caribbean. The security of major industrial complexes in some Caribbean countries is vital. Petroleum refineries and major industrial estates in Trinidad, which host more than 100 companies that produce the majority of the worlds methanol, ammonium sulphate, and 40 percent of U.S. imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG), are vulnerable targets. Unfortunately, as experience has shown in Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America, terrorists are likely to strike at U.S. and European interests in Caribbean countries. Security issues become even more critical when one considers the possible use of Caribbean countries by terrorists as bases from which to attack the United States. An airliner hijacked after departure from an airport in the northern Caribbean or the Bahamas can be flying over South Florida in less than an hour. Terrorists can sabotage or seize control of a cruise ship after the vessel leaves a Caribbean port. Moreover, terrorists with false passports and visas issued in the Caribbean may be able to move easily through passport controls in Canada or the United States. (To help
counter this possibility, some countries have suspended "economic citizenship" programs to ensure that known terrorists have not been inadvertently granted such citizenship.) Again, Caribbean countries are as

vulnerable as anywhere else to the clandestine manufacture and deployment of biological weapons within national borders. EXTENSION: Caribbean insecurity leads to corruption, violence Brown 9 Evan Brown, member of University of Pittsburgh, Matthew B. Ridgway Center for International Security Studies *DRUG
TRAFFICKING, VIOLENCE, AND INSTABILITY IN MEXICO, COLOMBIA, AND THE CARIBBEAN: IMPLICATIONS FOR U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY, Strategic Studies Institute, 10/30/09, http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB968.pdf, accessed: 7/4/13, JK]

the Caribbean has been the victim of extremely imbalanced relationships with the United States. One panelist pointed out that the islands were a minor consumer of drugs but a major transit
Panelists noted that

point to the United States; with the attendant increase in corruption and violence, the Caribbean governments are ill-suited to combat it.

US-Cuba relations Now key extension


Now is uniquely key to boost US-Cuba relations Padgett 7/3- Tim Padgett is WLRN-Miami Herald News' Americas correspondent covering Latin
America and the Caribbean from Miami. He has covered Latin America for almost 25 years, for Newsweek as its Mexico City bureau chief from 1990 to 1996, and for Time as its Latin America bureau chief, first in Mexico from 1996 to 1999 and then in Miami, where he also covered Florida and the U.S. Southeast, from 1999 to 2013. (Why This Summer Offers Hope For Better US-Cuba Relations, WLRN, 7/3/13 http://wlrn.org/post/why-summer-offers-hope-better-us-cuba-relations-Accessed-7-4-13-RX)
First, Castro finished crunching the numbers on Cubas threadbare economy, and the results scared him more than one of Yoani Snchezs dissident blog posts. To wit, the islands finances are held up by little more than European tourists and oil charity from socialist Venezuela. Hes

adopted limited capitalist reforms as the remedy, and to make them work he has to loosen the repressive screws a turn or two. That finally includes letting Cubans travel freely abroad, which gives them better opportunities to bring back investment capital. As a result, says Carlos Saladrigas, a Cuban-American business leader in Miami and chairman of the Washington-based Cuba Study Group, The timing is right for some U.S.-Cuban rapprochement. Cuba is clearly in a transitionary mode, says Saladrigas. They need to change to reinsert themselves in the global order, they need to become more normal in their relations with other nations. The time is right, US and Cuba moving forward on relations Haven 6/21 --- Paul Haven, Associated Press bureau chief in Havana (Cuba, US Try Talking, but Face
Many Obstacles, June 21, 2013, Associated Press, http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/cuba-us-talking-face-obstacles19457659#.Uc2ttT7wJ9k, accessed June 28, 2013, MY)

They've hardly become allies, but Cuba and the U.S. have taken some baby steps toward rapprochement in recent weeks that have people on this island and in Washington wondering if a breakthrough in relations could be just over the horizon . Skeptics caution that the Cold War enemies have been
here many times before, only to fall back into old recriminations. But there are signs that views might be shifting on both sides of the Florida Straits. In

the past week, the two countries have held talks on resuming direct mail service, and announced a July 17 sit-down on migration issues. In May, a U.S. federal judge allowed a convicted Cuban intelligence agent to return to the island. This month, Cuba informed the family of jailed U.S.
government subcontractor Alan Gross that it would let an American doctor examine him, though the visit has apparently not yet happened. President Raul Castro has also ushered in a series of economic and social changes, including making it easier for Cubans to travel off the island.

Under the radar, diplomats on both sides describe a sea change in the tone of their dealings.
Only last year, Cuban state television was broadcasting grainy footage of American diplomats meeting with dissidents on Havana streets and publically accusing them of being CIA front-men. Today,

U.S. diplomats in Havana and Cuban Foreign Ministry officials have easy contact, even sharing home phone numbers. Josefina Vidal, Cuba's top diplomat for North
American affairs, recently traveled to Washington and met twice with State Department officials a visit that came right before the announcements of resumptions in the two sets of bilateral talks that had been suspended for more than two years. Washington has also granted visas to prominent Cuban officials, including the daughter of Cuba's president. "These

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

US-Cuba relations Current barriers to relations Extensions


US-Cuba relations low nowrefusal to release Gross and political conflict Franks 10Jeff Franks, five-year writer for Reuters on Cuban relations and politics (U.S.-Cuba relations under
Obama fall to lowest point, Reuters, 3/31/10, http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/03/31/us-cuba-usaidUSTRE62U34W20100331, Accessed 7/10/13, jtc) (Reuters) - U.S.-Cuban relations have fallen to their lowest point since Barack Obama became U.S.

president and are in danger of getting worse unless the two countries take serious steps toward ending five decades of hostility, according to Cuba experts. After a brief warming last year, both countries appear to be falling back into old, antagonistic ways, obscuring whatever progress that has been made and hindering further advances, the experts said this week. "The past year has proven that when it comes to U.S.-Cuba relations, old habits die hard," said Dan Erikson of the Inter-American
Dialogue think tank in Washington. Obama, who took office in January 2009 and has said he wanted to recast U.S.-Cuban relations, lifted restrictions on travel by Cuban Americans to the communist-ruled island and initiated talks on migration issues and direct postal service. Since then, Cuban Americans have flooded the island and the two longtime ideological foes have held their first high-level discussions in years. But recent developments have been mostly negative. Cuba jailed U.S. contractor Alan Gross in December on suspicion of spying and continues to hold him without charges. Cuba's government has been condemned internationally for its treatment of opponents, including imprisoned dissident Orlando Zapata Tamayo, who died in February from a hunger strike, and the "Ladies in White," wives and mothers of imprisoned dissidents, were shouted down by government supporters during protest marches this month. Obama rebuked the Cuban government in a strongly worded statement on March 24, saying Cuba continues "to respond to the aspirations of the Cuban people with a clenched fist." U.S. officials think they have done enough to elicit a more positive response from Cuba, while Cuba complains that Obama has done too little. 'GENUINE GOODWILL' Miami attorney Timothy Ashby, a former U.S. Commerce Department official in charge of trade with Cuba, said neither has done what is necessary to overcome 50 years of bitterness. "Neither government is willing to take a significant step that would serve as a demonstration of genuine goodwill," he said. Both nations have taken actions that have not helped the fragile improvement begun by Obama. Obama angered the Cuban government in November when he responded to questions via email from dissident Cuban blogger Yoani Sanchez, who Cuban leaders view as at least complicit with their enemies in Europe and the United States. In February, Assistant Secretary of State Craig Kelly provoked a bitter Cuban reaction when he met with dissidents following migration talks with Cuban officials in Havana. Cuba, in turn, has soured the political climate by harshly criticizing Obama for his lack of action while taking little of its own. Its detention of Gross, which U.S. officials say Cuba has refused to discuss, has called into question its desire for change even among those who want better relations. In a letter last week to Cuba's top diplomat in Washington, 41 members of the U.S. House of Representatives said the

detention of Gross "has caused many to doubt your government's expressed desire to improve relations with the United States." "We cannot assist in that regard while Mr. Gross is detained in a Cuban
prison," said the legislators, who included sponsors of pending legislation to end a U.S. ban on travel to Cuba.

Appointment of Diaz Canel does not mean normalization of relations. Alam 2013 [Hannah Alam. Hannah is a writer for the Miami herald. Even if Raul Castro ste ps down in 2018, U.S.-Cuba relations may not thaw. Miami Herald. McClatchy Newspapers. 2/25/13. Accessed: July 2, 2013.]

WASHINGTON -- Cuban President Raul Castros announcement over the weekend that hell step down in 2018 after the five-year term he just began ends starts the countdown for U.S. officials contemplating a thaw in relations with the island nation. But analysts caution that so far the regimes reforms amount to window dressing. By law, the United States is restricted from normalizing relations with Cuba as long as the island is ruled by the Castro brothers: ailing revolutionary leader Fidel, 86, and his brother Raul, 81. Raul Castro said Sunday that not only would he step aside in 2018, he also would propose term limits and age caps for future presidents, the latest in a series of moves that are hailed by some Cuba observers as steps toward reform but dismissed by others as disingenuous. But those are

hardly the kinds of breakthrough reforms that State Department and independent analysts say will be needed to improve U.S.-Cuba relations, which froze after the Cuban revolution of 1959 that saw
Fidel Castro align himself with the communist bloc and the United States impose a trade embargo that 54 years later remains in place. Each side is making small, subtle moves, but since its a glacier, its not going to melt overnight, said Alex Crowther, a former U.S. Army colonel and Cuba specialist whose published commentaries on bilateral relations include a 2009 essay calling for an end to the embargo. Analysts of U.S.-Cuban relations said that the latest moves are primarily self-serving for the regime, allowing the two elderly brothers to handpick an acceptable successor before theyre too infirm to administer the country. Raul Castros anointing of Communist Party stalwart Miguel Diaz-Canel, 52, as the favored successor was the most important takeaway from the presidents speech, several analysts agreed. It doesnt mean hes being chosen

to succeed Raul, but it does mean theyre leaving the gerontocracy and opening up the aperture to younger leaders, Crowther said. Diaz-Canel is an impressive career politician, said Jorge
Dominguez, a Cuban American professor of Mexican and Latin American politics and economics at Harvard University. He moved through the Communist Party ranks, serving as a provincial first secretary, minister of higher education, a member of the partys political bureau and one of the Castros gaggle of vice presidents. In those roles, he has a wider array of responsibilities that have positioned him well for the eventual succession, Dominguez said. He has also been traveling abroad with Raul to add foreign experience to what had been principally a domestic-policy resume. When Castro elevated Diaz-Canel to first vice president and set a date for his own stepping aside, for the first time there was an expiration date for Castro rule of Cuba. It is true that other would-be successors appeared from time to time, but none was anointed, and none had a formal designation as the successor, Dominguez said. Sure, there will be political fights in the future. Theirs is a political party, after all, and politicians will jockey for power and position. But Diaz-Canel is now the frontrunner. The Castro

brothers know by now that such moves also play well in the United States, where they just got a public relations boost with the remarks of a U.S. senator who led a delegation to Cuba this
month to seek the release of Alan Gross, an American imprisoned on the island for illegally importing communications equipment while on a USAID-funded democracy-building program.

US-Cuba Relations Possibility for improvement


Current political climate in Latin America gives Obama the chance to repair ties with Cuba and Latin America Tisdall 3/5- Simon Tisdall, Simon Tisdall is an assistant editor of the Guardian and a foreign affairs columnist. He
was previously a foreign leader writer for the paper and has also served as its foreign editor and its US editor, based in Washington DC. (Death of Hugo Chavez brings chance of fresh start for US and Latin America, Guardian Newspaper, 3/5/13, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/05/hugo-chavez-dead-us-latin-america-Accessed-627-13-RX) Hugo Chvez's departure furnishes Barack Obama with an opportunity to repair US ties with Venezuela, but also with
other Latin American states whose relations with Washington were adversely affected by Chvez's politics of polarisation and the Bush administration's viscerally unintelligent reaction. In particular, the change of leadership in Caracas could unlock the deadlock over Cuba , if the White House can summon the requisite political will. Possibly anticipating a transition, Washington quietly engineered a diplomatic opening with Caracas last November after a lengthy standoff during which ambassadors were withdrawn. Roberta Jacobson, assistant secretary of state for western hemisphere affairs, telephoned Nicols Maduro, Venezuela's vice-president and Chvez's preferred successor, and discussed, among other things, the restoration of full diplomatic relations. "According to US officials, the Venezuelan vice-president offered to exchange ambassadors on the occasion of the beginning of President Barack Obama's second term. Jacobson, in turn, is said to have proposed a step-by-step approach to improve bilateral relations, starting with greater co-operation in counter-narcotics, counter-terrorism and energy issues," Andres Oppenheimer reported in the Miami Herald. There is much ground to make up. "Relations between the United States and Venezuela have ranged from difficult to hostile since Chvez took office in 1999 and began to implement what he calls 21st-century socialism," wrote a former US ambassador to Caracas, Charles Shapiro. "Chvez blamed a failed 2002 coup against him on the United States (not true), nationalised US companies, insulted the president of the United States and blamed 'the empire' his term for the United States for every ill In foreign affairs, the government actively supports the Assad regime in Syria, rejects sanctions on Iran and generally opposes the US at every turn." Despite such strains, economic self-interest always prevented a complete rupture. The US remained Venezuela's most important trading partner throughout Chvez's presidency, buying nearly half its oil exports. Caracas is the fourth largest supplier of oil to the US. In fact, the US imports more crude oil annually from Mexico and Venezuela than from the entire Persian Gulf. This shared

commerce

now provides a formidable incentive and a launch platform for a fresh start.
Whether the opportunity is grasped depends partly on Maduro, a Chvez loyalist but a reputed pragmatist with close ties to Ral Castro in Cuba. Yet it depends even more on Obama,

whose first term, after a promising start, ended up perpetuating Washington's historical neglect of Latin America. He now has a chance to do better. The political climate seems propitious. Economic and cultural ties are also strengthening dramatically. Trade between the US and Latin America grew by 82% between 1998 and 2009. In 2011 alone, exports and imports rose by
a massive 20% in both directions. "We do three times more business with Latin America than with China and twice as much business with Colombia [as] with Russia," an Obama official told Julia Sweig of the US Council on Foreign Relations. Latinos now comprise 15% of the US population; the US is the world's second largest Spanish-speaking country (after Mexico). Despite this convergence, high-level US strategic thinking about the region has continued to lag, Sweig argued. "For the last two decades, US domestic politics have too often driven Washington's Latin America agenda whether on issues of trade, immigration, drugs, guns or that perennial political albatross, Cuba, long driven by the supposedly crucial 'Cuban vote' in Florida," she said. Obama could change this dynamic if he tried and one way to do it would be to unpick the

Cuban problem, which continues to

colour the way Latin Americans view Washington.


"Having won nearly half of the Cuban American vote in Florida in 2012, a gain of 15 percentage points over 2008, Obama can move quickly on Cuba. If he were to do so, he would find a cautious but willing partner in Ral Castro, who needs rapprochement with Washington to advance his own reform agenda," Sweig said.

A move by Obama to end travel restrictions and the trade embargo on Cuba would be applauded across the region, explode old stereotypes about gringo oppressors, and help build confidence with Venezuela, the Castro regime's key
backer, she suggested.

US Should start dialogue to lift embargoleads way to solving tensions Duran 09-- Alfredo Duran, Cuban Committee for Democracy, lawyer and an advocate for dialogue as a way to
bring regime change in Cuba (in an interview with Duran, Possible Cuba Policy Changes Spark Debate, PBS Newshour, 4/8/9, http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june09/cubadebate_04-08.html, Accessed 7/3/12, jtc) Oh, I believe so. I believe that it's about time that the United States and Cuba starts in the process of dialogue on this tension. We have been maintaining this policy of embargo for the past 50 years, and it has not worked. It's not working now, and it won't work for the next 50 years. It's about time that we bring about a change. The status quo is what we need to change in Cuba. We have a whole dynamic of generational changes in Cuba. We have the historicals who are all above 80 years of age. And the only way that we're going to bring

about a future of prosperity, of liberty, of democracy in Cuba is if we can send a strong message that the United States is not the enemy of the Cuban people , that the United States is prepared to sit
down and try to resolve the differences and hopefully, in that same table, we can have the Cuban opposition sit down and discuss the future of Cuba. We need to have national reconciliation. We need to have the people starting to talk to each other in order to bring about a transition, a peaceful transition, towards democracy in Cuba. I think it was helpful...

Cuba open to relations with US recent actions show News24 6/27/13 News24: Breaking News. First. (Cuba not safe for Snowden analysts, News24, 6/27/13,
http://www.news24.com/World/News/Cuba-not-safe-for-Snowden-analysts-20130627, accessed: 7/4/13, amf)

US-Cuban relations have also been strained by the case of Alan Gross, a US government subcontractor who was convicted of spying and sentenced in 2011 to 15 years in prison. But now, with Raul Castro introducing timid economic reforms, a greater political pragmatism is seen as gaining ground.
Economic reform

A recent reform made it easier for Cubans to travel abroad. And Cuba is discussing migration-related questions with the United States, where hundreds of
thousands of Cubans have sought exile over the decades.

Cuba is on the US black list of states protecting terrorists, and the two countries have no extradition
treaty.

But that did not hamper swift co-operation in early April, when it took Havana just 48 hours to repatriate a US couple, which had abducted its own children after losing custody over them and fled to Cuba. The case reflects an interest in Havana in not straining relations with Washington, even if Cuba still does not want to make "unilateral and definitive concessions" without receiving anything in return, Lopez Levy told dpa. Cuba wants relations with the US Snow 10- Anita Snow, Editor on Latin America regional desk at Associated Press, (Cuba embargo: UN vote urges US to lift embargo, 10/26/10, http://www.csmonitor.com/World/LatestNews-Wires/2010/1026/Cuba-embargo-UN-vote-urges-US-to-lift-embargo, 7/3/13, CAS) Last year's U.N. vote was 187-3 to end the embargo, with only Israel and the tiny Pacific island nation of
Palau supporting the United States.

"This is about a cruel and aggressive policy," Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez told the body, "absolutely contrary to international law, that this government insists on maintaining knowing that

it causes harm, hardships and violates the human rights of an entire people." "This is not a bilateral issue, as is commonly repeated by the U.S. representatives," Rodriguez added,
complaining about the sanctions' "remarkable extraterritorial character." Nevertheless, Cuba "will continue to be ready to establish peaceful and respectful relations with the United States," Rodriguez said. American Ambassador Ronald D. Godard, U.S. Senior Area Adviser for Western Hemisphere Affairs, insisted that the embargo is a bilateral issue "and part of a broader set of relations meant to encourage a more open environment in Cuba and increased respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms." "We should not lose sight of that in a debate mired in rhetorical arguments of the past and focused on tactical differences, a debate that does nothing to help the Cuban people," he said.

Cuba wants relations with the US embargo blocks it Snow 10- Anita Snow, Editor on Latin America regional desk at Associated Press (Cuba embargo: UN vote urges
US to lift embargo, 10/26/10, http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Latest-News-Wires/2010/1026/Cuba-embargoUN-vote-urges-US-to-lift-embargo, 7/10/13, ckr)

Last year's U.N. vote was 187-3 to end the embargo, with only Israel and the tiny Pacific island nation of
Palau supporting the United States. "This is about a cruel and aggressive policy," Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez told the body, "absolutely contrary to international law, that this government insists on

maintaining knowing that it causes harm, hardships and violates the human rights of an entire people." "This is not a bilateral issue, as is commonly repeated by the U.S. representatives," Rodriguez added, complaining about the sanctions' "remarkable extraterritorial character." Nevertheless, Cuba "will continue to be ready to establish peaceful and respectful relations with the United States, "
Rodriguez said. American Ambassador Ronald D. Godard, U.S. Senior Area Adviser for Western Hemisphere Affairs, insisted that the embargo is a bilateral issue "and part of a broader set of relations meant to encourage a more open environment in Cuba and increased respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms." "We should not lose sight of that in a debate mired in rhetorical arguments of the past and focused on tactical differences, a debate that does nothing to help the Cuban people," he said.

Baby steps towards US and Cuba increased relations Haven 6/22/13- Paul Haven, former Associated Press bureau chief in Havana, deputy Latin America and
Caribbean editor (Cuba, U.S. try talking, but still face many obstacles, Daily Star, http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/International/2013/Jun-21/221161-cuba-us-try-talking-but-face-manyobstacles.ashx#axzz2XX13hW88, accessed: 6/28/13, ML) Theyve hardly become allies, but Cuba and the U.S. have taken some baby steps toward rapprochement in recent weeks that have people on this island and in Washington wondering if a breakthrough in relations could be just over the horizon. Skeptics caution that the Cold War enemies have been here many times before, only to fall back into old recriminations. But there are signs that views might be shifting on both sides of the Florida Straits. In the past week, the two countries have held talks on resuming direct mail service, and announced a July 17 sit-down on migration issues. In May, a U.S. federal judge allowed a convicted Cuban intelligence agent to return to the island. This month, Cuba informed the family of jailed U.S. government subcontractor Alan Gross that it would let an American doctor examine him, though the visit has apparently not yet happened. President Raul Castro has also

ushered in a series of economic and social changes, including making it easier for Cubans to travel off the island. Under the radar, diplomats on both sides describe a sea change in the tone of their
dealings. Only last year, Cuban state television was broadcasting grainy footage of American diplomats meeting with dissidents on Havana streets and publically accusing them of being CIA front men. Today, U.S. diplomats in

Havana and Cuban Foreign Ministry officials have easy contact, even sharing home phone numbers. Josefina Vidal, Cubas top diplomat for North American affairs, recently traveled to Washington and
met twice with State Department officials. Washington has also granted visas to prominent Cuban officials, including the daughter of Cubas president. These recent steps indicate a desire on both sides to try to

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

US-Cuba Relations Tech Transfers Good


Transfer of technology would strengthen US-Cuba relationships Lacey 9 Marc Lacey,Marc was The Timess Mexico bureau chief, responsible for covering Mexico, Central America
and the Caribbean. From 2006 to 2010, he led the newspapers coverage of Mexicos drug war, Cubas transition from Fidel Castro and Haitis struggle for stability, among other issues in more than 30 countries large and small.,The New York Times, 8/20/2009,http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/world/americas/21storm.html?_r=0,6/27/13,MH) The first tropical storms of the season have begun raging across the Atlantic, bringing with them all manner of panic and potential destruction and, behind the scenes, a little boost in United States-Cuba relations. . Weve had a close working relationship in regard to tropical cyclones that goes back to the 70s and 80s, said Max Mayfield, who retired in 2007 after seven years as director of the National Hurricane Center in Miami. Any storm that goes toward Florida goes over Cuba, so we need their observations. And they need our data from the aircraft. With coastal communities in both countries vulnerable, meteorology could bring the longtime adversaries closer together , especially with the policy of increased engagement pushed by President Obama, experts argue. Wayne Smith, a former American diplomat in Havana who is now a fellow at the Washington-based Center for International Policy, has brought an array of American officials to Cuba in recent years to look at how Cuban disaster preparedness programs manage to keep the number of hurricane deaths on the island so low.

US-Cuba Relations Internal Links


Lifting embargo improves health and economy Burns and Mills 1/30 Larry Birns ,Council on Hemispheric Affairs Director and Frederick B. Mills, COHA
Senior Research Fellow (Best Time for U.S. Cuba Rapprochement Is Now, Council on Hemispheric Affairs, 1/30/13, http://www.coha.org/best-time-for-u-s-cuba-rapprochement-is-now/, Accessed 7/3/12, jtc)

The Obama Administration should be prepared to take, in quick progression, three important initial steps to trigger a speedy rapprochement with Cuba: immediately phase out the embargo, free the Cuban five, and remove Havana from the spurious State Department roster of nations purportedly sponsoring terrorism. These measures should be seen as indispensable if Washington is to ever mount a credible regional policy of mutual respect among nations and adjust to the increased ideological diversity and independence of the Latin
American and Caribbean regions. Washingtons path towards an urgently needed rehabilitation of its hemispheric policy ought t o also include consideration of Cubas own pressing national interests. A

thaw in USCuba relations would enhance existing security cooperation between the countries, amplify trade and commercial ties, and guarantee new opportunities for citizens of both nations to build bridges of friendship and cooperation . For
this to happen, the Obama Administration would have to muster the audacity to resist the anti-Castro lobby and their hardline allies in Congress, whose Cuba bashing has no limits. Nevertheless, it is time to replace belligerency with dtente. This essay argues that the embargo against Cuba is blatantly counterproductive, immoral, and anachronistic. If the initial purpose of this measure was to punish Havana for expropriating U.S. property and to bring about fundamental political and economic reforms, Washington has had more than 50 years to see that the status quo is flawed. Over

the years, invasion, embargo, and covert psychological operations against Cuba have only served to reinforce a circle the wagons mentality in Havana. The island also
has been subject to a relentless barrage of propaganda and terrorist assaults organized by militant anti-Castro zealots to advance their cause. These attacks include the 1997 bombing of three hotels in Havana which resulted in the death of Italian tourist Fabio Di Celmo, and the deadly 1976 downing of a Cuban civilian jet. Rather than succumbing to pressure, all of these incidents have given the majority of Cuban nationals good reason to raise defensive barricades in the face of repeated threats to the survival of their homeland. Besides being counter-productive, there are also strong moral arguments for ending the embargo. From a utilitarian point of view, the

policy is objectionable because it has brought about needless suffering without convincing evidence of praiseworthy results. One illustration of this is what happened during what Havana calls the special period in time of peace. This refers to the economic
crisis, hydrocarbon energy shortages, and food insecurity that followed the collapse of Soviet Bloc (1989 1991) which was Cubas main trading partner and the source of vital subsidies. The embargo took an especially harsh toll during the special period. According to a 1997 report Denial of Food and Medicine: The Impact of the Embargo on Health and Nutrition in Cuba by The American Association for World Health: the

U.S.

embargo of Cuba has dramatically harmed the health and nutrition of large numbers of ordinary Cuban citizens. The report also observed that the U.S. embargo has caused a significant rise in sufferingand even deaths-in Cuba. The special period, including a serious food shortage in 1993, did not lead to the countrys surrender,
but to the decisive restructuring of the agricultural sector, a number of economic reforms, and the diversification of trade.

Stronger US-Cuba Relations enhance security cooperation Burns and Mills 1/30 Larry Birns, Council on Hemispheric Affairs Director and Frederick B. Mills, COHA
Senior Research Fellow (Best Time for U.S. Cuba Rapprochement Is Now, Council on Hemispheric Affairs, 1/30/13, http://www.coha.org/best-time-for-u-s-cuba-rapprochement-is-now/, Accessed: 7/10/13, ckr)

The Obama Administration should be prepared to take, in quick progression, three important initial steps to trigger a speedy rapprochement with Cuba : immediately phase out the embargo, free
the Cuban five, and remove Havana from the spurious State Department roster of nations purportedly sponsoring terrorism. These measures should be seen as indispensable if Washington is to ever mount a credible regional policy of mutual respect among nations and adjust to the increased ideological diversity and independence of the Latin American and Caribbean regions. Washingtons path towards an urgent ly needed rehabilitation of its hemispheric policy ought to also include consideration of Cubas own pressing national interests. A thaw in

USCuba relations would enhance existing security cooperation between the countries, amplify trade and commercial ties, and guarantee new opportunities for citizens of both nations to build bridges of friendship and cooperation. For this to happen, the Obama Administration
would have to muster the audacity to resist the anti-Castro lobby and their hardline allies in Congress, whose Cuba bashing has no limits. Nevertheless, it is time to replace belligerency with dtente. This essay argues that the embargo against Cuba is blatantly counterproductive, immoral, and anachronistic. If the initial purpose of this measure was to punish Havana for expropriating U.S. property and to bring about fundamental political and economic reforms, Washington has had more than 50 years to see that the status quo is flawed. Over the years, invasion, embargo, and covert psychological operations against Cuba have only served to reinforce a circle the wagons mentality in Havana. The island also has been subject to a relentless barrage of propaganda and terrorist assaults organized by militant anti-Castro zealots to advance their cause. These attacks include the 1997 bombing of three hotels in Havana which resulted in the death of Italian tourist Fabio Di Celmo, and the deadly 1976 downing of a Cuban civilian jet. Rather than succumbing to pressure, all of these incidents have given the majority of Cuban nationals good reason to raise defensive barricades in the face of repeated threats to the survival of their homeland.

US-Cuba ties key to economic competitiveness and preventing conflict, particularly in Latin America Honda 10 Representative Mike Honda, U.S. Representative for California's 17th congressional district,
encompassing western San Jose and Silicon Valley, has served in Congress since 2001. (Honda: Embargo on Cuba No Longer Makes Sense, Roll Call, May 4, 2010, http://www.rollcall.com/issues/55_126/45782-1.html, accessed: 7/3/13, LR)

Politically, now that Latin America stands beside Cuba as evidenced by diplomatic reinstatements with holdouts El Salvador and Costa Rica, and the reintegration of Cuba into the Organization for American States and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States the U.S. risks ruinous relations with countries that see the blockade as backward. The U.S. is already marginalized: CLACS explicitly bars U.S. participation. The impact of this Latin tack toward insularity is not insignificant. Consider grandstanding by Brazilian President Luiz Incio Lula da Silva, who rebuffed Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clintons efforts to bring Brazil on Iran sanctions while courting Cubas leadership. Lula, capitalizing on Cubas appetite for growth, proposed investments in industrial, agriculture and infrastructure projects, including ports and hotels, and an agreement with Brazils oil company. We will see more of this. The Cubans are seeking suitors. Like the Bank of the South, Latin Americas attempt to wean countries off U.S. institutions like the World Bank, the longer we keep Cuba at arms length, the more likely Brazil and others will take our place. Removing embargo solves narcotics cooperation key Johnson, Spector and Lilac 10 - Andy Johnson, Director, National Security Program, Kyle Spector, Policy Advisor, National Security Program , Kristina Lilac, National Security Program, Senior Fellows of The Third Way Institute, (End the Embargo of Cuba, Article for The Third Way Institute, 9/16/10, http://content.thirdway.org/publications/326/Third_Way_Memo__End_the_Embargo_of_Cuba.pdf, Accessed 7/02/13, AW) Others have argued that US - Cuba cooperation on issues such as counter - narcotics efforts cou ld benefit both countries and initiate trust - building among the two countries. Policymakers on both sides of the aisle can agree that the embargo has failed to

meet its stated purpose of bringing change to Cubas communist government, making a change in c ourse a necessary next step. Lifting the antiquated embargo would help to move Cuba into the 21 st century, removing the barriers currently preventing the US from engaging Cuba and presenting the US with an opportunity to bring about change in Cuba through economic and diplomatic channels. By opening Cuba, the US could finally achieve the change it has been seeking for nearly fifty years.

Hurricane Assistance
Hurricanes will spread oil spill
Sosnowksi 10 Alex Sosnowski, Senior Meterologist (Hurricanes Could Spill Gulf Oil Inland, Washingtons Blog, May 14,
2010, http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2010/05/hurricanes-could-spread-gulf-oil-inland.html, Accessed: July 3, 2013, SD) AccuWeather.com's Senior

Meteorologist Alex Sosnowski points out today that hurricanes may spread the Gulf oil inland: While the oil leak disaster in the Gulf of Mexico is bad enough, many people have been wondering what could happen if a hurricane were to slam into the region. AccuWeather.com hurricane expert Joe Bastardi is concerned by multiple threats from storms throughout the season in the Gulf of Mexico. [According to predictions for an active hurricane
season this year], much of the central and western Gulf of Mexico could be one of several targets for potential multiple tropical storm and/or hurricane landfalls this year. Depending on the approach of a tropical storm or hurricane, increasing winds and building, massive

seas would first halt containment operations. Rough seas would dislodge or destroy protective booms, rendering them useless as the storm draws closer. Next, as the storm rolls through, high winds on the right flank of a hurricane making landfall would cause some oil to become airborne in blowing spray. A storm surge could carry contaminants inland beyond bays, marshes and beaches to well developed locations. Even a
glancing blow from a hurricane passing to the west of the oil slick could be enough for winds and wave action to drive the goo nearby onshore, or to more distant fishing and recreation areas, perhaps in foreign waters. During the age of sail, winds occasionally blew ships hundreds of miles off course. The wind could have the same effect on the oil slick. Now, imagine several storms during the season doing the same thing. Hurricanes are powered by the heat released when moist air rises. As McClatchy notes, it is possible that the oil might slow down the hurricane formation process in the oil spill zone itself by reducing the evaporation of seawater: Oil wouldn't have an effect on the track of the storm or the intensity, said Dennis Feltgen, spokesman for the National Hurricane Center in Miami. He added, though, that a hurricane or tropical storm might have trouble forming in or near an oil slick. "Oil itself suppresses evaporation of the ocean's water," Feltgen said. "Tropical cyclones require a good amount of that moisture for those deep thunderstorms to develop, so it could slow down the genesis process." Masters said while there are different theories on what happens when storms and oil mix, it's difficult to tell until it happens. "It's kind of an open question," he said. "We don't know what would happen, but if they don't clean up the oil spill by September, then we definitely could see some hurricane and oil spill interaction. In other words, it may be less likely that a hurricane could spill right in the spill zone; but hurricanes could easily form outside of the spill zone and then interact with oil as they moved towards shore. Oil is toxic for humans, containing many different compounds: Oil contains a mixture of chemicals. The main ingredients are various hydrocarbons, some of which can cause cancer (eg. the PAHs or polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons); other hydrocarbons can cause skin and airway irritation. There are also certain volatile hydrocarbons called VOCs (volatile organic compounds) which can cause cancer and neurologic and reproductive harm. Oil also contains traces of heavy metals such as mercury, arsenic and lead. The oil in the Gulf is also unrefined, unlike the stuff you pour into your car. It also comes from the deepest oil well ever drilled, and it is possible that the chemistry is different at such great depths due to pressure, heat or other factors. So it is hard to tell at this point whether it is more or less toxic than standard, refined oil (Coast Guard chemists have tested the oil, but - to date - no reports have been made public.) In addition, highly toxic dispersants have been used to try to break up the oil. See this and this. Not only are dispersants being released underwater, but the air force is also dropping dispersants on the slick from above. The official information for the dispersant reveals problems: OSHA requires companies to make Material Safety Data Sheets, or MSDSs, available for any hazardous substances used in a workplace, and the ones for these dispersants both contain versions of a disturbing statement. *** Both data sheets include the warning "human

health hazards: acute." The MSDS for Corexit 9527A [the dispersant apparently being used in the Gulf] states that may cause central nervous system effects, nausea, vomiting, anesthetic or narcotic effects," and "repeated or excessive exposure to butoxyethanol [an active ingredient] may cause injury to red blood cells
"excessive exposure (hemolysis), kidney or the liver." It adds: "Prolonged and/or repeated exposure through inhalation or extensive skin contact with EGBE [butoxyethanol] may result in damage to the blood and kidneys." The bottom

line is that hurricanes could very well

spread the damage from the Gulf oil spill. In the best case scenario, the gusher will have been capped and some cleanup commenced by the time the first hurricane hits the Gulf, the hurricane will be small, and the effects minimal. In the worst case scenario, a major hurricane could spread toxic compounds inland onto crops. It could also aerosolize and then spread toxic chemicals, causing serious health problems for local residents - especially children, the elderly and those already at
risk.

Caribbean area increasingly vulnerable to hurricanes AOML 3 Atlantic Oceanographic Meteorological Laboratory, AOML, a federal research laboratory, is part of
NOAA's Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research , located in Miami, Florida. AOML's research spans hurricanes, coastal ecosystems, oceans and human health, climate studies, global carbon systems, and ocean observations,(Hurricane Vulnerability in Latin America and The Caribbean: Normalized Damage and Loss Potentials,Aoml.noaa.gov,8/9/2003,http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/NHR-Cuba.pdf,6/28/13,MH)

In recent years, the

documented variability of hurricanes in the region suggests the beginnings of a more active regime. Goldenberg et al. ~2001! provide evidence from Atlantic Ocean sea surface temperatures,
atmospheric circulation patterns, and the time series of Atlantic hurricanes themselves that 1995 marked a distinct switch back to active conditions last seen in the 1940s to 1960s. If conditions persist as they did last century, high levels of hurricane activity may prevail for the next two to three decades. Such a change would be most evident in the Northern Caribbean ~1.3 hurricanes per year in the active era versus only 0.4 hurricanes per year that occurred in the quiet era of 1971 1994! and the Southern Caribbean ~0.4 versus 0.2 hurricanes per year!, but would not cause a signicant change in Central American hurricanes ~0.2 hurricanes per year in both regimes!.

Current foreign aid funds for hurricane relief in Cuba are stolen from the people-diverted to government and military facilities Tamayo 6/25-(Juan O. Tamayo,former Foreign Editor and Chief of Correspondents at The Miami Herald and for
many years the newspapers lead person in its coverage of Cuban affairs, a Research Associate, Miami Herald, 6.25.13, http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/06/25/3470187/priest-alleges-that-foreign-hurricane.html, 6/27/13, MH) Outspoken Cuban priest Jose Conrado Rodriguez alleged that foreign aid sent to his native Santiago de Cuba

province after Hurricane Sandy last year was diverted to government, military and tourism facilities but denied to private homes. The situation in Santiago is very grave because many of the more than 100,000 homes damaged by the storm have not been repaired, Rodriguez told El Nuevo Herald on
Tuesday. The aid has not reached the people. Rodriguez first made the allegations in a public letter to the head of the Communist Party in the province, Lzaro Expsito, urging him to crack down on the diversion of the aid and the corruption that surrounds you. We have watched with astonishment the theft of the assistance that so many countries sent to our people, he wrote, how that aid was sold at inflated prices in flagrant violation of the intentions of the donors. We have watched with astonishment as government or armed forces installations were repaired in record time, while the people remain without roofs, he wrote in the letter, dated June 16. Warning of possible civil unrest, he added, We are witnesses to the peoples frustrations, to their desperation and impotence, to a threatening silence that makes us think that it could explode at any time with justified and uncontrollable fury. Rodriguez told El Nuevo that foreign diplomats who visited him after Sandy noted a very high degree of exasperation in the city of Santiago de Cuba, due to host the July 26 celebrations this year that mark the start of the Castro revolution. Sandy pummeled eastern Cuba in October, killing 11 people and causing $2 billion in damages. Many of the homes belonging to 100,000 families remain without roofs or the families are jammed into the one or two rooms that have roofs, Rodriguez said.

Plan would innovate new hurricane prevention and precaution technologies Lacey 9 Marc Lacey,Marc was The Timess Mexico bureau chief, responsible for covering Mexico, Central
America and the Caribbean. From 2006 to 2010, he led the newspapers coverage of Mexicos drug war, Cubas transition from Fidel Castro and Haitis struggle for stability, among other issues in more than 30 countries large and small.,The New York Times, 8/20/2009,http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/world/americas/21storm.html?_r=0,6/27/13,MH) Ivor van Heerden, a hurricane expert at Louisiana State University who visited Cuba last year, contends that

American policies should be loosened to allow a transfer of technology to Cuba to help bolster its oceanographic and weather data collection. The United States could learn from Cubas evacuation plans, post-disaster medical support and citizen disaster education programs, he said.

Cuban Embargo fails Hurricane impacts are devastating Haass 09 Richard N. Haass, Richard N. Haass is president of the Council on Foreign Relations (Forget About
Fidel, The Daily Beast, 3/6/2009, http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/03/06/forget-about-fidel.html, accessed: 6/28/13, ckr) There are signs that change may finally be coming to Cuba, 50 years after the revolution that brought Fidel Castro to power. In a major shakeup, Ral Castro, Fidel's brother, fired several high-level officials last week. While Ral did more to raise expectations than living standards in his first year as president, he may now be positioning the government to go beyond the tentative reforms so far introduced. Then again, he might merely be installing loyalists who share his view that the regime should keep a tight grip on society.

What's more certain is the need for change in Cuba. Last year's hurricanes cost the already poor island nation $10 billion, 20 percent of its GDP. The global economic slowdown has dampened tourism. The population of 11 million is shrinking, in part because of a housing shortage that's leading many families to have fewer children. Cuba's people, the lion's share of whom were born after 1959, face a future that promises little in the way of either prosperity or freedom.
Some American conservatives maintain that all this is reason enough for the United States to persist in its policy of ignoring Cuba diplomatically and sanctioning it economically. At least in principle, one could argue that the revolution is running out of steam and that regime change from within may finally be at hand. The problem is that this argument ignores Cuban reality. The country is not near the precipice of collapse. To the contrary, the intertwined party, government and military have matters well in hand. The population, ensured basic necessities along with access to education and health care, is neither inclined to radical change nor in a position to bring it about. The American policy of isolating Cuba has failed. Officials boast that Havana now hosts more diplomatic missions than any other country in the region save Brazil. Nor is the economic embargo working. Or worse: it is working, but for countries like Canada, South Korea and dozens of others that are only too happy to help supply Cuba with food, generators and building materials. Those in Congress who complain about the "offshoring" of American jobs ought to consider that the embargo deprives thousands of American workers of employment. The policy of trying to isolate Cuba also worksperversely enoughto bolster the Cuban regime. The U.S. embargo provides Cuba's leaders a convenient excusethe country's economic travails are due to U.S. sanctions, they can claim, not their own failed policies. The lack of American visitors and investment also helps the government maintain political control. There is one more reason to doubt the wisdom of continuing to isolate Cuba. However slowly, the country is changing. The question is whether the United States will be in a position to influence the direction and pace of this change. We do not want to see a Cuba that fails, in which the existing regime gives way to a repressive regime of a different stripe or to disorder marked by drugs, criminality, terror or a humanitarian crisis that prompts hundreds of thousands of Cubans to flee their country for the United States. Rather, Washington should work to shape the behavior and policy of Cuba's leadership so that the country becomes more open politically and economically. Fifty years of animosity cannot be set aside in a stroke, but now is the time for Washington to act. Much of the initiative lies with the new president. President Obama, could, for example, make good on campaign promises to allow Cuban-Americans to freely remit funds to relatives in Cuba and to visit them regularly, and could loosen travel restrictions for others as well. (Some of these measures can be found in legislation currently working its way through Congress.) Obama could also initiate technical contacts. Each country already maintains an "interests section," a small embassy by another name, in the other's capital. They also share information about weather. But they could resume exchanges on such common challenges as migration and drug interdiction, and initiate them on homeland security and counterterrorism.

Famine
Cuban embargo prevents food supply and results in massive disease outbreaks Kirkpatrick 96 Anthony Kirkpatrick, After nearly twenty years of dedicated service to the University of South Florida
College of Medicine in Tampa, Anthony F. Kirkpatrick, MD, PhD, left to establish the RSD / CRPS Treatment Center and Research Institute, the world's first institute of its kind, dedicated exclusively to RSD / CRPS. The Institute opened its Center in February 2008 and is headquartered in Tampa. (Role of the USA in shortage of food and medicine in Cuba, The

Lancet Vol. 348, 11/30/1996, http://www.cubasolidarity.net/Kirkpatrick-lancet.pdf, accessed: 6/27/13, ckr)

The US Government acknowledges that there is no exemption for food items; it simply notes that
there are ample suppliers of foodstuffs elsewhere, that Cuba receives donations of food, and that the food shortages are not due to the embargo, but, rather, are caused by the Regimes failure to alter Cubas inefficient centralized economic system.10 This argument rings hollow. First, even if Cuba can buy food elsewhere, the inclusion of food in the US trade embargo remains in violation of international law. Second, a small amount of food is donated by US organisations,4,10 but that is a poor substitute for removing provisions that prohibit its sale. Third, although Cuba can buy food elsewhere, it must often pay higher transportation costs than would be the case with the nearby USA. Fourth, in 1992, the US Government ignored the warning of the American Public

Health Association that the tightening of the embargo would lead to an abrupt cessation of supplies of food and medicine to Cuba resulting in widespread famines.4 In fact, 5 months after the passage of the Act the worst epidemic of neurological disease this century due to a food shortage became widespread in Cuba. 12 More than 50 000 of the 11 million inhabitants were suffering from optic neuropathy, deafness, loss of sensation and pain in the extremities, and a spinal disorder that impaired walking and bladder control.1113 Furthermore, as recently as November, 1995, WHO reported more people with neurological disease in Cuba due to malnutrition.14 In June, 1993, a delegation sponsored by the American Public Health Association travelled to Cuba to assess the impact of the embargo on the public health of the Cuban people. The Associations report
notes that the policies of the Castro regime give a high priority for health care, which has contributed to a large reduction in infant mortality and improvements in health. However, the Association found that the

tightening US embargo, through the enactment of the CDA, has been associated with a decline in the health of the Cuban people.15 The US Government often speaks of violations of human rights in Cuba. Such claims should perhaps be viewed against the background of an Amnesty International report, which
catalogues human-rights abuses in the USA, such as torture, ill-treatment of prisoners, and excessive use of force by police.16 In addition, it should be noted that Washington has been deemed to have exaggerated Cubas abuses of human rights, to the extent of codifying such claims into US law.17 These reports should be borne in mind when the US blockade of food and medicine to Cuba is considered.

Embargo causes malnutrition in Cuba Amnesty International 09 Amnesty International is a global movement of 2.2 million people in more than
150 countries and territories, who campaign on human rights (The US Embargo against Cuba, Amnesty International, 2009 (no spec. date), http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AMR25/007/2009/en/51469f8b-73f847a2-a5bd-f839adf50488/amr250072009eng.pdf, accessed: 7/4/13, ckr)

The negative impact of the US embargo on the Cuban health care system and on the right to health of Cubans during the 1990s has been documented in a 1997 report by the American Association for World Health (AAWH).45 The 300-page document is still the most comprehensive study on the issue. Based on a fact-finding mission to Cuba, the AAWH identified that the embargo contributed

particularly to malnutrition affecting especially women and children, poor water quality, lack of access to medicines and medical supplies, and limited the exchange of medical and scientific information due to travel restrictions and currency regulations. The AAWH found that a humanitarian
catastrophe has been averted only because the Cuban government has maintained a high level of budgetary support for a health care system designed to deliver primary and preventive health care to all of its citizens Even so, the

U.S. embargo of food and the de facto embargo on medical supplies has wreaked havoc with the island's model primary health care system.46
During the first three decades of the embargo, the export of medicines was allowed for humanitarian reasons only. In 1992, with the passage of the CDA, the sales of medicines were exempt from the embargo. However, access to medicines became virtually impossible for Cuba. Every export of medicine required that the President of the USA certify, through on-site inspections approved by the President, that all components of a shipment of medical products to Cuba were used for the purpose intended. 47 The tightening of the US embargo

during the 1990s exacerbated the economic crisis in Cuba as the country had lost the economic support from the Soviet Union.48 This affected the capacity of the Cuban health system to deliver to the population the same standards of health care as before the economic crisis Lack of imports due to the embargo means Cuba doesnt have enough food Garfield 99 Richard Garfield, Richard Garfield, nurse and epidemiologist, is professor of clinical international
nursing at Columbia University. He is the co-chair of the Human Rights Committee of the American Public Health Association and director of a PAHO/WHO collaborating centre at Columbia University. He worked in the ministry of health in Nicaragua. (The Impact of Economic Sanctions on Health and Well-being, Relief and Rehabilitation Network Paper, November 1999, http://www.essex.ac.uk/armedcon/story_id/The%20Impact%20of%20Econmoic%20Sanctins%20on%20Health%20 abd%20Well-Being.pdf, accessed: 7/2/13, amf) Cuba About

half of all proteins and calories in Cuba were imported prior to sanctions. Importation of foodstuffs declined by about 50 per cent from 1989 to 1993 and milk production declined by 55 per cent from 1989 to 1992 due to loss of imported feed and fuel. Reduced imports and a shift toward lower quality protein products are significant health threats: a daily glass of milk used to be provided to all children in schools and daycare centres through age 13; it was subsequently provided only up to age six. It is estimated that sanctions on Cuba create a virtual tax of 30 per cent on all imports. These have higher purchase and shipping costs because they have to be purchased from more expensive and more distant markets.

Embargo interferes with Cubas food and economy Jolly 8- Schona Jolly, internationalhuman rights and equalities lawyer and writer, (Of Demons and Hurricanes : Cuba's Embargo Must Be Lifted Immediately, 2/08,

http://www.cubaabsolutely.com/AboutCuba/article_economic.php?id=Of-Demons-andHurricanes, 7/3/13, CAS)


A 2007 report [PDF] by the UN special rapporteur on the right to food highlights the devastating impact that the embargo has had on Cuba's food production and importation. The report states, by
way of example: Over 80% of dairy imports to Cuba consist of milk powder for use in the social programme, imported from New Zealand and the European Union. Rice is shipped from China and Vietnam, taking 45 days to reach Cuba. By way of comparison, it would cost one-third of the price to ship from the United States and would only take two days. Increased transaction costs also affect the import of food.

US products must be paid for in advance in cash or through letters of credit drawn on third country banks. The [Cuban] government estimates that incremental (transaction) costs for food and agricultural imports

incurred in 2006 due to the embargo amounted to $62.8m.


An embargo "to bring democracy" is a tool of warfare, and needs to be recognised as such. Cuba, however, is dealing with enough of her own demons at present. Whirling winds have wreaked a war-like devastation on a land that has stayed determined to seek its own course through history. It is high time the embargo is lifted, not just for 90 days, but for good. According to the Cuban government, the embargo has cost the Cuban

economy over $89bn since its introduction and resulted in $258m of losses in the food sector from May 2006 to April 2007.

Internet Adv 1AC


Government conditioning restricts internet access to .01% of the population
TAMAYO 6-7 JUAN O. TAMAYO, Writer at The Miami Herald, Former: Andean Bureau Chief at Miami Herald, Foreign Editor at
Miami Herald, Latin desk editor at UPI Foreign desk, Marquette University, School of Journalism (Cubas new Internet locales remain conditioned, Miami Herald, 6/7/13, http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/06/07/3439494/cubas -new-internet-locales-remain.html, Accessed: 6/27/13 MC)

Users marveled at the relatively high speeds of the connections and their access to some Web pages once blocked by the government. Others, like Radio/TV Marti, the U.S. government broadcaster that transmits to the island,
remain blocked.

But access to the Web at the cyberpuntos remained tightly conditioned even chillingly so. Users must show their national ID cards and sign an agreement that they will not use the service for anything that could be considered as damaging or harmful to the public security a vague term that presumably can include political dissidence. And when users try to send out any attachments, ETECSAs own NAUTA interface system greets them with a pop-up window that certainly appears to be a reminder that Big Brother is watching.
When you send information to the Internet, other people may see what you are sending. Do you wish to continue? the message says. Click yes or no. The pop-up window is marked Internet Explorer and is known to be a real if infrequent message generated by that search engine. Yet several Cuban cybernauts said they never see that message when they use Internet cafes in Havanas tourist hotels. Havana

journalist and blogger Ivan Garcia said he didnt know what to make of the message. It would be really sloppy for the authorities to allow the message to pop-up, he said, although the whole world knows everything can be monitored here. Most Cubans believe that the governments security apparatus watches over virtually all Internet traffic into and out of the island, reads any private emails and steals passwords so that it can hack into accounts abroad, such as Gmail, Facebook and Twitter.
Most of the complaints so far against the 118 new Web access points opened on Cuban ruler Ra l Castros 82nd birthday have been not about the possible monitoring but about the high costs.
The $5 charged for one hour of surfing on the World Wide Web amounts to a weeks salary for the average government employee. Surfing the Cuba-only Intranet costs about 70 U.S. cents and access to a Cuban email account goes for about $1.65 per hour.

Cubans have one of the worst Internet access rates in the Western Hemisphere, with only 4 percent saying they had access to the Web and email in a public opinion survey by the International Republican Institute taken in January and February. The International Telecommunications Union ranked Cuba in last place in Latin America and the Caribbean in 2011 when measured by broadband subscribers per 100 people and secure Internet servers for every 1 million people.

Scenario 1 is the Public Sphere: Without internet the Cuban public sphere is bound to regime control Hoffmann 11- Bert Hoffmann, Senior Researcher GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies ( Civil Society 2.0?: How the
Internet Changes State-Society Relations in Authoritarian Regimes: The Case of Cuba, GIGA Research Programme: Legitimacy and Efficiency of Political Systems, January 2011 https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gigahamburg.de%2Fdl%2Fdownload.php%3Fd%3D%2Fcontent%2Fpublikationen%2Fpdf%2Fwp156_hoffmann.pdf&ei=D93SUbinBNi4AOfwoHoDw&usg=AFQjCNGPPcalsf1La5yMENpZb7PxMV2i3Q&sig2=cSL3cBqrRtpr1ysxnhEqzQ Accessed: 7/3/13 MC)

The forms and degree of the limits various authoritarian regimes impose on the public articulation of voice vary, but no matter which regime is in question, the regime's reach is largely limited to the territorial boundaries of the nation-state in which it exercises power. As traditional media, too, were bound to the nation-state, widening the public sphere hence needed to be thought of as an "opening," "thaw," "decompression" or "liberalization" of the regime (e.g. O'Donnnell/Schmitter 1986: 26). The Internet era forces us to rethink this understanding. The inherently trans-border character of web-based communication and media technologies challenges established "fil- ters" to access and patterns of regulation in any state. However, our thesis is that the political impact is all the stronger the more a state is at odds with political pluralism and the more it relies on control over media and the public sphere in the national arena. Cuba certainly has been such a case ever since the early years after the 1959 Cuban Revolution, when the government of Fidel Castro adopted socialism as the country's political model. While the regime survived the collapse of Soviet-style socialism in Eastern Europe, it was reluctant to take up Internet-based technologies. The island became the last of all Latin American countries to join the Internet, having done so as recently as 1996 (Valdes 1997). Since then, computer use and digital communication technologies have spread, but control- ling and limiting access to the Internet and web-based media has been a crucial concern for state authorities.
Its condition as a latecomer to the Internet, combined with the overarching continuity of
the political regime, makes Cuba an ideal case for a diachronic empirical comparison, an ap- proach often underestimated in comparative politics.

compare civil society dynamics in the pre-Internet period-Cuba in the early to mid-1990s, when the Cold War alignment had already become history but web-based technologies did not yet have a major presence on the island-with the dynamics of a decade later, when web-based media entered the island for the first time. Empirically, this study is based on approximately one
Thus, this paper sets out to dozen field trips over the past two decades that included numerous formal and informal interviews both with actors from within Cuba's political establishment and those outside of it. These interviews are combined with an intensive study of publications and declarations, both in print and on the web.

Following this introduction, I will analyze Cuba's

civil society debate of the 1990s, which focused on the quest for associational autonomy as a means of pluralization within the statesocialist context. Next, I sketch Cuba's late and reluctant acceptance of the Internet and the state's efforts to assure itself a maximum amount of control. I then turn to the different ways in which societal actors have since come to use digital and web-based media to raise their voice and claim participation as one of their rights of
citizenship. The paper concludes with a discussion about the democratizing potential of these new civil society dynamics.

Web-based communication inherently challenges state regulation- widen the public sphere Hoffmann 11- Bert Hoffmann, Senior Researcher GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies ( Civil Society 2.0?: How the
Internet Changes State-Society Relations in Authoritarian Regimes: The Case of Cuba, GIGA Research Programme: Legitimacy and Efficiency of Political Systems, January 2011 https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gigahamburg.de%2Fdl%2Fdownload.php%3Fd%3D%2Fcontent%2Fpublikationen%2Fpdf%2Fwp156_hoffmann.pdf&ei=D93SUbinBNi4AOfwoHoDw&usg=AFQjCNGPPcalsf1La5yMENpZb7PxMV2i3Q&sig2=cSL3cBqrRtpr1ysxnhEqzQ Accessed: 7/3/13 MC)

The forms and degree of the limits various authoritarian regimes impose on the public articulation of voice vary, but no matter which regime is in question, the regime's reach is largely limited to the territorial boundaries of the nation-state in which it exercises power. As traditional media, too, were bound to the nation-state, widening the public sphere hence needed to be thought of as an "opening," "thaw," "decompression" or " liberalization" of the regime (e.g. O'Donnnell/Schmitter
1986: 26).

The Internet era forces us to rethink this understanding. The inherently trans-border character of web-based communication and media technologies challenges established "fil- ters" to access and patterns of regulation in any state. However, our thesis is that the political impact is

all the stronger the more a state is at odds with political pluralism and the more it relies on control over media and the public sphere in the national arena. Cuba certainly has been such a case ever since the early years after the 1959 Cuban Revolution, when the government of Fidel Castro adopted socialism as the country's political model. While the regime survived the collapse of Soviet-style socialism in Eastern Europe, it was reluctant to take up Internet-based technologies. The island became the last of all Latin American countries to join the Internet, having done so as recently as 1996 (Valdes 1997). Since then, computer use and digital communication technologies have spread, but control- ling and limiting access to the Internet and web-based media has been a crucial concern for state authorities.
Its condition as a latecomer to the Internet, combined with the overarching continuity of the political regime, makes Cuba an ideal case for a diachronic empirical comparison, an ap- proach often underestimated in comparative politics. Thus, this paper sets out to compare civil society dynamics in

the pre-Internet period-Cuba in the early to mid-1990s, when the Cold War alignment had already become history but web-based technologies did not yet have a major presence on the island-with the dynamics of a decade later, when web-based media entered the island for the first time.
Empirically, this study is based on approximately one dozen field trips over the past two decades that included numerous formal and informal interviews both with actors from within Cuba's political establishment and those outside of it. These interviews are combined with an intensive study of publications and declarations, both in print and on the web. Following this introduction, I will analyze Cuba's civil society debate of the 1990s, which

focused on the quest for associational autonomy as a means of pluralization within the statesocialist context. Next, I sketch Cuba's late and reluctant acceptance of the Internet and the state's efforts to assure itself a maximum amount of control. I then turn to the different ways in which societal actors have since come to use digital and web-based media to raise their voice and claim participation as
one of their rights of citizenship. The paper concludes with a discussion about the democratizing potential of these new civil society dynamics.

Technological management of society objectifies human life Rayner 01- Tim Rayner (PhD) teaches Philosophy for Change and mentors at the Centre for Sustainability Leadership, Sydney, Australia
He is the writer of the award-winning short film, Coalition of the Willing (2010), Biopower and Technology: Foucault and Heideggers Way of Thinking Contretemps 2, May 2001, http://sydney.edu.au/contretemps/2may2001/rayner.pdf

The themes and concerns that define the argument of the present work derive from Heidegger and Foucaults respective interpretations of the relationship between technology and power in the contemporary age. Heidegger

and Foucault share the view that individuals in modern society are to some extent determined by technological structures pervading that society. Both develop the idea that the basic character of these structures is to objectify and order the forces of life. Both argue that the view of human beings as a kind of manipulable resource is essential to the technological management of society, and both suggest that liberation from this state of affairs requires a radical renegotiation of the nature of human being as presently construed. Given these parallels, it is interesting to consider how far we
might co-ordinate Foucault and Heideggers accounts. To what extent does Foucaults critique of modern biopower recapitulate Heideggers critique of modern technology?

Embargo prevents Cuban internet access Miroff 12 Nick Miroff, contributer to NPR, has written for the Washington ost, Masters degree in
Journalism from Berkeley, Bachelors degree in Spanish and Latin American literature at the University of Califorina at Santa Cruz (How the US keeps Cuba offline, Global Post, June 27 2012,

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/cuba/120627/us-embargo-google-analytics-cubaninternet-access, Accessed: 7/10/13, EH)


HAVANA, Cuba Fear not, web-deprived Cubans. The US government has a new plan to breach the firewall of communist censorship and let free data flow through. First though, it needs to block your access to some really cool software. That was the scrambled message of the past week. First, Cubans found themselves barred from using Google Analytics a free, web-traffic analysis tool by the US trade embargo. A few days later, they learned that American officials are spending millions on new programs to boost the free and decentralized flow of information to the island. A reminder, once more, that the Great Software Maker of the North giveth, and also taketh away. Both developments may end up deepening the frustrations of would-be web users in Cuba, who are often trapped between an internet-fearing government and US policies that seem to be making matters worse. Compared to other nations in the region, Cuba is a cyber desert , a technological Brigadoon stuck in the pre-AOL era, where millions of young people have never even been online. A limited number of Cubans manage to connect to the internet through their workplaces or by paying a premium for exasperatingly slow dial-up connections, but they web browsing a test of patience and videostreaming an impossib[le]ility. Cuban government statistics show that the island of 11 million has the lowest internet penetration rate in the Western Hemisphere. Though mobile phone ownership is growing fast and now tops 1.3 million, that also remains the lowest in Latin America. Even Cubans who have the money arent allowed to contract internet service at home. The Cuban government insists there isnt enough bandwidth to go around, yet it hasnt said a word about the status of a much-touted undersea fiber-optic cable to Venezuela that was supposed to fix the problem when it was completed last year. Internet-starved islanders who do manage to get online face an obstacle course set by both the Castro government and Washington, which directs American technology companies to enforce sanctions on popular software. Cuban web users are blocked from the chat service Microsoft Messenger, and have been cut off from sites such as Sourceforge, a source-code repository used by software developers. Google Earth and Google Toolbar were already denied to Cubans before the company announced last week that it was adding Google Analytics to the blacklist. No matter that the software is free and no money changes hands between Google and Cuba. As a US company, we comply with US export controls and trade sanctions that limit us from offering certain services in certain countries, a Google spokesperson told AFP. The Cuban government called it outrageous censorship. For its part, Cuba blocks access on its servers to US-funded broadcaster Radio Marti, along with online classifieds site Revolico.com and voiceover-internet services such as Skype. Other sites like Twitter, Facebook and YouTube are accessible from Cuba, though cumbersome to use. And Cuba remains a black hole to other corners of the web, like travel sites even those not based in the US which often dont list the country as a destination, even though the major European and Latin American airlines fly to Havana. Some US products, such as the iPad, dont even include Cuba as one of the countries for first -time users to register. If the software sanctions are meant to punish the Cuban government and its one-party socialist state, its not clear that they achieve anything more than making cyber orphans of ordinary Cubans. If anything, the US restrictions seem to play into arguments made by Cuban government hardliners who seem eager to bypass the internet and create a closed, Orwellian copy, free from outside contamination.

Internet Solvency
Developing internet technology can circumvent state censorship Kalathil & Boas 01- Shanthi Kalathil is an independent consultant on media and development. Shanthi is an expert on media, civil
society, and political transitions. Previously, she was a Senior Democracy Fellow based in the Office of Democracy and Governance at the U.S. Agency for International Development, where she served as an advisor on civil society and independent media development for Washingtonbased programs and planning, as well as for various USAID missions around the world. She holds a B.A. in Communications from U.C. Berkeley and a M.Sc. in Comparative Politics from the London School of Economics and Political Science. Shanthi is particularly interested in issues of voice and accountability and their impact on political transitions. Taylor C. Boas, The Internet and State Control in Authoritarian Regimes: China, Cuba, and the Counterrevolution,

Moreover, the experiences of China and Cuba are likely to shed light on other authoritarian and semi-authoritarian regimes strategies regarding the Internet. In the Middle East, several
governments have begun to promote widespread Internet access but remain even more committed than the Chinese to censoring content available on the World Wide Web. In Asia, the strictest regimes have mimicked Cuba in selectively granting access to the medium. Almost all

of these regimes are attempting to benefit from proactive approaches toward the Internet, harnessing technology for economic development, e-government, and other purposes. Singapore
and the United Arab Emirates stand out in their respective regions as success stories of proactive Internet strategy, and many of their neighbors are looking to them as examples to emulate. Ongoing research at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace will place Cuba and China in comparative perspective with a wider variety of authoritarian and semi-authoritarian regimes in Asia and the Middle East. In doing so we hope to reach more generalizable conclusions about the impact of the Internet on authoritarian rule.

In the long term, of course, we can only speculate about the continued viability of state strategies for controlling the Internet. Internet technology will continue to evolve over time, as will the myriad nontechnological factors that shape the environment in which Internet use takes place; as such, our observations act as snapshots of moving targets. Authoritarian regimes will
have to continually adapt their measures of control if they want to counter effectively the challenges of future variations in information and communication technologies. It is quite

possible that this task will prove too difficult and that use of ICTs will eventually play a role in the democratic revolution that has been so widely predicted. Over time, however, authoritarian
regimes have weathered innumerable challenges posed by changing technologies, and they may prove up to the current challenge as well.

Internet can prompt the move toward liberal political systems Fontaine and Rogers 11- Richard Fontaine is the President of the Center for a New American Security (CNAS). He served as a
Senior Advisor and Senior Fellow at CNAS from 2009-2012. He previously served as foreign policy advisor to Senator John McCain for more than five years. He has also worked at the State Department, the National Security Council and on the staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Will Rogers, is the Bacevich Fellow at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS). At CNAS, Mr. Rogers researc h focus is on science, technology and national security policy. He has authored or co-authored a range of publications on energy, climate change, environmental cooperation in Asia and cybersecurity. ( Internet Freedom A Foreign Policy Imperative in the Digital Age, CNA S, JUNE 2011, http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CNAS_InternetFreedom_FontaineRogers_0.pdf, Accessed: 7/4/13, MC)

The Internet does not automatically promote democratization; Irans Twitter revolution led to no reforms while
Egypts Facebook revolution toppled the Mubarak regime. Furthermore, the technology itself is agnostic; the same online Exper ts from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development have estimated that Egypts fiveday Internet shutdown cost the country at least 90 million dollars, a figure that does not include e-commerce, tourism or other businesses that rely on Internet connectivity. tools

that empower dissidents can aid dictators in their oppression. In the short run, at least, a freer Internet does not automatically translate into more liberal political systems.

Yet some case studies do demonstrate the Internets profound potential: that access to an open Internet can help countries slide away from authoritarianism and toward democracy. Events in Iran, Tunisia, Egypt and elsewhere suggest that the Internet and related technologies (such as SMS) have indeed served as critical tools for organizing protests, spreading information among dissident parties and transmitting images and information to the outside world some of which moved onto satellite television channels, further boosting their influence.64 And while experts continue to argue about the precise effect, they tend to agree that social media tools have made revolutions in the Middle East easier and speedier than they would have otherwise been.65Perhaps the most compelling link between a free Internet and democratization is also the simplest: Both dissidents and dictatorships abroad seem to believe that the Internet can have a transformative role, and they act on that basis. Dictatorships expend enormous time and resources to clamp down on online activity, and more than 40 countries actively censor the Internet or engage in other forms of significant Internet repression.66 Meanwhile, millions of individuals use proxy servers and other circumvention and anonymity tools to evade censorship and monitoring. During the 2009 presidential campaign in Iran, for example,
both President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his opponent, Mir-Hussein Mousavi, cited the Internet as a tool through which the liberal opposition could mobilize support.67 It is unlikely they were
both wrong. While

the effect of the Internet will depend on local conditions, there are indeed reasonable grounds for believing that a free Internet can help empower individuals to press for more liberal political systems. Precedent for Internet freedom in place Fontaine and Rogers 11- Richard Fontaine is the President of the Center for a New American Security (CNAS). He served as a
Senior Advisor and Senior Fellow at CNAS from 2009-2012. He previously served as foreign policy advisor to Senator John McCain for more than five years. He has also worked at the State Department, the National Security Council and on the staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Will Rogers, is the Bacevich Fellow at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS). At CNAS, Mr. Rogers researc h focus is on science, technology and national security policy. He has authored or co-authored a range of publications on energy, climate change, environmental cooperation in Asia and cybersecurity. ( Internet Freedom A Foreign Policy Imperative in the Digital Age , CNAS, JUNE 2011, http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CNAS_InternetFreedom_FontaineRogers_0.pdf, Accessed: 7/4/13, MC)

Principle 1: embrace a Comprehensive approach U.S. policymakers should incorporate Internet freedom into their decision-making (especially on cyber security and economic diplomacy issues); convene private sector professionals, export controls experts, diplomats and others to explore new ways of promoting Internet freedom; and use traditional diplomacy to promote Internet freedom. Principle 2: build an International Coalition to Promote Internet Freedom The U.S. government should convene a core group of democratic governments to advocate Internet freedom in key international fora; urge governments to encourage foreign companies to join the Global Network Initiative (GNI);
and ensure that the Secretary of State gives her next major address on Internet freedom in a foreign country, possibly in Europe alongside key European Union (EU) commissioners.

Principle 3: Move beyond Circumvention Technologies The U.S. government should continue to fund technologies other than firewall-evasion tools, including those that help dissidents maintain digital security, ensure mobile access and reconstitute websites after a cyber attack. The U.S. government should offer financial awards to foster technological innovation, require that any online tool receiving U.S. funding be subjected to an independent security audit and expand the
sources of technology funding to include foreign governments, foundations and the private sector.

Principle 4: Prioritize Training The State Department, along with the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), should continue to foster Internet freedom through targeted training programs, including education on online safety.

Principle 5: lead the effort to build International norms The U.S. government should promote a liberal concept of Internet freedom in all relevant fora, and reject attempts by authoritarian states to promote norms that restrict freedoms of information and expression online. It should also pursue an international transparency initiative to encourage
governments to publicize their policies on restricting online information. Principle 6: Create economic Incentives to support Internet Freedom

U.S. officials should continue to articulate the economic case for Internet freedom, backed wherever possible by solid quantitative evidence, and push for Internet censorship to be recognized as a trade barrier. Principle 7: strengthen the Private sectors Role in supporting Internet Freedom Congress should adopt laws that prohibit American corporations from giving autocratic governments the private data of dissidents when the request is clearly intended to quash legitimate freedom of expression, and that require companies to periodically disclose requests it receives for such data to the U.S. government.
U.S. officials should continue to urge companies to join the GNI, but also encourage them to develop broad unilateral codes of conduct consistent with the GNI. They should also publicly highlight specific business practices, both positive and negative.

Principle 8: Reform export Controls The U.S. government should relax controls on technologies that would permit greater online freedom while protecting American national security, and educate companies on the precise nature of export
control restrictions so that companies do not overcomply and deny legal technologies to dissidents abroad. In addition, we offer several recommendations for technology companies, including providing

dissidents basic technical assistance to better use built-in security functions for software and hardware; better informing users and the public about who may access the data they control and under what conditions; increasing corporate
transparency about foreign government requests; and advocating for increased Internet freedom.

US can connect Cuban- little squo public access Mirof 10 Nick Miroff, Nick Miroff covers Cuba for GlobalPost., Miroff was part of the Washington Post reporting team that won a
Pulitzer prize for breaking news coverage of the massacre at Virginia Tech. His story in the Washington Post on coal miners and painkiller addiction in Appalachian southwest Virginia was the recipient of a 2008 Nancy Dickerson Award for Excellent in Reporting on Drug and Alcohol Problems. In 2006, he traveled to Northern Manitoba as part of a radio series on climate change, Early Signs: Report s from a Warming Planet that won a 2006 George Polk Award. Miroff grew up in Albany, N.Y., and earned a bachelor's degree in Spanish and Lati n American literature at University of California Santa Cruz. He holds a master's degree from the Berkeley Graduate Schoo l of Journalism. (Cuba: No deal with US telecoms,globalpost.com, October 18, 2009 17:11Updated May 30, 2010 13:11, http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/cuba/091018/cuba-says-no-deal-us-telecoms?page=0,1, Accessed: 6/27/13, MC)

Cuba currently ranks among the least-connected countries in the hemisphere, with 12.6 phones per 100
people, according to United Nations data. A limited number of Cuban professionals have access to the internet, but mostly in their workplaces, where communications are often monitored. An hour of achingly slow web access at a tourist hotel can cost more than a weeks salary for the average Cuban worker.

Cuban mobile phone communications arent much better. Though President Raul Castro overturned a ban on ordinary Cubans owning mobile phones last year, rates for local calls are roughly $0.50 per minute. A call to the U.S. costs more than a dollar a minute, and theres little alternative for keeping in touch with relatives in Miami or Spain, since the popular voice-over-internet program Skype was blocked by the Cuban government
over the summer.

The Obama administrations move gave permission to American telecommunications companies to install fiber-optic cable and satellite links between the United States and Cuba. It also allows for roaming agreements between U.S. and Cuban mobile phone providers, while enabling U.S. residents to
pay for American satellite radio and television services for Cubans, which are generally illegal on the island.

Its possible- Cuban internet Guerillas circumvent internet blocking WILSON 01- SCOTT WILSON, Scott Wilson is the chief White House correspondent for the Washington Post. Previously, he
was the papers deputy Assistant Managing Editor/Foreign News after serving as a correspondent in Latin America and in the Middle East. He was awarded an Overseas Press Club citation and an Interamerican Press Association award for his work abroad. For his coverage of the Obama administration, he received the 2011 Gerald R. Ford Prize for Distinguished Reporting on the Presidency and the 2012 Aldo Beckman Award given by the White House Correspondents Association. He joined the Post in 1997. (Cuban Guerrillas Scale the Cyber Walls WASHINGTON POST, January 01, 2001, http://articles.latimes.com/2001/jan/01/business/fi-7096, Accessed: 7/4/13, MC)

After watching the flow of information help fuel the Soviet Union's disintegration, the Cuban government has clamped down on Internet technology even as the number of users throughout the rest of Latin America doubles each year. Controlling what Cubans read and hear has been part of President Fidel
Castro's rule from the beginning. In theory, Cubans have access only to state-run newspapers and government television and radio, but many listen regularly to foreign news broadcasts.

That the Internet poses a serious threat to the information monopoly has not eluded the leadership: Cuba has one of the lowest per capita rates of computer and telephone ownership in the hemisphere. Only a select few Cubans, mostly those with access to U.S. dollars, can afford a computer even with the deep discounts
that come with government approval. Buying them on the black market is illegal. But, according to computer enthusiasts and dissidents, thousands of young Cubans do so, and the practice is well known.

Internet connections are prohibited without government permission. Only about 40,000 officials, businesses and foreigners in a country of 11 million people have been authorized to link up, the
government estimates. But thousands more have found a way to plug into the official links without permission.

The government is just beginning to test the waters of the Information Age after years of blaming the U.S. trade embargo for depriving Cuba of the resources to prepare for it. Cuba plans to spend $100 million annually to bring in digital phone lines, wireless technology and other advances that could expand Internet availability.
Across the capital, signs of a "dot-com" world are sprouting. Computer courses offered at youth clubs are jammed with students ranging in age from 4 to 40. A new breed of Internet entrepreneur has arrived, helping the government create Web pages mostly designed to lure tourists. And streets are being torn up to install digital phone lines and cable.

Advocates: The USFG should enable internet freedom within repressive regimes Fontaine 10- Richard Fontaine is the President of the Center for a New American Security (CNAS). He served as
a Senior Advisor and Senior Fellow at CNAS from 2009-2012. He previously served as foreign policy advisor to Senator John McCain for more than five years. He has also worked at the State Department, the National Security Council and on the staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. (America Needs an Internet Agenda, The Wall Street Journal, March 24, 2010, 1:59 p.m. ET, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704896104575140513805720790.html Accessed: 7/3/13, MC)
Google's announcement that it has stopped censoring results from its Chinese search engine has captured global attention, but

developments on the Internet freedom front are coming fast and furious. In recent months, the U.S. administration removed sanctions on Internet-related exports to Iran, Sudan, and Cuba; Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton gave an important speech on cyberfreedom; and Congress gave funding assistance to cyberdissidents in Iran and China. This week the Senate will launch a Global Internet Freedom Caucus, and more such efforts are likely in coming months. All this is premised on the hypothesis that more Internet freedom leads to more political freedom. Does it? Autocracies certainly seem to think so. During last year's protests in Iran, the regime not only blocked opposition Web sites and engaged in online

China famously censors Web sites through the so-called "Great Firewall," and other countriesincluding Tunisia, Burma and Cubahave followed Beijing's lead. Many dissidents agree that the Internet has the potential to help open closed societies. Ahead of the 2004 Orange Revolution, the Ukrainian student group Pora used cell phones, text messages, and Internet communications to organize tens of thousands of
efforts to track down dissidents, but also slowed down all Internet service throughout the country.

protestors. Last year, millionsincluding the American presidentsaw the YouTube video of Neda Agha-Soltan's brutal murder in the
streets of Tehran. In supporting Internet freedom, the U.S. is placing a bet essentially the same wager it made during the Cold Warthat supporting access to information and encouraging the free exchange of ideas is good for America. And indeed, by

making new tools available to mass publics overseasfrom offshore servers and satellite Internet service to anonymous software and social networking sitesthe U.S. can provide the platforms through which human rights, freedom of speech and other universal values can be freely debated and discussed.
At the same time, we must understand the limitations and complications that surround these efforts. Supporting Internet freedom represents one tool in the kit, but is no panacea, as current conditions in Iran and other Web-suppressing countries demonstrate so vividly. In addition, there is often a tension between cybersecurity, which depends on knowing who is doing what online, and cyberfreedom, which relies on anonymous activity. Americans both want online users to work ensure that we are not the target of Internet-coordinated terrorist plots.

free of a repressive regimes' watchful eyes and

The U.S. could play a greater role in two areas in particular. First, the government and private sector can expand their efforts to establish international norms governing the use of cyberspace, attempting thereby to inculcate freedom of expression and basic human rights in online behavior.
This effort should include bringing onboard our allies and partners who at times engage in their own forms of censorship.

Second, the U.S. can take more active steps to provide the hardware and software that would enable such freedom to flourish. Along the lines of recent legislation, and as suggested by Secretary of State Clinton, these efforts could include providing anonymizing and encryption software to dissidents, expanding local language tools (such as photo and social networking sites) that enable communications with the outside world, training social activists and diplomatic personnel in the use of Internet technologies, and urging companies to protect dissident accounts and identities. All of these efforts must be coupled with old-fashioned diplomacy. When regimes crack down on online dissidentsas they will continue to dothe U.S. should be prepared to advocate for their rights and, when necessary, their release from prison. When regimes use the Internet to actively target protesters, organizations or other governments, America should be ready to take a stand. US should lift restrictions on Cuban economic development- key to ICT development CSG et. Al.- 10- The Cuba Study Group (CSG) is a non-prot, non-partisan organization comprised of business and community leaders
of Cuban descent who share a common interest and vision of a free and prosperous Cuba. The CSG mission is to facilitate a peaceful reunication of the Cuban nation that would lead to a free and open society with respect for human rights, the rule of law and a market-based economy. Americas Society (AS) is the premier forum dedicated to education, debate and dialogue in the Americas. Council of the Americas (COA) is the premier international business organization whose members share a common commitment to economic and social development, open markets, the rule of law and democracy throughout the Western Hemisphere. The Latin America Initiative at Brookings focuses on the most critical economic, political and social issues facing the region. Research activities center on a wide range of topics, inclu ding Cubas political transition. The initiative is led by Senior Fellow Mauricio Crdenas and is a joint effort of the Global Economy and Development and Foreign Policy programs at Brookings. The Brookings Institution is a nonprot public policy organization based in Washington, DC., E mpowering the Cuban People through Technology: Recommendations for Private and Public Sector Leaders, JULY 2010, http://www.ascoa.org/sites/default/files/styles/Empowering_the_Cuban_People_through_Technology.pdf, Accessed: 7/7/13, MC)

It is unreasonable to wish for the development of other forms of ICT in Cuba, such as the Internet and social media, without economic models to make them work. Thus, the challenge for U.S. policy-makers consists not only of effecting targeted reforms to its sanctions for Cuba, but also of broadly lifting all restrictions that hinder the development of an economic model capable of sustaining the requisite investments in ICT on the island and the
corresponding consumer demand for the services. A piecemeal approach will not do the job. Current U.S. regulations restrict the very access necessary to make this happen. Expanding the opportunity for U.S. telecom investors and companies to provide cell phone and Internet service to the island will help ensure that Cuban citizens possess the tools to become productive economic citizens once the shackles of political and economic state control are removed. To say this does not deny or minimize the real controls that the Cuban

government places on its own citizens access to the Internet. But expanding citizens access to even the most rudimentary technology in Cuba would be a giant step forward in economically empowering a new, independent generation of Cuban citizens. Laying an effective ICT infrastructure foundation is essential for the long-term economic prospects of the Cuban people. The following three steps would greatly facilitate getting there:

1 More explicit and exible U.S. regulations governing the export and investments in ICT infrastructure in Cuba. 2 More exible and explicit U.S. regulations to allow for the development of an ICT consumer market in Cuba. 3 Scalable donation efforts from outside of Cuba of ICT materials, equipment and software to Cubans on the island. An external force is necessary for broader political change Hoffmann 11- Bert Hoffmann, Senior Researcher GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies ( Civil Society 2.0?: How the
Internet Changes State-Society Relations in Authoritarian Regimes: The Case of Cuba, GIGA Research Programme: Legitimacy and Efficiency of Political Systems, January 2011 https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gigahamburg.de%2Fdl%2Fdownload.php%3Fd%3D%2Fcontent%2Fpublikationen%2Fpdf%2Fwp156_hoffmann.pdf&ei=D93SUbinBNi4AOfwoHoDw&usg=AFQjCNGPPcalsf1La5yMENpZb7PxMV2i3Q&sig2=cSL3cBqrRtpr1ysxnhEqzQ Accessed: 7/3/13 MC) However, as the preceding chapter has shown, not only has the state media monopoly become porous, but so have the state's walls of containing web-based voice from spilling over into Cuban society. Some

15 years after Cuba joined the Internet, the webbased media not only represent a leak of voice to a globalized public, but they have led to a limited, yet important transformation of state-society relations. They empower a new reassertion of citi- zenship rights that challenge established rules and they foster the emergence of new social actors and forms of action.
However, the case also shows that there is no automatism from such trends to a process of gradual reform or even regime change. The crucial fault-line remains the physical space on the island, where the state's grip remains firm and the costs for collective action high. For

more large-scale political transformation to occur, a wider combination of conditions must be met, probably including the emergence of competing visions within the political elite or changes in the external constellation of allies and foes. But the expansion of voice, the reas- sertion of citizenship rights, and the web-based support for civic action in the physical world has already changed the contours of state-society relations. Once conditions arise-be it for a reform movement towards a more pluralist model of socialism or for a democratization proc- ess heading for a regime change-these transformations will undoubtedly play a crucial role in shaping any process of broader political change.

US should subsidize Cuban internet


Press 96 Larry Press, Policy Analyst at the RAND Institute (Cuban Telecommunications, Computer Networking, and U.S. Policy
Implications, National Defense Institute (RAND), July 1996, http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/drafts/2008/DRU1330-1.pdf, Accessed: 6/27/13, MC) At present the Cuban connection is via dial-up phone calls to Canada or the U.K. in which data is transferred then the connection dropped until the next call. This mode of Internet connection allows for electronic mail, but not for interactive applications like searching for and retrieving information on the www. Furthermore,

it does not allow the Cubans to place information on servers from which others can retrieve it. Full-time IP connectivity would allow Cubans interactive access to outside material and vice versa. IP connectivity requires a leased communication link, networking hardware, and competent networking centers. The capability of providing the leased link is already in place, and Sprint has stated they will have tariffed service available soon. Other vendors will probably follow the Sprint lead. Routers and other communication hardware and software would

also be needed. CENIAI or CIGBnet would be viable connection organizations within Cuba today, and InfoMed plans a significant upgrade; however, CENIAI seems to be the organization designated by the Cubans. Since Cuba has been connecting in Canada and the U.K. to date, those would be likely external connection points; however, the U.S. National Science Foundation has a strong record of providing connection points for developing nations, and a U.S. connection should be considered. The U.S. should subsidize the communication link, international connectivity through NSF, and Cuban networking hardware. The cost of doing so would be very small compared to Radio or TV Marti, and would surely have a greater impact than the latter.

Internet AT: Squo Solves -general


Challenges for societal autonomy within state control are co-opted Hoffmann 11- Bert Hoffmann, Senior Researcher GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies ( Civil Society 2.0?: How the
Internet Changes State-Society Relations in Authoritarian Regimes: The Case of Cuba, GIGA Research Programme: Legitimacy and Efficiency of Political Systems, January 2011 https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gigahamburg.de%2Fdl%2Fdownload.php%3Fd%3D%2Fcontent%2Fpublikationen%2Fpdf%2Fwp156_hoffmann.pdf&ei=D93SUbinBNi4AOfwoHoDw&usg=AFQjCNGPPcalsf1La5yMENpZb7PxMV2i3Q&sig2=cSL3cBqrRtpr1ysxnhEqzQ Accessed: 7/3/13 MC)

The Cuban Revolution of 1959 redefined state-societyrelations. Most existing civil society organizations were either disbanded or transformed (and new ones created) according to a mold in which loyalty and subordination to the revolutionary leadership were a conditio sine qua non.1 With the so-called "process of institutionalization" in the 1970s, state-society rela- tions were formally modeled in MarxistLeninist fashion: the Constitution of 1976 defined the Communist Party as the "highest leading force of society and of the state, which organ- izes and guides the common effort" (Republica de Cuba 1992 5) and declared as mission of "the social and mass organizations [.] the edification, consolidation and defense of the so- cialist society" (ibid. 7). Freedom of speech and of press were limited, by constitutional pre- scription, "in keeping with the objectives of socialist society" (Republica de Cuba 1992). To this end, Article 52 of the Cuban Constitution effectively establishes a monopoly on mass media: "Material conditions for the exercise of that right are provided by the fact that the press, radio, television, cinema, and other mass media are state or social property and can never be private property" (ibid. 52,1).1 For Cuban civil society prior to 1959 see Armony/Crahan 2007; on trade unions and the women's federation see Marifeli Perez-Stable 1994. Organizational activities that remained (at least partially) outside of these parameters were few and narrowly restricted; arguably, the most important one being the Catholic church, which maintained a nationwide
and legally recognized institutional infrastructure that included media for internal circulation (Armony/Crahan 2007).2

In the charismatic brand of socialism that characterized post-1959 Cuba and which set it
apart from the standard Eastern European model (Hoffmann 2008), formal prescriptions like the constitutional provisions on the media were

The key statement on the margins for voice were his so-called "words to the intellectuals" from 1961, which pro- vided the following maxim: "Within the Revolution, everything. Against the Revolution, nothing."3 This sentence, repeated ad infinitum ever since, acquired law-like status and left ample discretion for the power-holders to define at every instance what was "within" and what was "against" the revolution. Aside from media, a central and related concern was on public space. In the dualism of Cuba's charismatic brand of socialism, formal restrictions on the freedom of assembly also found their informal equivalent in the slogan "The street is Fidel's!",4 a code the state invoked to justify the prohibition or repression of protesting voices in public. The severe limits imposed on public voices contrasted with an
complemented with declarations by the charismatic leader, Fidel Castro, which carried no less practical weight. often surprising level of tolerance towards criticism voiced in private-an ambivalence which led Cubans to paraphrase Fidel's 1961 words as "Under the roof, everything. In the street, nothing.

After the regime collapses in Eastern Europe and the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991, a profound economic, social and ideological crisis in Cuba ensued, one that called into ques- tion the viability of state-society relations as they had developed in the three decades since 1959. Internationally, civil society had gone from a buzzword in academia to a resounding career path in international and development
politics. Particularly the role ascribed to civil society in bringing down state-socialism in Eastern Europe (Arato/Cohen 1992, Havel 1978) provided the background for the concept being taken up by U.S. policy towards Cuba, which in the early 1990s, publicly adopted "the fostering of Cuba's civil society" as a "second track" next to economic sanctions to bring about regime change in Havana.

These political overtones notwithstanding, it was within the official intellectual institu-

tions on the island that in the mid-1990s, the term "civil society" became the focus of a key debate about the country's course (Gray/Kapcia 2008). As the concept of civil society stresses some degree of autonomy from the "political society" (state, parties, parliaments, etc.) (e.g. Fernandez 1993: 99), in a state-socialist country this conception invariably raises the question about the role of state and party and the margins of associational autonomy within such a framework. This debate about civil society within state-socialism marked a new discussion not only for Cuba, but also internationally.
An article by Rafael Hernandez from Havana's Center for American Studies (CEA) initi-ated the Cuban civil society debate in 1994. In it, he underscored the Marxist ideological cre- dentials of the term claiming its tradition in the writings of Hegel, Marx and Gramsci and argued for

Hernandez argued that both civil society and the socialist state are "organic segments of the socialist system," which are interconnected and mutually reinforcing (Hernandez 1994: 31). Moreover, the distinction
"the necessity and usefulness [of applying] the concept to the analysis of current problems in Cuba" (Hernandez 1994: 30).6 between civil society and the state should be of great practical importance for Cuba because "the dynamics of civil society have been overshadowed by a strong politicization of social relations and institutions in Cuba" (ibid.: 30). This

indirect call for a depoliticization of social relations provides the signpost for the ensuing debate: reclaiming greater autonomy of the social sphere and its organizations and institutions from the state.
The background of this argument is the deep economic crisis that has plagued Cuba since the demise of its socialist allies overseas in 1989/90 and the consequences of that crisis for Cuban society-above all, the bitter divide between the depressed peso economy and the emergent enclaves of "dollarized" sectors in tourism and joint ventures, and the rapidly growing role of illegal and legal market mechanisms.7 On this, Hernandez (ibid.: 30) writes:

The problems the Cuban society is facing cannot be contained within the limits of an economic analysis. Both the causes and the consequences of the crisis transcend this dimension. However, even
within this narrow framework it is obvious that 'the realm of economic relations' in Cuba has changed [.]. It now comprises phenomena such as the informal economy, which is characterized by the growth of independent work and the black market, as well as the rise of new forms of labor in the mixed sector of the new, markedly differentiated, economy.

The concept of civil society suggested by Hernandez is thus framed as primarily a response to the increasing differentiation of Cuban society, resulting from the economic crisis. Other con- tributions pushed the Cuban civil society debate further. Most importantly, Hugo Azcuy, one of Hernandez's colleagues at the CEA, wrote of the "necessity for more plural expressions in Cuban society," (Azcuy 1995: 105, emphasis in original) for which the concept of civil society "should not only be used as an instrument of analysis, but also as a project" (ibid., emphasis in 6 Even at this early point, political resistance against the use of the term became evident. When published in the journal of the official Cuban writers' association, UNEAC, it was prefaced by a "Letter to the Editor " in which a member of the association reprimands Hernandez for his "imprecise" use of the term which he identified with the counter-revolutionary strategy of the U.S. government.
7 Parallel to the debate on civil society, a similar debate evolved about increased autonomy for economic actors and resulting reform steps (see Carranza/Gutierrez/Monreal 1995; for an overview see Hoffmann 1995; 1997). original). This idea of civil society as a project of socialist renewal hence became a leitmotif of Cuba's intellectual reform discourse in the mid-1990s. Azcuy (1995: 108) posits "the strength- ening of Cuban

civil society and its necessary autonomy within the framework of the revolu- tionary project of which it understands itself to be a part" as its frame of reference.8 If state authorities feared civil society as a potential loss of power, in the following text contribution Hernandez is explicit in reverting this logic. The activation of civil society is meant precisely to come to the rescue of a socialist state whose needs for "new forms of le- gitimacy" in order to secure regime stability are acknowledged:
As the sphere in which the tensions and conflicts facing the state are enacted, it is in the interest of and the responsibility of the state to search within civil society for new forms of legitimacy and arenas of consensus. [.] Without the consensus of civil soci- ety, not only will the legitimacy of the government suffer damage, but also the stability of the system itself. (Hernandez 1996: 88)

In terms of audience, the reach of this debate was limited. It mostly moved within academic or intellectual
institutions, with the Center for American Studies (CEA) as the epicenter,9 and journals, including Temas magazine, directed by Hernandez, became the key forums of the debate. The

civil society discourse hardly ever found reflections in the statecontrolled mass media. However, there was an empirical side to this debate which was played out in the tug- of-war about the redefinition of the nature of societal associations and their relation to the state. The economic crisis had not only led to a heterogenization of society, but had also left established institutions in cultural, social or academic fields cash-strapped, as the money from the state coffers dried up. As a consequence, a search for new funding possibilities be- gan. While also playing well to members' aspirations of more autonomy from the state, the label "non-governmental organization" (NGO) promised to be the key for access to donor money from international development actors, both private and public. Cuba becoming more repressive in the squo Daremblum 13- Jaime Daremblum, Ambassador Jaime Daremblum, a scholar of Latin America, international politics, and international
economics, joined Hudson Institute as a Senior Fellow and Director of Hudson's Center for Latin American Studies in 2005. He served as Ambassador of Costa Rica to the United States from 1998 to 2004. Prior to assuming his post as Ambassador, he was a professor at the University of Costa Rica, the Autonomous University, and the Center of Administrative and Political Research, affiliated with Tulane University. He has also practiced law in Costa Rica. Ambassador Daremblum also served, from 1985 to 1998, as a foreign policy advisor to the Presidential campaigns from the Social Christian Unity Party of Costa Rica. (Why Cuba Is Getting More Repressive, The Hudson Institute, April 4, 2013, http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&id=9566&pubType=LatinAmerica, MC)

Americans are always on the lookout for signs that Cuba is finally changing, and the changes listed above have prompted many journalists, analysts, and political figures to renew their calls for lifting or at least softening the U.S. embargo. After traveling to the island in mid-February as part of an official delegation of federal lawmakers, Democratic senator Pat Leahy of Vermont expressed his hope for a shift in U.S. policy: "There is a growing sense by many in the U.S. who do not have a Cold War attitude that they would like to see a change."
But the

biggest impediment to closer bilateral relations is not "a Cold War attitude" on Capitol Hill, nor is it the American embargo. It is the behavior of the Castro regime. Indeed, we should not let Havana's timid economic reforms or its new travel policy distract us from the more important story: In its treatment of human-rights activists, pro-democracy dissidents, and pretty much anyone it considers a threat to Communist rule, the Cuban government is becoming more repressive, not less.
For example:
* During the first nine months of 2011, the independent Cuban

Commission for Human Rights and National Reconciliation (CCHRNR) documented some 2,784 "incidents of human-rights abuses," compared with 2,074 in all of 2010. * In March 2012, Amnesty International reported that, since 2010, there had been "a steady increase in the number of arbitrary detentions," with the Castro regime waging "a permanent campaign of harassment and short-term detentions of political opponents." One of Amnesty's Cuba researchers affirmed that "Cuba has seen worsening repression when it comes to human rights."
* Over the next ten months, between March 2012 and January 2013, the number of political prisoners on the island doubled (from 45 to 90), according to the CCHRNR.Those figures only include prisoners jailed on explicitly political charges; the total number of Cuban political prisoners is much larger, since the regime is holding many dissidents on bogus criminal charges.
* In its latest Freedom in the World report, Freedom House says: "The

Cuban government oversaw a systematic increase in short-term 'preventative' detentions of dissidents in 2012, in addition to harassment, beatings, acts of repudiation, and restrictions on foreign and domestic travel."
* Overall, notes Miami Herald correspondent Juan Tamayo, Cuba witnessed "a record 6,200 short-term detentions for political motives" last year. Then there is the story of Oswaldo Pay, a world-famous Cuban dissident and founder of the Varela Project who (along with fellow dissident Harold Cepero) died last July after a highly suspicious car accident. As Wall Street Journal columnist Mary O'Grady has written, Pay's daughter, Rosa Mara Pay, believes that his car "was

intentionally rammed from behind by another car," and that her father's death was "a probable murder." In a recent interview with the Washington Post, Spanish politician ngel Carromero, who was driving the car carrying Oswaldo Pay, said that they were rammed by a government vehicle whose occupants were "staring at [them] aggressively" before the collision. Carromero also said that, after the crash, he was drugged and threatened by Cuban authorities, who subsequently convicted him of manslaughter. (In December, Carromero was repatriated to Spain, and he has since been paroled.) Florida senator Bill Nelson, a Democrat, has urged the United Nations to launch "a thorough independent investigation of the events leading up to Pay's death." The death of Pay and the broader campaign of repression against Cuban activists are troubling enough. But for U.S. officials hoping to abolish or ease sanctions, the elephant in the room is the ongoing detention of USAID contractor Alan Gross, a Maryland resident who has been held in a Cuban prison for more than three years on ridiculous espionage charges. It is hard to argue that Havana either deserves or desires warmer relations with Washington when it continues to hold an American hostage. Gross, who turns 64 in May, has seen his health deteriorate, and has reportedly lost more than 100 pounds since his incarceration.
His only "crime" was to help boost Internet access for Cuba's tiny Jewish community. But the Castro regime fears greater Internet access because it fears losing its monopoly on information. It fears that Cubans will become more willing to challenge the status quo and demand real reforms. And, indeed, that is exactly what's been happening. As

dissident-blogger Yoani Snchez told the Post last month, "People are losing their fear, moving from silent to open, from wearing a mask to showing their real face in public." Havana's growing concern over political unrest explains the imprisonment of Gross, and the crackdown on the Ladies in White, and the harassment of activists across the island. Simply put: Cuba is becoming more repressive because the dictatorship is increasingly afraid of a homegrown democracy movement. That would seem to be a much bigger story than a few cosmetic economic reforms designed
to keep the regime in power. Appearing last month on Spanish television, Rosa Mara Pay said that Ral's reforms are mainly a PR stunt, and not a serious attempt to improve human rights. They "are designed to win over international public opinion," she said. "The conditions Cubans live in has not changed." If

the Castro regime is truly serious about reform and liberalization, Pay added, it will allow a nationwide referendum on democracy the type of referendum called for by her father's Varela Project. The government's
refusal to hold such a referendum shows just how little Cuba has actually changed.

Internet AT: The Black Market


Current underground internet access fails not widespread Kalathil & Boas 01- Shanthi Kalathil is an independent consultant on media and development. Shanthi is an expert on media, civil
society, and political transitions. Previously, she was a Senior Democracy Fellow based in the Office of Democracy and Governance at the U.S. Agency for International Development, where she served as an advisor on civil society and independent media development for Washingtonbased programs and planning, as well as for various USAID missions around the world. She holds a B.A. in Communications from U.C. Berkeley and a M.Sc. in Comparative Politics from the London School of Economics and Political Science. Shanthi is particularly interested in issues of voice and accountability and their impact on political transitions. Taylor C. Boas, The Internet and State Control in Authoritarian Regimes: China, Cuba, and the Counterrevolution, http://carnegieendowment.org/2001/07/16/internet-and-state-control-in-authoritarian-regimes-chinacuba-and-counterrevolution/1ic4, Accessed: 6/28/13, MC)

The Cuban governments access controls are not perfect, and a growing number of users manage to connect to the Internet illegally from home, using passwords from their workplace or accounts acquired through the black market or personal connections. It is impossible to estimate precisely the extent of such underground Internet use, although it is undoubtedly limited by the considerable expense and difficulty of obtaining an Internet-capable computer. While comparatively well-off Cubans may be able to gain Internet access in this manner, known dissidents and members of the political opposition are watched closely and have virtually no hope of acquiring even underground Internet access. Still, there is the potential for underground Internet access to grow and become more of a challenge to state control. In particular, Cuba may eventually relax the restrictions on
individual Internet access to capture some of this blackmarket revenue, just as it legalized the use and possession of dollars in 1993 to capitalize on the already widespread trade in the currency.

The Internet poses several potential challenges to the regime that provoke a reactive state response. The first of these involves Internet use by the mass public. Like China, Cuba is undoubtedly concerned about ideational pluralism and the potential for its citizens to access a wide range of information on the Internet.69 This concern extends to other forms of media: Cuba pours enormous resources
Potential Challenges and Reactive State Response

into blocking U.S. radio and television broadcasts, and it quickly banned the homemade satellite dishes that began to proliferate in the early 1990s. In the case of the Internet, therefore, Cubas

strategy of access restriction seeks in part to minimize the potential threat of widespread use among the mass public. While other authoritarian regimes have allowed broader access and relied on censorship to maintain control of the Internet, Cubas strategy of access restriction obviates the need to maintain an elaborate, centralized system of blocking web sites and tracking e-mails. Those granted access to the Internet are generally sympathetic to the regimes point of view, and their use of the medium poses little threat to state security. Internet use by CSOs in
Cuba is another factor that may challenge state sociopolitical control. During the 1990s, the Cuban government has somewhat reluctantly allowed the sprouting of grassroots CSOs involved with religion, conservation, and sustainable development. In addition, a handful of human rights organizations and dissident groups have long existed (albeit illegally) as bottom-up organizations in Cuban society. During

recent years, U.S. policy toward Cuba has increasingly sought to engage the Cuban people while opposing the regime, and a major component of this strategy has involved reaching out to Cuban CSOs.70 In this
environment, the Cuban government has kept a watchful eye on organizations with extensive international contacts, and it is undoubtedly concerned about the potential use of e-mail for logistical organization among politically threatening CSOs. As

a result, it has carefully meted out access among CSOs according to their political orientation. Dissident and human rights organizations openly opposed to the regime have little hope of gaining Internet access: most have their telephone calls regularly monitored, and several have had computers confiscated by authorities. CSOs that have positive relationships with the regime have faced few obstacles to access, while those with a neutral political outlook generally have had more difficulty in obtaining an Internet connection.

Internet AT: Venezuela Cable


Venezuelan cable doesnt solve- government control stays

Reporters Without Borders 12- Reporters Without Borders, registered in France as a non-profit
organization and has consultant status at the United Nations and UNESCO. In 2013, Reporters Without Borders wins the Freedom of Speech Award from the International Association od Press Clubs (IAPC), (INTERNET ENEMIES REPORT 2012, Reporters Without Borders, 12 MARCH 2012, http://en.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/rapport-internet2012_ang.pdf, Accessed: 6/28/13, MC)
THE UNDERSEA CABLE FROM VENEZUELA, A NEW HOPE? Much

more is at stake now with the arrival of the undersea Alba fiber-optic cable which will link Cuba and Venezuela, multiplying by 3,000 the islands capacity to connect to the rest of the world. Initially scheduled for the summer of 2011, its implementation was postponed without further explanation. In early 2011, the regime announced that this Web access would be reserved for social use by institutions, universities and certain professions such as doctors and journalists. It would also make it possible to continue setting up collective access centres. Contrary to expectations, in late January 2012, the Cuban Communist Party Congress carefully set aside the issue of Internet development. Although no one is banking on the fact that certain cable fibres will be diverted towards the Internet access black market, others believe that the cable will not create new opportunities for Cubans who wish to connect to the World Wide Web. Since the latter is rationed, as is the rest of Cuba, the cable could only enhance connection quality and bandwidth speed for those who already have access. The regime remains ready to crush any attempt to bypass censorship. In November 2011, Cuba accused the United States of bolstering parallel Internet
connections on the island by unlawfully importing equipment and making satellite connections available. An American citizen accused of involvement in these clandestine activities was arrested in December 2009.

Venezuelan internet cable is functionally useless- obsolete hardware Mirof 10 Nick Miroff, Nick Miroff covers Cuba for GlobalPost., Miroff was part of the Washington Post reporting team that won a
Pulitzer prize for breaking news coverage of the massacre at Virginia Tech. His story in the Washington Post on coal miners and painkiller addiction in Appalachian southwest Virginia was the recipient of a 2008 Nancy Dickerson Award for Excellent in Reporting on Drug and Alcohol Problems. In 2006, he traveled to Northern Manitoba as part of a radio series on climate change, Early Signs: Report s from a Warming Planet that won a 2006 George Polk Award. Miroff grew up in Albany, N.Y., and earned a bachelor's degree in Spanish and Latin American literature at University of California Santa Cruz. He holds a master's degree from the Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism . (Cuba internet: Wired, but not connected,globalpost.com, January 25, 2013, http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/cuba/130124/cubanundersea-internet-cable-web-connection, Accessed: 7/4/13, MC)

HAVANA, Cuba With

the long-anticipated activation of their ALBA-1 undersea internet cable this month, Cuban web users now have the technological equivalent of a horse-drawn Toyota Prius. Completed in 2011 and spanning the Caribbean from eastern Cuba to Venezuela roughly the distance from Miami to Washington, DC the cable finally gives the island a modern data transmission link. It has the capacity to vastly improve internet access in a country that consistently ranks as the least-connected in the Western Hemisphere. But the small minority of Cubans who currently enjoy internet access must go online via dial-up networks on their phone lines, relying on a technology that has been obsolete for more than a decade. Tourist hotels and a few government workplaces have Wi-Fi or DSL hookups, but everyone else is stuck with transmission rates that hover around 5 kilobytes per second.
Surfing the web in Cuba requires stoic reserves of patience. Online photos often dont open. Streaming web video is completely out of the question.

Firing up the undersea cable wont change that anytime soon.

ETECSA, the Castro governments state telecom monopoly, confirmed this week that it had finally flipped on the $70 million Venezuela-financed cable, rerouting data traffic away from the slow satellite systems it has relied upon until now. That should translate to faster Facebook access at the beach resorts of Varadero and in the lobbies of Havanas priciest hotels. But analysts say without massive investments in the rest of the islands communication infrastructure, Cuba will have little more than a strong link in a weak chain. Dial-up technology, they say, is simply not compatible with the modern internet.
The question now is whether Cuba will make good on its pledge to broaden web access prioritizing social uses, the government insists or keep the islands population in the pre-internet Dark Ages.

Fewer than 10 percent of Cubans currently have access to the world wide web, according to most
estimates, a rate lower than Haitis. Young Cubans often cite their inability to get online and communicate with friends abro ad as a deep frustration, and an added incentive to emigrate.

Cuban authorities say their priority will be to boost internet availability at schools, hospitals and other government institutions, in contrast to the at-home on-demand individual web access available in the capitalist world. As Castro critics point out, such social access can also conveniently facilitate censorship and web monitoring by the state.

Internet AT: Actor CP


US leadership is key to resolve international internet norms Fontaine and Rogers 11- Richard Fontaine is the President of the Center for a New American Security (CNAS). He served as a
Senior Advisor and Senior Fellow at CNAS from 2009-2012. He previously served as foreign policy advisor to Senator John McCain for more than five years. He has also worked at the State Department, the National Security Council and on the staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Will Rogers, is the Bacevich Fellow at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS). At CNAS, Mr. Rogers researc h focus is on science, technology and national security policy. He has authored or co-authored a range of publications on energy, climate change, environmental cooperation in Asia and cybersecurity. ( Internet Freedom A Foreign Policy Imperative in the Digital Age, CNA S, JUNE 2011, http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CNAS_InternetFreedom_FontaineRogers_0.pdf, Accessed: 7/4/13, MC)

At the same time, the U.S. government has tried to codify norms that would reinforce free expression and block efforts to restrict it. The 2005 World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), a U.N.-sponsored gathering of
174 countries, produced a consensus statement recognizing that freedom of expression and the free flow of information, id eas and knowledge, are essential for the

the member states of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) adopted a resolution pledging to refrain from taking any unilateral and/or discriminatory actions that could impede another Member State to access public Internet sites.
Information Society and beneficial to development.103 In 2008, According to Ambassador David Gross, then the top State Department official managing communications and information policy, the deliberations made clear that

Continued U.S. leadership is critical to fill what remains a normative vacuum. Part of the difficulty, however, lies not only with authoritarian regimes, but also with some of Americas closest democratic partners. While the U.S. government recognizes some limits on free expression child pornography, slander, perjury, fighting words and certain other forms of expression are illegal, online or off its commitment to free speech is nevertheless the strongest of any major country. Germany, for instance, prohibits Holocaust denial online; France does not allow
member states meant not only governments, but also the civilians of those countries.104 the sale of Nazi paraphernalia over the Internet; and Turkey banned YouTube for two years because it refused to remove videos the courts deemed insulting to Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. Governments in Britain, Italy and Germany have also established lists of blocked websites particularly those containing child pornography, online gambling or hate speech but these lists are often neither transparent nor accountable to the public.

Internet Public Sphere Ext.


Embargo blocks technology- State cuts the free-flow of information Dodge No Date Writing from University of Michigan (The United States Embargo on Cuba, University of Michigan InfoSurgents,
no date specified but last referred to 2010, http://sitemaker.umich.edu/infosurgentscuba/u.s._embargo_, accessed: 7/4/13, ckr)

The embargo is highly criticized by Cuban citizens for the negative impact it has on Cuban life. Because of the embargo and the additional restrictions imposed on Cuban citizens by Fidel Castro, Cuban citizens often do not have access to medical supplies that they need,[5]as well as access to the technologies that keep them connected to the rest of the world. While the United Nations votes every
year in favor of lifting the heavily criticized blockade, and the fact that travel restrictions to Cuba have be decreasing,[7] the United States continues to keep it in place, most recently evidenced by Barack Obama, who on September 2, 2010 renewed the embargo for another year, claiming that it was in the best interest of the United States.

The embargo completely hinders Cubans from accessing the technology that would allow a freeflow of information with the rest of the world. Citizens are cut off from the world around them, and even when they are able to access Internet cafs, the Internet is so slow and heavily monitored that it is virtually impossible to do more that send an email or two. Dissidents are heavily
persecuted, and it is common for journalists to be imprisoned for subverting the Cuban law. Because of the embargo imposed by the United States, the Cuban government is given more power over its citizens and their abilities to communicate with the rest of the world. In addition, the restrictions on traveling into and out of the country make it difficult for information to spread in the absence of Internet access.

Freedom in the public sphere is necessary for transformations of the state-society relationship Hoffmann 11- Bert Hoffmann, Senior Researcher GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies ( Civil Society 2.0?: How the
Internet Changes State-Society Relations in Authoritarian Regimes: The Case of Cuba, GIGA Research Programme: Legitimacy and Efficiency of Political Systems, January 2011 https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gigahamburg.de%2Fdl%2Fdownload.php%3Fd%3D%2Fcontent%2Fpublikationen%2Fpdf%2Fwp156_hoffmann.pdf&ei=D93SUbinBNi4AOfwoHoDw&usg=AFQjCNGPPcalsf1La5yMENpZb7PxMV2i3Q&sig2=cSL3cBqrRtpr1ysxnhEqzQ Accessed: 7/3/13 MC)

A precondition for civil society activism to evolve is some degree of public sphere in which it can "breathe." The state monopoly on mass media, as exercised by the Cuban state, has been a particularly thorough form of authoritarian control over the national public sphere. The comparative empirical analysis of civil society dynamics in the 1990s and in the 2000s has shown the notable impact of the digital, web-based media on the contours of the public sphere and has also demonstrated that this, in turn, impacts the activities, conception and organizational forms of societal actors. In the pre-Internet period, within a very much restricted public sphere, the civil society debate largely focused on behind-the-scenes struggles for increased autonomy of associational life within the state-socialist framework (e.g. Azcuy 1995). In contrast, a decade later we witness the emergence of a self-assertive "citizenship from below," which demands, and to some degree enacts (empowered by digital and web-based technologies), a widening of the public sphere and a greater degree of citizen autonomy from the state, leading to a different type of civil society activity. While this "insurgent citizenship"-to borrow Holston's (2008) expression-defies the socialist regime's traditional design of state-society relations, its effect on democratization depends on the extent to which web-based voice is able to connect with off-line public debate and social action.

However, the initial question-that of whether civil society activism fosters processes of regime change-does not have a clear-cut answer. While regime opponents see the struggles over Internet access, blogs and e-mails

as a pars pro toto for the civic liberties of liberal democ- racy, reformists from within the system argue the need for more participation and wider margins of debate, precisely because they are indispensable to regain legitimacy for the so- cialist project.
As of this writing, the government, it seems, has come to accept the fact that its media monopoly has become porous. The government's crucial concern is containment:

to minimize the domestic impact, to put brakes on the contagion effect, and, most importantly, to keep the pluralism of the web-based voice from spilling over into Cuba's non-virtual public sphere. This
echoes the state's traditional "under the roof, everything-in the street, nothing" ap- proach towards dissenting voices; on the web, as "under the roof," much may be tolerated, aslong as it doesn't take to "the street," that is, combine with social action in the physical world. The state's attitude towards leading blogger Yoani Sanchez exemplifies this policy. While her blog is de facto tolerated by the outside world, domestic access to it is blocked. And when the blogger moved to social activism in the physical world in 2009, the regime reacted heavy-handedly, including using physical intimidation and orchestrated mobilizations of "enraged revolutionaries" against her and fellow bloggers. Similarly,

those still working within and those dependent on official structures are admonished and told to keep their dis- tance from those branded as "counter-revolutionaries."
However, as the preceding chapter has shown, not only has the state media monopoly become porous, but so have the state's walls of containing web-based voice from spilling over into Cuban society. Some 15 years after

Cuba joined the Internet, the web-based media not only represent a leak of voice to a globalized public, but they have led to a limited, yet important transformation of state-society relations. They empower a new reassertion of citi- zenship rights that challenge established rules and they foster the emergence of new social actors and forms of action. Internet can create free spaces outside state control Snchez 10 - Yoani Snchez, In 2008, Snchez was honored with awards that included Time magazines "One of the 100 Most Influential
People in the World, one of Foreign Policy magazines 10 Most Influential Latin American Intellectuals of the year, and th e El Pas 2008 Ortega y Gasset Prize for Digital Journalism. She was, as well, one of El Pas 2008 100 most notable Hispanoamericans, and one of Gatopardos 10 most influential people of 2008. (Freedom and Exchange in Communist Cuba, Cato Institute Development Policy Briefing Paper No. 5, June 16, 2010 http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/dbp5.pdf, Accessed: 7/3/13 MC)

The only threat that can be made against a sheep who wants to escape is that it will be returned to the pen. But it will no longer be part of the herd because, while the pen has fences, bolts, and physical boundaries, the herd is a mathematical abstraction, a number that falls apart once the participants who make up the sum decide to exercise their free will. As soon as a citizen stops paying with his

freedom for other rights that ought to be respected, the confiscator of his sovereignty must change his tactics; now, instead of stealing his freedom from him, he must buy it. He must promise him better food, a roof that wont go flying off in a hurricane, or more lucrative subsidies. But little can be done if your coffers are empty and you have not learned how to create the wealth you must offer in exchange for freedom. Every day there are more people in Cuba who are disenchanted with the socialist system, or the scam that goes by that name. Conversely, no conversions occur in the other direction and, now, to wear that mask is becoming a bad choice. Even the opportunists, with their sensitive noses, begin to flirt with real criticism and sing in the chorus of those demanding change. People are beginning to be conscious of having been cheated; this leads to signs of discontent and, lamentably, the country bleeds through growing migration. Just by boarding an airplane, many believe they can begin to recover all the freedoms ceded and stolen, while few darefrom inside our countryto push the limits of what is permitted. One of the tools that has helped people recover the opportunity to air their opinions is the Internet. Although a common citizen cannot contract for Internet at home, and the price of an hours connection in a public place exceeds two

weeks wages, a web of networks has emerged as the only means by which a person on the island can make his opinions known to the rest of the world. Today, this virtual space is like a training camp where Cubans go to relearn forgotten freedoms. The right of association can be found on
Facebook, Twitter, and the other social networks, in a sort of comp ensation for the crime of unlawful assembly established by the Cuban penal code. In a printed newspaper or magazine, on the radio or television, it is still impossible to publicize opinions that stray from the trite official script, but once connected to the Internet, many possibilities open up. Up until now, the most used are the independent blogs that have begun to appear. Most of the direct readers are abroad, and from there they email the articles and posts they like to their friends and family in Cuba, who copy and multiply them. The bloggers, for their part, put copies of their work on CDs and even distribute them on flash drives. Television stations received by illegal satellite report on the contents of the blogs and conduct interviews, showing the faces of the bloggers. In this way, in less than a year, a community of cyber-dissidents was createda blogostroika, as it is also called. Spaces such as Voces Cubanas or Desde Cuba, and the digital magazine Convivencia, are vivid examples of this. They dont need

authorized spaces to exist; rather, in lieu of recovering these parcels of freedom, they have created them.

Internet Impact Scenarios


Democracy: Civil Society is upholds democracy - internet awareness key Drake, Kalathil, & Boas 00- William J. Drake, University of Zurich, Switzerland, Media Change & Innovation Division,
IPMZ, International Fellow, Lecturer Shanthi Kalathil is an independent consultant on media and development. Shanthi is an expert on media, civil society, and political transitions. Previously, she was a Senior Democracy Fellow based in the Office of Democracy and Governance at the U.S. Agency for International Development, where she served as an advisor on civil society and independent media development for Washington-based programs and planning, as well as for various USAID missions around the world. She holds a B.A. in Communications from U.C. Berkeley and a M.Sc. in Comparative Politics from the London School of Economics and Political Science. Shanthi is particularly interested in issues of voice and accountability and their impact on political transitions. Taylor C. Boas Assistant Professor of Political Science at Boston University, received a Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of California, Berkeley in 2009 ( Dictatorships in the Digital Age : Some Considerations on the Internet in China and Cuba, http://carnegieendowment.org/, OCTOBER 23, 2000, http://carnegieendowment.org/2000/10/23/dictatorships-in-digital-age-some-considerations-on-internet-in-china-and-cuba/4e9e

Civil Society. As there is growing consensus among practitioners and scholars that a vibrant civil society is a key contributor to democracy, the use of the Internet by both civil societal organizations (CSOs) and the mass public merits significant attention. Especially important in the former category are human rights and other advocacy groups that actively work to promote social change. In addition, community, charitable, educational and other groups with less directly political agendas can also enhance a nation's social capital and the formation and spread of democratic impulses. Hence, one could examine CSOs' use of the Internet
to produce and distribute pro-democracy information, coordinate actions and form alliances with domestic and international counterparts and other organizations, contribute to democracy-building and civic education, etc. With

regard to the latter category, one could consider the implications of the mass public's Internet usage, e.g., the demonstration effects of increasing awareness of the outside world and exposure to democratic ideas and practices; greater access to information about domestic events such as government abuses of power; and the building of social capital and liberal values through virtual communities on the Internet. In
parallel, one should also assess the "dark side" of civil societal Internet usage by groups promoting ethnic hatreds or other causes that may work against democratization.

Human Rights: Internet freedom is key to intrinsic human rights Fontaine and Rogers 11- Richard Fontaine is the President of the Center for a New American Security (CNAS). He served as a
Senior Advisor and Senior Fellow at CNAS from 2009-2012. He previously served as foreign policy advisor to Senator John McCain for more than five years. He has also worked at the State Department, the National Security Council and on the staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Will Rogers, is the Bacevich Fellow at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS). At CNAS, Mr. Rogers research focus is on science, technology and national security policy. He has authored or co-authored a range of publications on energy, climate change, environmental cooperation in Asia and cybersecurity. ( Internet Freedom A Foreign Policy Imperative in the Digital Age, CNAS, JUNE 2011, http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CNAS_InternetFreedom_FontaineRogers_0.pdf, Accessed: 7/4/13, MC)

The United States has a long history of providing diplomatic and financial support for the promotion of human rights abroad, including the right to free expression. While each presidential
administration emphasizes human rights to differing degrees, during recent decades they have all consistently held that human rights are a key U.S. interest. Promoting freedom of the Internet expands human

rights support into cyberspace, an environment in which an ever-greater proportion of human activity takes place. The United States advocates for freedom of the Internet because it accords not only with American values, but also with rights America believes are intrinsic to all humanity. For
years, the U.S. government has programmatically and rhetorically supported democracy promotion abroad. The State Department routinely disburses millions of dollars in funding for democracy-building programs around the world, many of which are aimed explicitly at expanding free expression. Presidential and other speeches regularly refer to the American belief in the universality of this right; to cite but one example, a March 2011 White House statement on Syria noted that, The United States stands for a set of universal rights, including the freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.8 The

Obama administrations 2010 National Security Strategy

specifically called for marshaling the Internet and other information technologies to support freedom of expression abroad,9 and the Bush administration adopted a policy of maximizing access to information and ideas over
the Internet.10Americas interest in promoting freedom via the Internet comes from the same fundamental belief in democratic values and human rights. Despite inevitable inconsistencies and difficult tradeoffs, the United States continues to support democracy. The Bush administrations 2006 National Security Strategy committed to support democratic institutions abroad through transformational diplomacy.11 President Obama, after entering office with an evident desire to move away from the sweeping tone of his predecessors freedom agenda, nevertheless told the U.N. General Assembly in 2009 that there

are basic principles that are universal; there are certain truths which are self-evident and the United States of America will never waver in our efforts to stand up for the right of people everywhere to determine their own destiny. Cuban Economy: Information and Communication Technology key to Cuban economic progress CSG et. Al.- 10- The Cuba Study Group (CSG) is a non-prot, non-partisan organization comprised of business and community leaders
of Cuban descent who share a common interest and vision of a free and prosperous Cuba. The CSG mission is to facilitate a peaceful reunication of the Cuban nation that would lead to a free and open society with respect for human rights, the rule of law and a market-based economy. Americas Society (AS) is the premier forum dedicated to education, debate and dialogue in the Americas. Council of the Americas (COA) is the premier international business organization whose members share a common commitment to economic and social development, open markets, the rule of law and democracy throughout the Western Hemisphere. The Latin America Initiative at Brookings focuses on the most critical economic, political and social issues facing the region. Research activities center on a wide range of topics, inclu ding Cubas political transition. The initiative is led by Senior Fellow Mauricio Crdenas and is a joint effort of the Global Economy and Development and Foreign Policy programs at Brookings. The Brookings Institution is a nonprot public policy organization based in Washington, DC., E mpowering the Cuban People through Technology: Recommendations for Private and Public Sector Leaders, JULY 2010, http://www.ascoa.org/sites/default/files/styles/Empowering_the_Cuban_People_through_Technology.pdf, Accessed: 7/7/13, MC)

ICT is inherently politically neutral in that it has the potential to repress, propagandize and liberate. Yet the force of ICT is powerful and indisputable. ICT has become a requirement, not a byproduct, for economic development. Several modern-day dictatorships that value economic development have allowed for the growth and development of the technologies but have made major investments in control tools. Examples include China, Iran, Syria and Burma. Other dictatorships that do not value economic growth simply hinder or block the technologies development. A perfect example is North Korea, while Cuba probably represents a dictatorship transitioning from one modality to the other.
Nonetheless, as we saw in Iran in the aftermath of its rigged electoral process in 2009, once the technology is widespread it tends to favor the people, not the regime. Thus, for those who advocate for the growth of democracy and freedom, promoting widespread access to ICT is an important liberating tool. For democracy advocates, exploiting the aforementioned challenges that ICT presents to dictatorial regimes acquires paramount importance. Cuba is not exempt from these challenges; rather, it is attempting to balance these key challenges. Cuba

needs to fundamentally reform its economy but deeply fears the political impact of widespread access to ICT. How it pursues that balance can be greatly facilitated, or made difcult, by U.S. policy toward Cuba. We know that there is a strong correlation between access to ICT and economic growth and development. Conversely, the large investments required for ICT infrastructure will only take place when there is a revenue model to support the investment and provide investors with market-based return rates. This became exceedingly clear with cellular phones. As little as ve years ago, there
were just a few thousand mobile phones in Cuba, almost all of them in the hands of government ofcials, foreigners and members of the elites. Since President Ra l Castros 2008 announcement lifting the ban on cell phones, the number of cell phones will rapidly approach one million by the end of 2010. The reason is simple: Cell phone revenues have become an important source of hard currency. The economic benets outweigh political concerns.

Internet Human Rights Ext. (moar cards)


UN ruled internet is a human right Ralph 12- Talia Ralph, She earned an honors degree in multimedia journalism from Emerson College, and has
written for Metro, Boston Magazine, WBUR.org, Flaunt Magazine, Roads and Kingdoms, and the Boston Globe,(UN deems Internet access a basic human right, Global Post, July 6, 2012, http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/politics/diplomacy/120706/un-deems-internet-access-basic-humanright-0, Accessed: June 28, 2013, KH) The United Nations has ruled that Internet access is a basic human right that should be guaranteed and protected by states. The motion, which was passed on Thursday in Geneva, "affirms that the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online, in particular freedom of expression, which is applicable regardless of frontiers and through any media of ones choice." The action was led by Sweden and supported by the General Assembly's 47 member countries, including America, Brazil and Tunisia, Digital Spy reported. The ruling comes in the wake of the Arab Spring, during which social media played a crucial role in organizing protesters and spreading the word. "This outcome is momentous for the Human Rights Council," said US ambassador Eileen Donahoe, Reuters reported. "It's the first ever UN resolution affirming that human rights in the digital realm must be protected and promoted to the same extent and with the same commitment as human rights in the physical world." The Internet's role has grown exponentially in recent years and will continue to grow: mobile data traffic alone is set to increase 15-fold in the next five years, according to the New York Times. With it's increased use, there is a greater focus on ensuring access to the world-wide web for everyone. "Beyond affirming that freedom of expression applies also to the Internet, the resolution also recognized the immense value the Internet has for global development and called on all states to facilitate and improve global access to it," wrote Carl Bildt, Sweden's foreign minister, in a New York Times opinion piece. UN member states China and Cuba have both been criticized for their censorship of the Internet in fact, China's selective blocking of webpages is no notorious it has come to be referred to as the Great Firewall of China, according to Reuters. In response to the resolution, Cuban diplomat Juan Antonio Quintanilla hinted that the US dominates control of the web, Reuters reported. "Only 30 percent of the world population currently has access to this form of technology," Quintanilla said. "Nor in the text is anything said about Internet governance. When we all know that this tool is controlled by a single country globally and this is something which hampers free access to this very important tool."

Internet Misc. - (not sure if these become aff or neg)


Internet would crumble the authoritarian government O'GRADY 12- MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY, is an editor of the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) and member of the Wall Street Journal
Editorial Board since 2005. She writes predominantly on Latin America and is a co-editor of the Index of Economic Freedom (Why Socialist Cuba Prohibits Social Media, Wall Street Journal, March 25, 2012 6:31 p.m ET, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304724404577299510054444278.html, Accessed: 7/3/13, MC)

'There's a reason the people in Cuba don't have access to the Internet. It is because the government [couldn't] survive it." That was Florida Sen. Marco Rubio last week at a Washington conference titled "Cuba Needs a (Technological) Revolution: How the Internet Can Thaw an Island Frozen in Time." The event was sponsored by Google Ideas, a venture of the giant Internet search enterprise, and the nonprofit Heritage Foundation. I was asked to kick off things with a Rubio interview. So I began
by asking him what he makes of the Cuban military's reference last year to technology that allows young people to exchange thoughts digitally as "the permanent battlefield." Columnist Mary O'Grady on her interview with Marco Rubio at the Heritage Foundation. Mr. Rubio responded that

it isn't communication with the outside world that the regime fears the most, but Cuban-to-Cuban chatter. "I think Ral Castro clearly understands that his regime cannot survive a Cuban reality where individual Cubans can communicate [with] each other in an unfettered manner." He called "unfiltered access to the Internet and social media" Cuba's "best hope" of avoiding "a stagnated dictatorship" for "the next 50 years that would survive even the death of Raul and Fidel." Mr. Rubio would like to see the U.S. go after the goal of turning Cuba into a Wi-Fi hot spot that is, finding a way to provide wireless Internet access to Cubans so they can both receive and send data in real time. "That's what U.S. policy should really begin to focus on, a 21st-century effort." It won't be easy with today's technology. While Internet experts tell me it is possible to expand two-way Wi-Fi communications to those that the regime has not approved to use its new fiber optic cable, access would likely be quite limited. Nevertheless, Mr. Rubio's proposal goes to the heart of the Cuban government's vulnerability.
The pope on his visit to Cuba today will see and hear what the military dictatorship wants him to see and hear, not the kind of public debate he would witness in a normal country. He will not see what Mr. Rubio is talking about emboldened Cuban dissidents who have no use for the "revolution" of a half-century ago and if given access to realtime communications would endeavor to overthrow their oppressors.
"If Cubans were able to communicate with each other, if Cubans in Santiago [de Cuba] were able to figure out what was happening in Havana and vice versa," Mr. Rubio said, there would be a real chance for change. " If

these groups were able to link up with one another and coordinate efforts and conversation and so forth, the Cuban government wouldn't last very long. It would collapse under the weight of that reality."
Some of Mr. Rubio's comments suggest that he is over-optimistic about whether technology can create island hotspots from afar. But if and when it can, there is little doubt that social media would play a role in bringing about change, as it did, for better or worse, in the overthrow of Egypt's Mubarak.
Closer to home, Mr. Rubio pointed out, it has already made a difference. Referring to the tea party movement, he said, "Fifteen years ago if you wanted to organize a group of people to do anything politically, you needed a big, burdensome organization to coordinate it. Today anyone with access to Facebook and Twitter can be an organizer, and it's happening all over this country, it's happening all over the world, and it will happen in Cuba."

Conventional anti-embargo wisdom holds that hordes of Americans traveling to the island would undermine the regime. The pro-embargo crowd, including Mr. Rubio, counters that foreigners, like everything else in Cuba, are tightly controlled. I mentioned that thousands of Americans are already going to Cuba
every year on "educational" travel. Mr. Rubio responded dryly: "Conga dancing [and] ethics briefings from the Castro government, that's the itinerary."

Internet could transform Cuban economic class divisons Kalathil & Boas 01- Shanthi Kalathil is an independent consultant on media and development. Shanthi is an expert on media, civil
society, and political transitions. Previously, she was a Senior Democracy Fellow based in the Office of Democracy and Governance at the U.S. Agency for International Development, where she served as an advisor on civil society and independent media development for Washingtonbased programs and planning, as well as for various USAID missions around the world. She holds a B.A. in Communications from U.C. Berkeley and a M.Sc. in Comparative Politics from the London School of Economics and Political Science. Shanthi is particularly interested in issues of voice and accountability and their impact on political transitions. Taylor C. Boas, The Internet and State Control in Authoritarian Regimes: China, Cuba, and the Counterrevolution,

The implications of Internet use in the domestic economy pose a third potential challenge to the regime. While Cuba has been forced to implement some market reforms during the economic difficulties of the 1990s, it has generally contained them to the dollar-denominated, export-oriented sector of the economy. The regime has been quite reluctant to take steps that could generate class divisions between Cubans, and it looks disapprovingly upon the nouveaux riches who have emerged from gains in tourism or the informal economy. Although the obstacles may be significant, the Internet could present another lucrative opportunity for enterprising Cubans to make money, potentially exacerbating social tensions. Indeed, Cubans have been
allowed to pursue self-employment for several years, and a few have begun doing freelance web design for international clients. These clients benefit from cheap labor costs, yet still pay more

than Cubans typically earn through most other pursuits.72 But the government still controls Internet access for this handful of budding entrepreneurs, and as long as access does not become
a freely available commodity, it would be impossible for such activity to grow faster than the government desires. As such, it is highly unlikely than any sort of Internet class

will emerge in

Cuba in the short to medium term. Cuba is aware of US internet operations AFP 11- Agence France-Presse a French news agency(Cuba says prominent blogger part of US 'cyber-war,

Bangkok Post Tech, 22 Mar 2011 at 22.31, http://wwww.bangkokpost.com/tech/computer/228062/cuba-says-prominent-blogger-part-of-us-cyber-war, Accessed: 7/4/13, MC)

The accusations came in a documentary series aired on state TV in which an engineer from the information ministry and pro-government bloggers accuse Washington of targeting the country through "cyber-dissident" proxies.
"There exists on the island a new kind of counterrevolution composed of bloggers... These cyber-mercenaries constitute a new instrument to create internal conflicts," the documentary said. Sanchez, 35, an internationally-known blogger and dissident who writes on the site "Generation Y" has long traded barbs with a regime that accuses her of serving foreign agendas. In a blog video in response to the latest charges, Sanchez and five other opponents accuse the government of "demonizing" the internet after revolutions led by online activists brought down longstanding regimes in Egypt and Tunisia. "It is nervous because social networks like Twitter and Facebook can play the same role in Cuba they did in Egypt and Tunisia," it said. The video can be viewed at www.desdecuba.com/generationy.

Last month Cuba hailed the laying of a new undersea fiber-optic cable to Venezuela, which it said would allow the country to surmount a decades-old US embargo that had forced it to rely on more expensive satellite connections. But dissidents have said the government keeps a tight grip on information and communications to stifle dissent.

ETECSA funds and Embargo fees stop US internet deal


Miroff 10 Nick Miroff, Nick Miroff covers Cuba for GlobalPost., Miroff was part of the Washington Post reporting team that won a
Pulitzer prize for breaking news coverage of the massacre at Virginia Tech. His story in the Washington Post on coal miners and painkiller

addiction in Appalachian southwest Virginia was the recipient of a 2008 Nancy Dickerson Award for Excellent in Reporting on Drug and Alcohol Problems. In 2006, he traveled to Northern Manitoba as part of a radio series on climate change, Early Signs: Report s from a Warming Planet that won a 2006 George Polk Award. Miroff grew up in Albany, N.Y., and earned a bachelor's degree in Spanish and Latin American literature at University of California Santa Cruz. He holds a master's degree from the Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism. (Cuba: No deal with US telecoms,globalpost.com, October 18, 2009 17:11Updated May 30, 2010 13:11, http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/cuba/091018/cuba-says-no-deal-us-telecoms?page=0,1, Accessed: 6/27/13, MC)

exemptions from long-standing U.S. sanctions against Cubas communist government, so that companies like Verizon, Sprint and AT&T could bring better phone and
The White House announced in April that it would provide
internet service to the island to promote the freer flow of information. But the Castro government exerts strict control over the islands communication networks, and American

companies would have

to reach a deal with the governments telecom monopoly, ETECSA. Months passed without a response to Obamas proposal. But during an official government newscast Saturday, ETECSA international operations director Vivian Iglesias said there were two major obstacles to such a partnership: some $160 million in frozen funds that the U.S. government seized from ETECSA in 2000, and trade restrictions imposed by the 1992 Cuban Democracy Act, which forces Cuba to pay U.S. companies through third countries, incurring additional transaction fees. It may seem like the Obama administration has expanded communication possibilities, said Iglesias. But we know that unless restrictions like the (Cuban Democracy Act) and others that have been tightened since 1992 dont change, there cant be any normal communication. Iglesias statements were a reminder that a firewall of mistrust remains between two countries split by 50 years of hostile relations
and emotional politics. Previous agreements between U.S. telecom companies and ETECSA went sour in the late 1990s, when U.S. legislators ordered ETECSAs funds seized as payment to Cuban American families who won a wrongful death judgment against the Castro government after four pilots from a Cuban exile group were shot down in a 1996 dispute. Iglesias said that

If those restrictions dont change, that prevents direct communication between the United States and Cuba.
money was stolen from ETECSA, and hasnt been paid back. The causes that led to the theft of our funds are still in place, she said.

Embargo prevents internet access for Cubans Rodriguez 08 Andrea Rodriguez, Correspondent at AP (Cuba blames US for Internet restrictions,
USAToday, 5/16/08, http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/topstories/2008-05-16-1303804967_x.htm?csp=34, 7/4/13, ckr) A top Cuban official said Friday that Ral Castro's government would consider loosening Internet restrictions on ordinary citizens newly allowed to purchase computers -- but Washington's decades-old

economic embargo makes it impossible.


''We aren't worried about the citizenry connecting from their homes,'' Telecommunications Vice Minister Boris Moreno told a small group of reporters.

''But problems with technology and resources have made it necessary to give priority to connections that guarantee the country's social and economic development,'' he said, referring to an
islandwide network that lets Cubans receive e-mail and view domestic Web sites.

The rest of the worldwide Web is blocked to most citizens in Cuba, which has access controls far stricter than in China or Saudi Arabia. Only foreigners and some government employees and academics are currently allowed unfiltered home Internet service, and many Cubans turn to the black
market for expensive, slow dial-up accounts. Computers for home use were also not available until two weeks ago, when state stores began selling them to the public as part of a series of small quality-of-life changes since Ral Castro replaced his elder brother Fidel in February. But Moreno said the government is unable to offer Cubans comprehensive Internet for their new

PCs, citing its long-standing complaint that the American embargo prevents it from getting service directly from the United States nearby through underwater cables. Instead, Cuba gets Internet
service through less reliable satellite connections, usually from faraway countries including Italy and Canada.

Summit of the Americas


Obama promised SOA we would lift embargo Swieg 1/25 Julia Swieg, director of Latin American Relations at the Council on Foreign Relation (Talking to
Cuba Council on Foreign Relations, 1/25/13, http://www.cfr.org/cuba/talking-cuba/p29879, Accessed 6/27/13)

Well, they are interested in using the case as leverage. President Obama, at the first Summit of the Americas he attended, pledged to open a new chapter in U.S.-Cuban relations and acknowledged that the embargo and U.S. policy had failed. Then he left in place the very policies he had inherited from George W. Bush. Some call them democracy promotions; some call them regime change--explicitly designed to destabilize Cuba. Which is very, very consistent with the bipartisan approach to Cuba over the last fifty years.

Cuban embargo is a major block in Latin American relations Summit proves LA Times 12 Los Angeles Times, (Time to Include Cuba, Article for the LA Times,
4/17/12, http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/17/opinion/la-ed-cuba-summit-20120417, Accessed 7/03/13, AW) Once again, Cuba was absent from the Summit of the Americas. Yet the communist nation might as well have attended the gathering last weekend in Cartagena, Colombia, because it took center stage, despite U.S. efforts to focus on other issues. Ecuador's president refused to attend the summit in protest of Cuba's exclusion. Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos and Brazil's Dilma Rouseff, both moderates rather than left-wingers, said there should be no more Summits of the Americas without Cuba. A leftist bloc of nations that includes Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia and some Caribbean countries said it won't participate again unless Cuba does. And the meeting ended without a final joint declaration because the United States and Canada refused to agree to language specifying that Cuba would be invited to future summits. The controversy should serve as a wake-up call to the United States: The policy of banning Cuba from the gathering of the hemisphere's leaders for nearly 18 years is backfiring . It hasn't led to regime change any more than the 50-year-old U.S. trade embargo on Cuba has; it hasn't persuaded President Raul Castro or, before him, his brother Fidel to embrace democratic reforms, hold free elections or abandon human rights abuses. Instead, it has fueled frustration among Latin leaders. Today, the United States is the only country in the hemisphere that has not restored diplomatic relations with Havana. Even the Organization of American States, sometimes called an instrument of U.S. foreign policy, cleared the way for Cuba to return to the group in 2009. The Obama administration has denied that its goal in excluding Cuba is to keep Cuban American voters in Florida happy during a presidential election year. Whatever the reason, the position is not playing well with leaders in the region, who see embargoes and political isolation as anachronistic policies from the Cold War era. The United States should abandon its push to keep Cuba from attending the Americas summit. Engagement, not isolation, is the best way to encourage change without alienating allies.

Embargo is a prerequisite to Latin American Relations Summit of Americas proves Suggett 9 James Sugget, Staff Writer for Venezuela Analysis, (Obama Should End Cuba
Embargo and Learn About Latin America, Says Venezuelas Chvez, Article for Venezuela Analysis, 3/23/2009, http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/4315, Accessed 6/28/13, AW) On Sunday, Venezuelan President Hugo Chvez said that U.S. President Barack Obama should lift its economic embargo against Cuba and allow Cuba to attend the upcoming Summit of the Americas. Chvez also said that President Obamas negative remarks about Venezuela reflect ignorance about Latin America. If Obama wants to achieve better relations with the [Latin American] region, he should respect everyone equally, starting with Cuba , said Chvez during his weekly presidential talk show Al Presidente. He has the moral obligation to suspend the criminal embargo [against Cuba] and comply with the resolutions of the United Nations. President Chvez strongly advocated that Cuba be included in the Summit of the Americas in Trinidad and Tobago, which is scheduled for April 17th. Why does Cuba continue to be left out of the Summit of the Americas, if Cuba is a friend of Latin American and Caribbean countries? [] We cannot continue to accept the impositions of the [United States] empire, said the president. Chvez said he had prepared to renew diplomatic relations with the United States and chosen a new ambassador when Obama was elected to the presidency, but he put these plans back in the drawer in January when Obama said Chvez has impeded progress in the region and supported terrorists, alluding to accusations made by the Colombian government last year that Venezuela has financed Colombian guerrilla troops. The true obstacle is the empire over which you [Obama] now preside, Chvez stated Sunday. It has dropped atomic bombs on innocent cities, it has bombarded, invaded, and killed whomever it pleases, and now you are going to accuse me of exporting terrorism? [] You poor ignorant person, you should study so that you learn the reality of Latin America and the world! said Chvez. Chvez and his ally Bolivian President Evo Morales expelled their respective U.S. ambassadors last September, accusing them of conspiring with secessionist provincial leaders to destabilize the democratically elected governments of Chvez and Morales. On Sunday, Chvez reiterated his willingness to renew diplomatic relations with the United States, as long as the Obama administration shows

respect for Latin America . We continue hoping, but we are not desperate, said
Chvez.

Relations
Lifting embargo key to preserving US image Pomerantz 1/1- Phyllis Pomerantz, licensed clinical social worker. She obtained her social work degree from
New York University in 1994, and has extensive experience with adolescents in a variety of settings during her training and since obtaining her degree. Ms. Pomerantz provides individual, group and family therapy. Ms. Pomerantz is a member of the DBT treatment team at Rathbone & Associates. (Nows the Time to Lift the U.S. Embargo on Cuba, The Globe and Mail, January 1, 2013, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/nows-thetime-to-lift-the-us-embargo-on-cuba/article6790494/, accessed: 6/27/13, LR)

The U.S. stand on Cuba is incomprehensible and only serves to look hypocritical and arbitrary in the eyes of a world that doesnt understand the intricacies of American politics. Now that the
election is over, there is a window of opportunity to open up a full commercial and diplomatic relationship. Mr. Obama should use the full extent of his executive powers to immediately relax restrictions, and Congress should pass legislation lifting the remaining legal obstacles.

Its time to forget about old grudges and remember that the best way to convert an enemy into a friend is to embrace him. Instead of admiring Havanas old cars, Americans should be selling them new ones. The embargo fails counterproductive and bad for US image Edmonds 12 Kevin Edmonds, writer for the NACLA, focusing on the Caribbean. (Despite Global
Opposition, United States Votes to Continue Cuban Embargo, North American Congress on Latin America, November 15, 2012, https://nacla.org/blog/2012/11/15/despite-global-opposition-united-states-votes-continuecuban-embargo, accessed: 7/4/13, LR) In many ways, the ongoing Cuban embargo is one of the most symbolic policies of U.S. imperial control in the Americas. That said, the impact is much more than merely symbolic for the Cuban people, as according to Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez, the embargo is an act of aggression and a

permanent danger to the stability of the nation. While the Cuban embargo was ultimately created to isolate Cuba economically and politically, the routine imposition of harsher conditions has failed to bring down the Castro government. In 1992, President George
H. Bush signed the Cuban Democracy Act (also known as the Torricelli Act) into law, which forbids subsidiaries of U.S. companies from trading with Cuba, U.S. nationals from traveling to Cuba and remittances being sent to the country. The Cuban Democracy Act also attempts to limit the amount of interaction the international community has with Cuba by imposing sanctions on any country that provides assistance to Cuba, including ending U.S. assistance for those countries and by disqualifying them from benefiting from any programme of reduction or forgiveness of debt owed to the USA. It was widely assumed that after the fall of the Soviet Union it would only be a matter of time before Castro fell as well. When that prediction didnt materialize, President Bill Clinton signed the internationally condemned Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act in law (more commonly known as the Helms-Burton Act) in March 1996. This act further deepened the sanctions against Cuba as it sought to strengthen international sanctions against the Castro government, and to plan for support of a transition government leading to a democratically elected government in Cuba. The Helms-Burton Act allowed for any non-U.S. company that dealt with Cuba to be subjected to legal action and that the respective company's leadership could be barred from entry into the United States. This essentially meant that many international businesses were blackmailed to choose between operating in Cuba or the United Stateswhich financially speaking isnt much of a choice in regards to market size. Like any embargowhether in Iran, Gaza, or Cubait is the regular people who suffer the most. While there is a wide disagreement on the exact amount of harm the embargo has done to the Cuban economy, the estimates range between one and three trillion $US. In 2008, the Indian Delegation to the United Nations stated that The negative impact of the embargo is pervasive in the social, economic, and environmental

dimensions of human development in Cuba, severely affecting the most vulnerable socioeconomic groups of
the Cuban population.

Politics are changing and now is key new generation, GOP decline, and foreign opposition to the embargo Bandow, 12 Doug Bandow, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, specializing in foreign policy and civil
liberties. He worked as special assistant to President Reagan and editor of the political magazine Inquiry. He writes regularly for leading publications such as Fortune magazine, National Interest, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Times. Bandow speaks frequently at academic conferences, on college campuses, and to business groups. Bandow has been a regular commentator on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox News Channel, and MSNBC. He holds a J.D. from Stanford University. (Time to End the Cuba Embargo, The National Interest, December 11, 2012, http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/thepointless-cuba-embargo-7834?page=1, accessed: 6/27/13, LR)
But the

political environment is changing. A younger, more liberal generation of Cuban Americans with no memory of life in Cuba is coming to the fore. Said Wayne Smith, a diplomat who served in Havana: for the first time in years, maybe there is some chance for a change in policy. And there are now many more new young Cuban Americans who support a more sensible approach to Cuba. Support for the Republican Party also is falling. According to some exit polls Barack Obama narrowly
carried the Cuban American community in November, after receiving little more than a third of the vote four years ago. He received 60 percent of the votes of Cuban Americans born in the United States. Barack Obama increased his votes among Cuban Americans after liberalizing contacts with the island. He also

would have won the presidency without Florida, demonstrating that the state may not be essential politically. Today even the GOP is no longer reliable. For instance, though Republican vice-presidential nominee Paul Ryan has defended the embargo in recent years, that appears to reflect ambition rather than conviction. Over the years he voted at least three times to lift the embargo, explaining: The embargo doesnt work. It is a failed policy. It was probably justified when the Soviet Union existed and posed a threat through Cuba. I think
its become more of a crutch for Castro to use to repress his people. All the problems he has, he blames the American embargo. There is essentially no international support for continuing the embargo. For instance, the European Union plans to explore improving relations with Havana . 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 focused on the next election. President Obama should propose legislation to drop (or at least significantly loosen) the embargo. He also could use his authority to relax sanctions by, for instance, granting more licenses to visit the island.

The embargo must be repealed US foreign policy Lloyd 10 Delia Lloyd, American writer based in London. Her work has appeared in The International
Herald Tribune, The Financial Times and The Guardian Weekly. She is a regular contributor to www.PoliticsDaily.com, a subset of the Huffington Post. (Ten Reasons to Lift the Cuba Embargo, Politics Daily, Huffington Post, August 24, 2010, http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/24/ten-reasonsto-lift-the-cuba-embargo/, accessed: 7/3/13, LR)
3. It's a double standard. Another reason to question the link between the embargo and human rights is that it's a double standard that flies in the face of U.S. foreign policy toward other high-profile authoritarian countries, most notably China. Stephen Colbert once quipped that Cuba is "a totalitarian, repressive,

communist state that -- unlike China -- can't lend us money." Unless and until the U.S. pursues a consistent policy of sanctions against politically repressive regimes, the case against Cuba doesn't hold up very well. 4. It's out of date. To argue that U.S.-Cuban policy is an anachronism is putting it mildly. In an international climate marked by cooperation on issues ranging from terrorism to global financial crises, holding on to this last vestige of the Cold War foreign policy no longer makes sense. (Bear in mind that the young people now entering college were not even alive when Czechoslovakia existed.) Sure, there's still tension between the United States and Russia. But the recent renegotiation of the START agreement on nuclear proliferation reinforces the notion that the Cold War is no longer the dominant prism for understanding that bilateral relationship, much less the CubanAmerican one.

Lifting embargo greatly beneficial to US economy and global image Franks 12 Jeff Franks, reporter for Reuters, an international news agency founded in London. (Cuba
says ending U.S. embargo would help both countries, Reuters, September 20, 2012, http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/20/us-cuba-usa-embargo-idUSBRE88J15G20120920, accessed: 7-3-13, LR)
(Reuters) - Both the United States and Cuba would benefit if Washington would lift its longstanding trade embargo against the island, but U.S. President Barack Obama has toughened the sanctions since taking office in 2009, a top Cuban official said on Thursday. The embargo, fully in place since 1962, has done $108 billion in damage to the Cuba economy, but also has violated the constitutional rights of Americans and made a market of 11 million people off limits to U.S. companies, Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez told reporters. "The blockade is, without doubt, the principal cause of the economic problems of our country and the essential obstacle for (our) development," he said, using Cuba's term for the embargo. "The blockade provokes suffering, shortages, difficulties that reach each Cuban family, each Cuban child," Rodriguez said. He spoke at a press conference that Cuba stages each year ahead of what has become an annual vote in the United Nations on a resolution condemning the embargo. The vote is expected to take place next month. Last year, 186 countries voted for the resolution, while only the United States and Israel supported the embargo, Rodriguez said. Lifting the embargo would improve the image of the United States around the world, he said, adding that it would also end what he called a "massive, flagrant and systematic violation of human rights." That violation includes restrictions on U.S. travel to the island that require most Americans to get U.S. government permission to visit and a ban on most U.S. companies doing business in Cuba, he said. "The prohibition of travel for Americans is an atrocity from the constitutional point of view," Rodriguez said. Cuba has its own limits on travel that make it difficult for most of its citizens to leave the country for any destination. Rodriguez said the elimination of the embargo would provide a much-needed tonic for the sluggish

U.S. economy.
"In a moment of economic crisis, lifting the blockade would contribute to the United States a totally new market of 11 million people. It would generate employment and end the situation in which American companies cannot compete in Cuba," he said.

Overwhelming support for embargo repeal retaliatory actions growing Gordon 12 Joy Gordon, Professor of Philosophy at Fairfield University, and Senior Fellow at the Global Justice
Program, MacMillan Center for Area and International Studies, Yale University. (The U.S. Embargo Against Cuba and the Diplomatic Challenges to Extraterritoriality, Law Journal Library, Winter 2012, http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/forwa36&div=11&g_sent=1&collection=journals, accessed: 7/2/13, LR) Statements of condemnation

In addition to the WTO action and retaliatory legislation by Canada, Mexico, and the European Union, U.S. embargo measures have also met broad, consistent international condemnation. In 2009 and 2010, for example, statements of condemnation came from the XV Summit of the Non-Aligned Movement held in Egypt in 2009," the II Africa-South America Summit (ASA) in 2009, the Vll Summit of the countries of the Bolivarian Alliance For the Peoples of the Americas ( ALBA) in 2009, the Unity Summit
of 2010, consisting of the XXI Rio Group Summit and the II Summit of Latin America and the Caribbean on Integration and Development (CALC)," and the VI Summit of Latin America and the Caribbean and the European Union. UN General Assembly resolutions It is not surprising that Cuba would have support from the devel-oping world, particularly its trading partners in Latin America and the Caribbean. A more dramatic demonstration of the breadth of international opposition to the legality of the U.S. embargo legislation was the series of annual votes before the UN General Assembly, which began in 1992. After the Torricelli law was passed, Cuba introduced a resolution before the UN General Assembly that called upon member states not to imple-ment its provisions and expressed concern about the extraterritorial effects and their consequent violation of the principle of equal sovereignty." The resolution passed by a vote of 59 to 3, with 71 abstentions and 46 nations not voting.

International support for Cubans resolutions has grown steadily from 1992 through the present, as states that had abstained in
one voted yes the next, and then continue to do so each year. While the I992 resolution had 59 votes in favor, the next years resolution had 88 votes in favor, 4 opposed, and 92 abstaining or not voting. For each of the last several years, over 180 members out of 193 in the United Nations have joined Cuba in condemning this U.S. violation of international trade law. Most recently, in October 2011, 186 countries voted in support of Cubas resolu-tion, two opposed it, and three abstained.

The embargo decks diplomacy international response proves Gordon 12 Joy Gordon, Professor of Philosophy at Fairfield University, and Senior Fellow at the Global Justice
Program, MacMillan Center for Area and International Studies, Yale University. (The U.S. Embargo Against Cuba and the Diplomatic Challenges to Extraterritoriality, Law Journal Library, Winter 2012, http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/forwa36&div=11&g_sent=1&collection=journals, accessed: 7/2/13, LR) Many analysts have criticized the U.S. embargo against Cuba as an anachronistic holdover from the Cold War. Yet its problems go well beyond that. In many regards, the U.S. embargo against Cuba represents a caricature of the various American misapplications of economic sanctions: if the goal is to end the Castro regime this policy has not only Failed, but has spent half a century doing so. If the intent is to support Cubans in their aspirations for a different political system the sanctions have failed in that regard as well, since even the most vocal dissidents in Cuba criticize the embargo. In the Face of the smart sanctions" movement to develop economic tools that target the leadership rather than the people , the embargo against Cuba represents the opposite pole: it impacts the Cuban population indiscriminately, affecting everything from family travel, to the publication of scientic articles by Cuban scholars, to the cost of buying chicken For Cuban households. This article will briey describe the history and the main compo -nents of the U.S. embargo against Cuba, and the impact of the unilateral measures on Cubes economy. It will look at some of the ways in which the U.S. embargo is "extraterritorial"impacting Cubas trade with third countriesas well as ways in which the United States unilateral embargo functions in effect as a global measure. It will then examine the over- whelming response of the international community, and in particular, the United Nations General Assembly, in condemning the embargo as a viola-tion of international law. This response represents a diplomatic challenge to the United States that is unparalleled in the last fty years of global governance.

The embargo fails hypocritical and regime-strengthening policy Brush 1/22 Michael Brush, award-winning New York financial writer who has covered business and
investing for The New York Times, Money magazine and the Economist Group. Michael studied at Columbia Business School in the Knight-Bagehot Fellowship program. He is the author of "Lessons from the Front Line," a book offering insights on investing and the markets based on the experiences of professional money managers. (Time to Invest in Cuba?, MSN Money, 1/22/13, http://money.msn.com/investing/time-to-invest-in-cuba, accessed: 7/2/13, LR)

It is a commendable policy but, sadly, hypocritical. If this were consistent U.S. policy, we'd have no political or trade relations with Vietnam, Myanmar or even China, says Juan Carlos Hidalgo, a Latin
America policy analyst at the Cato Institute, who notes that each of these countries fails to clear the Helms-Burton hurdles applied to Cuba. Thus, the Cuba embargo is a pretty glaring anomaly, which makes it vulnerable. " The only advantage of the embargo is that it allows the Cuban regime to blame the miserable Cuban economy on 'the blockade' as they call it," says Hidalgo. The embargo is also vulnerable because it's an obvious failure. After 50 years of embargo, the Castro brothers still rule Cuba, notes Tomas Bilbao, the executive director of the Cuba Study Group, a lobbying organization whose goal is "empowering" Cuban people by helping them start businesses and sell goods abroad. "I think we need to shift from an obsession with hurting the regime to an obsession with helping the Cuban people," he says.

Embargo theory wrong not suited for Cuba Llosa 9 - Alvaro Vargas Llosa, Senior Fellow of The Center on Global Prosperity at the Independent
Institute, nationally syndicated columnist for the Washington Post Writers Group and among his books, Liberty for Latin America, received the Sir Anthony Fisher International Memorial Award for its contribution to the cause of freedom in 2006. (Should the Cuban Embargo Be Lifted?, Real Clear Politics, April 29, 2009, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/04/29/should_the_cuban_embargo_be_lifted_96232.html, accessed: 7/3/13, LR)

But this is not the reasoning coming from the most vocal critics of U.S. sanctions these days. Many of them fail to even mention the fraud that is a system which bases its legitimacy on the renunciation of capitalism and at the same time implores capitalism to come to its rescue. There is also an endearing hypocrisy among those who decry the embargo but devote hardly any time to denouncing the island's half-century tyranny under the Castros. Another risible subterfuge attributes the catastrophe that is Cuba's economy on Washington's decision to cut off economic relations in 1962 after a wave of expropriations against American interests. The amnesiacs conveniently forget that in 1958, Cuba's socioeconomic condition was similar to Spain's and Portugal's and the standard of living of its citizens was behind only those of Argentines and Uruguayans in Latin America. Many of the critics also seem to suffer what French writer Jean-Francois Revel used to call "moral hemiplegia" -- a tendency to see fault only on one side of the political spectrum: I never heard Cuba's champions complain about sanctions against right-wing dictatorships. Sometimes, sanctions work, sometimes they don't. A study by Gary Hufbauer, Jeffrey Schott, Kimberly Elliot and Barbara Oegg titled "Economic Sanctions Reconsidered" analyzes dozens of cases of sanctions since World War I. In about a third of them, they worked either because they helped to topple the regime (South Africa) or because they forced the dictator to make major concessions (Libya). Archbishop Desmond Tutu told me a few

months ago in San Francisco that he was convinced that international sanctions were crucial in defeating apartheid in his home country. In the cases in which the embargo worked, the sanctions were applied by many countries and the affected regimes were already severely discredited or weakened. In the cases in which sanctions have not worked -- Saddam Hussein between 1990 and 2003, and North Korea today -- the dictatorships were able to isolate themselves from the effects and concentrate them on the population. In some countries, a certain sense of pride helped defend the government against foreign sanctions -- which is why the measures applied by the Soviet Union against Yugoslavia in 1948, China in 1960 and Albania in 1961 were largely useless. In the case of Cuba, the Castro regime has been able to whip up a nationalist sentiment against the U.S. embargo. More significantly, it has managed to offset much of the effects over the years in large part because the Soviets subsidized the island for three decades, because the regime welcomed Canadian, Mexican and European capital after the collapse of the Berlin Wall, and because Venezuela is its new patron. Castro decline, Obamas second term, and international disapproval are all reasons now is key Williams 12- Carol Williams, national affairs writer for the LA Times, Former foreign
correspondent, 25 years covering Europe, Latin America, Asia and the Middle East. (Widely condemned U.S. policy on Cuba unlikely to change soon, Los Angeles Times, November 16, 2012, http://articles.latimes.com/2012/nov/16/world/la-fg-wn-us-cuba-embargo-20121115, accessed:7/4/13, LR)
But this week's overwhelming international censure of the U.S. embargo against Cuba -- a 188-3 vote of condemnation by the U.N. General Assembly -- was a sobering reminder of how little has changed between the Cold War adversaries despite President Obama's 2008 campaign vow to end half a century of ideological standoff. Foreign policy analysts see possibilities that Obama may have more room to maneuver in a second term. Younger Cuban Americans care more about staying in touch with family on the communist-ruled island than did their embittered elders, who fled after Fidel Castro's 1959 revolution, vowing never to return until Cuba was free of the leftist firebrand. Castro, now 86 and ailing, seems likely to be out of the picture within the next four years, say Cuba watchers who predict the commandante's passing would ignite more profound rethinking of Cuban economic and foreign policy. Raul Castro, 81, has undertaken modest reforms, but he is seen as a placeholder who will be pushed aside once his brother dies.

The embargo is counterproductive costs alliances Hanson, et. al. 13 Daniel Hanson, Daniel Hanson is an economics researcher at the American Enterprise
Institute. (It's Time For The U.S. To End Its Senseless Embargo Of Cuba , Forbes, 1/16/13, http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/01/16/its-time-for-the-u-s-to-end-its-senseless-embargo-of-cuba/, accessed: 7/2/13, amf) Moreover, since Europeans,

Japanese, and Canadians can travel and conduct business in Cuba unimpeded, the sanctions are rather toothless. The State Department has argued that the cost of conducting
business in Cuba is only negligibly higher because of the embargo. For American multinational corporations wishing to undertake commerce in Cuba, foreign branches find it easy to conduct exchanges.

Yet, 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 unemployment rate currently stands at 8.1 percent. Whats worse, U.S. sanctions encourage Cuba to collaborate with regional players that are less friendly to American interests. For instance, in 2011, the country inked a deal with Venezuela for the construction of an underwater communications link, circumventing its need to connect with US-owned networks close to its shores.

Repealing the embargo would fit into an American precedent of lifting trade and travel restrictions to countries who demonstrate progress towards democratic ideals. Romania,
Czechoslovakia, and Hungary were all offered normal trade relations in the 1970s after preliminary reforms even though they were still in clear violation of several US resolutions condemning their human rights practices. China, a communist country and perennial human rights abuser, is the U.S.s second largest trading partner, and in November, trade restrictions against Myanmar were lessened notwithstanding a fifty year history of genocide and human trafficking propagated by its military government. Which, of course, begs the question: when will the U.S. see fit to lift the embargo? If Cuba is trending towards democracy and free markets, what litmus test must be passed for the embargo to be rolled back?

The cost of the embargo to the United States is high in both dollar and moral terms, but it is higher for the Cuban people, who are cut off from the supposed champion of liberty in their hemisphere because of an antiquated Cold War dispute. The progress being made in Cuba could be accelerated with the help of American charitable relief, business innovation, and tourism. A perpetual embargo on a developing nation that is moving towards reform makes little sense, especially when Americas allies are openly hostile to the embargo. It keeps a broader discussion about smart reform in Cuba from gaining life, and it makes no economic sense. It is time for the embargo to go. Cuban relations with China and Venezuela saving the regime Feinberg 11 Richard Feinberg, Richard Feinberg is professor of international political economy at the
Graduate School of International Relations and Pacific Studies, University of California, San Diego. Feinberg served as special assistant to President Clinton and senior director of the National Security Councils Office of Inter American Affairs. He has held positions on the State Department's policy planning staff and worked as an international economist in the U.S. Treasury Department's Office of International Affairs. (Reaching Out: Cubas New Economy and the International Response, The Brookings Institute, November 2011, http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2011/11/18-cuba-feinberg, accessed: 7/4/13, amf) Five decades after Fidel Castros 26th of July Movement marched victoriously into Havana on New Years Day, 1959, the United States and Cuba, separated by less than 100 miles of choppy waters, remain deeply distrustful neighbors entangled in a web of hostilities. Heated U.S. policy debates over how best to respond to the Cuban Revolutionthrough legislation in the Congress or executive orders issued by the Executive Branch implicitly

assume that there are only two players in contention: Washington and Havana. Yet, this conceit takes us very far from the realities of Cuba today. Since the collapse of its former patron, the Soviet Union, a resilient Cuba has dramatically diversified its international economic relations. Initially, Cuba reached out to Europe, Canada, and a widening array of friendly states in Latin America. Over the last decade, Cuba has reached out to forge economic partnerships with major emerging market economiesnotably China, Brazil, and Venezuela.
Spanish firms manage many of the expanding hotel chains in Cuba that cater to 2.5 million international tourists each year. A Canadian company jointly owns mining operations that ship high-priced nickel to Canada and China. In the next few years, China is poised to spend billions of dollars building a large petrochemical complex at Cienfuegos. A Brazilian firm will modernize the Mariel Port so that it can accommodate very large

container ships transiting the newly widened Panama Canal. Petroleum

companies from ten or more countries have lined up to explore for deepsea oil in Cuban waters in the Gulf of Mexico. Despite these advances, the Cuban economy remains in the doldrums (as described in Section 1). The main constraint slowing the Cuban economy is not U.S. sanctions (even as they have hit hard). Rather, it is Cubas own outdated economic model, inherited from the Soviet Union, of central planning. Cubas many commercial partners would like to invest more in Cuba and would prefer to purchase more Cuban exports to correct the imbalances in their bilateral trade accounts, but are frustrated by C ubas scant
economic offerings. Section 2 of this policy paper tells the story of Cubas outreach to the dynamic emerging market economies, as seen from the perspective of Cuba and also through the eyes of its Chinese, Brazilian, Venezuelan and Mexican partnersexamining their motivations as well as their anxieties and frustrations. How does Cuba fit into their international economic and geo-political strategies, and what are the domestic political drivers behind their friendships with Havana? Canadian interests are also explored, as Ottawa has sharply differentiated its Cuba policy from those of its close North American ally.

While comprehensive U.S. sanctions attempt to undermine the Cuban economy, European countries have been sending development assistance, albeit in modest amounts. European aid targets its
resources to empower municipalities, private farmers and cooperatives to strengthen social forces less dominated by Havanas powerful bureaucracies. Section 3 describes these European and Canadian coo peration programs as well as the creative initiatives of the non-governmental organization Oxfam, and draws lessons pointing out potential pitfalls as well as opportunitiesfor future international development programs operating in the difficult Cuban context.

Cuba building relations with China now recent talks Latino Daily News 6/19 Latino Daily News: Hispanically Speaking News. (Cuban VP Strengthens Relations
with China on Trip Abroad, Latino Daily News, 6/19/13, http://www.hispanicallyspeakingnews.com/latino-dailynews/details/cuban-vp-strengthens-relations-with-china-on-trip-abroad/25261/, accessed: 7/4/13, amf) Cuban First Vice President Miguel Diaz-Canel and Chinese President Xi Jinping gave a new push to longstanding bilateral relations with a meeting here Tuesday. We want you to feel at home, Xi told Diaz-Canel at the start of the meeting at the Great Hall of the People, which was only open to the media for a few minutes.

Joined by a large political retinue, Diaz-Canel was the first senior Cuban leader to meet with Xi since he became Chinas president in March. While the officials remarks to the media stayed within the bounds of diplomatic propriety, tangible steps to boost trade relations and other ties have been taken in recent weeks. Indeed, Diaz-Canel and Chinese counterpart Li Yuanchao on Monday presided over the signing of several bilateral cooperation accords. Those agreements included a donation by the Asian giant, an interest-free loan to Cuba and another credit for purchases of farm machinery and equipment.
The amounts were not disclosed.

The two countries have learned from one another during the process of building socialism, the
Chinese vice president said Monday after a meeting with his Cuban counterpart, the official Xinhua news agency said. Diaz-Canel, for his part, said then that Cuba viewed its relations with China from a strategic

perspective and was interested in bolstering bilateral cooperation. Beijings Communist Party secretary, Guo Jinlong, and Cuban President Raul Castro also met earlier this month in Havana, a sit-down that ended with the signing of cooperation accords in the areas of energy, transportation, tourism and biotechnology.

China is Cubas second-largest trading partner with two-way trade valued at more than $2 billion
in 2011, up from $590 million in 2004, according to official figures.

The current embargo prevents cooperation on many issues. Siegelbaum 11 [Portia. September 14. CBS News. Cuba: U.S. embargo causes $1 trillion in losses.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20106159-503543.html] He also noted the embargo interfered with Cuba's cooperation with international agencies giving the example of how in January 2011, the U.S. Government seized over $4.2 million of funding from the Global Fund to Fight AIDS,

Tuberculosis and Malaria because they were earmarked for the implementation of cooperation projects with Cuba. The Cuban Democracy Act of 1992 further codified the original embargo into law so as to maintain sanctions on Cuba until Havana takes steps toward "democratization and greater respect for human rights ." The Helms-Burton Act
passed by Congress in 1996 added yet further restrictions to prevent U.S. citizens from doing business in or with Cuba. In 1999, President Bill Clinton expanded the embargo even more by prohibiting foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies from trading with Cuba. This led among more serious moves to the removal of Cuban-made pajamas from shelves in Wal-Mart in Canada. Clinton did authorize the sale of certain humanitarian products to Cuba in 2000 only on a cash basis with no credit permitted. The policy has pitted pro-embargo Cuban-American exiles against many business leaders and agricultural producers who insist trade with Cuba would benefit American farmers, port workers and others. The U.S. Rice Federation has lobbied hard in Washington believing that Cuba could once again become the largest foreign market for American grown rice, a position currently held by Mexico. At present the U.S. State Department says the biggest obstacle to improving relations between the two countries is the imprisonment of an American aid worker Alan Gross. Gross was arrested in December 2009 and sentenced last March to 15 years in prison for bringing illegal communications equipment into Cuba as part of a program subcontracted to his employer by USAID. The Cubans say this program and others like it are intended to overthrow throw their government. Moreno refused at this morning's press conference to respond to a question on Gross. Former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson left Havana this morning after a week's efforts to see the American who is being held in a Havana military hospital. Yesterday Richardson told foreign journalists in Havana that the Cuban Government had rebuffed all his appeals. Nevertheless, President Obama said yesterday in Washington that his administration's relaxation of the travel ban that now allows more Americans to visit Cuba on educational, religious, cultural or people-to-people group trips would remain in effect as would the loosening of restrictions on the amount and frequency with which Cubans in the U.S. could send money to relatives on the island.

Cuba and Canada have strong relations. Government of Canada 13 -- Government of Canada. (Canada- Cuba relations
http://www.canadainternational.gc.ca/cuba/bilateral_relations_bilaterales/canada_cuba.aspx Accessed: July 2, 2013. AK_

Canada and Cuba enjoy a broad and diverse relationship built on a long history of mutually beneficial engagement, important and growing economic and commercial relations, and strong people-to-people ties across a wide range of sectors and interests. Canadas approach is to engage with all elements of Cuban society - government, the business sector, non-governmental organizations and civil society at large. Canada supports the process of economic modernization being undertaken by the Cuban government, with greater opportunities for the development of non-state economic activity and private initiatives. Building on our successful cooperation experience in areas of economic policy development and institutional strengthening, Canada will seek to support the Cuban governments intention to implement a process of economic modernization.

Cuba and Canada have strong relations. Government of Canada 13 -- Government of Canada. (Canada- Cuba relations
http://www.canadainternational.gc.ca/cuba/bilateral_relations_bilaterales/canada_cuba.aspx Accessed: July 2, 2013. AK)

Canada supports a future for Cuba that fully embraces the fundamental values of freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Canada has consistently recognized Cubas strong commitment to economic and social rights, with its particularly important achievements in the areas of education and health. At the same time, Canada has stressed the importance of basic civil and political rights, such as freedom of speech, association and the press. Canadas public advocacy programme in Cuba promotes greater understanding of Canada and Canadians, and of the Canadian model of a multicultural, democratic and innovative society. One of the most successful Canadian-inspired events in Cuba is the annual run in honour of Terry Fox, a cancer victim and national hero who undertook a run across Canada to raise awareness of the importance of cancer research. The Terry Fox Run in Cuba has become the largest in the world outside of Canada. Knowledge of Canada, its history, geography, policies and programs, is also promoted through Canadian Studies Centres located in six universities across Cuba. Academic cooperation represents one of the most important aspects of the relationship between Canada and Cuba, with expanding networks of academics and researchers from both countries working together in a wide range of disciplines. While the Canadian Embassy in Havana does not directly fund or facilitate cultural or interpersonal exchanges, cultural and interpersonal ties contribute to strengthening people-to-people relations between Canadians and Cubans. To learn more about promoting Canadian culture and funding Canadian cultural projects, please consult Canadian Heritage or the Canadian Council for the Arts. For additional information, read our cultural FAQs for Canadians interested in Cuba. Cuba is the third most popular overseas destination for Canadians (after the United States and Mexico) and Canada is Cubas largest source of tourists, with over one million Canadians visiting annually (more 40 per cent of all visitors to Cuba). The Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) manages Canada's bilateral development assistance program in Cuba. Current program priorities are sustainable economic growth and food security. Canada and Cuba have a well-established, significant and growing commercial and investment relationship. Cuba is Canadas top market in the Caribbean/Central American sub-region and bilateral merchandise trade between the two countries is over one billion dollars annually. Canadian companies have significant investments in mining, power, oil and gas, agri-food and tourism. Appointment of Diaz Canel does not mean normalization of relations. Alam 13 Hannah Alam. Hannah is a writer for the Miami herald. (Even if Raul Castro steps
down in 2018, U.S.-Cuba relations may not thaw. Miami Herald. McClatchy Newspapers. 2/25/13. Accessed: July 2, 2013.)

Castros announcement over the weekend that hell step down in 2018 after the five-year term he just began ends starts the countdown for U.S. officials contemplating a thaw in relations with the island nation. But analysts caution that so far the regimes reforms amount to window dressing. By law, the United States is restricted from normalizing relations
WASHINGTON -- Cuban President Raul

with Cuba as long as the island is ruled by the Castro brothers: ailing revolutionary leader Fidel, 86, and his brother Raul, 81. Raul Castro said Sunday that not only would he step aside in 2018, he also would propose term limits and age caps for future presidents, the latest in a series of moves that are hailed by some Cuba observers as steps toward reform but dismissed by others as disingenuous. But those are hardly the kinds of breakthrough reforms that State Department and independent analysts say will be needed to improve U.S.-Cuba relations, which froze after the Cuban revolution of 1959 that saw
Fidel Castro align himself with the communist bloc and the United States impose a trade embargo that 54 years later remains in place. Each side is making small, subtle moves, but since its a glacier, its not going to melt overnight, said Alex Crowther, a former U.S. Army colonel and Cuba specialist whose published commentaries on bilateral relations include a 2009 essay calling for an end to the embargo. Analysts of U.S.-Cuban relations said that the latest moves are primarily self-serving for the regime, allowing the two elderly brothers to handpick an acceptable successor before theyre too infirm to administer the country. Raul Castros anointing of Communist Party stalwart Miguel Diaz-Canel, 52, as the favored successor was the most important takeaway from the presidents speech, several analysts agreed. It doesnt mean hes being chosen to succeed Raul, but it does mean theyre leaving the gerontocracy and opening up the aperture to younger leaders, Crowther said. Diaz-Canel is an impressive career politician, said Jorge Dominguez, a Cuban Ameri can professor of Mexican and Latin American politics and economics at Harvard University. He moved through the Communist Party ranks, serving as a provincial first secretary, minister of higher education, a member of the partys political bureau and one of the Castros gaggle of vice presidents. In those roles, he has a wider array of responsibilities that have positioned him well for the eventual succession, Dominguez said. He has also been traveling abroad with Raul to add foreign experience to what had been principally a domestic-policy resume. When Castro elevated DiazCanel to first vice president and set a date for his own stepping aside, for the first time there was an expiration date for Castro rule of Cuba. It is true that other would-be successors appeared from time to time, but none was anointed, and none had a formal designation as the successor, Dominguez said. Sure, there will be political fights in the future. Theirs is a political party, after all, and politicians will jockey for power and position. But DiazCanel is now the frontrunner. The Castro brothers know by now that such moves also play well

in the United States, where they just got a public relations boost with the remarks of a U.S. senator who led a delegation to Cuba this month to seek the release of Alan Gross, an American imprisoned
on the island for illegally importing communications equipment while on a USAID-funded democracy-building program.

Cuba- US trade growing now. Perales 10 -- Jose Perales. Perales is a senior program associate at the Woodrow Wilson Center Latin American
Program. The Woodrow Wilson Center is one of Washingtons most respected institutions of policy research and public dialogue. Created by an act of Congress in 1966, the Center is a living memorial to President Woodrow Wilson and his ideals of a more informed public policy commu- nity in Washington. It supports research on in- ternational policy issues; organizes conferences, seminars, and working groups; and offers resi- dential fellowships for scholars, journalists and policymakers. Center director Lee H. Hamilton is a widely respected former member of Congress who chaired the House International Relations Committee. The Latin American Program focu- ses attention on U.S.-Latin American relations and important issues in the region, including democratic governance, citizen security, peace processes, drug policy, decentralization, and economic development and equality. (The United States and Cuba: Implications of an Economic Relationship WOODROW WILSON CENTER LATIN AMERICAN PROGRAM. http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/LAP_Cuba_Implications.pdf August 2010 Accessed: July 3, 2013. AK)

The last decade has been marked by a significant growth in economic ties between the United States and Cuba, a response to the partial relaxation of certain embargo restrictions, explained Jose aul Perales, Senior Program Associate of the Latin American Program.This has been particularly true within the agriculture and tourism industries. For instance, in 2000 the United States implemented the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act; in the following eight years bilateral agricultural trade and farm sales more than tripled. Furthermore, since 2003, the United States has

supplied annually more agricultural products to Cuba than any other nation; from 2003 to 2008 an
estimated 35 percent of Cubas agricultural imports came from the United States. In terms of tourism, it is estimated that, by eliminating current restrictions on U.S. travel to Cuba, the island nation could expect 500,000 to one million tourism-related U.S. visits per annum.This would not only be a boost to the U.S. travel industry, it would also fundamentally transform the landscape of the entire Caribbean tourism industry. These data hint at the many benefits to a deeper U.S.- Cuban economic relationship. However, there are important pitfalls associated with deeper economic relations. In a April 29, 2010,hearing on H.R.4645,theTravel Restriction Reform and Export Enhancement Act (designed to remove obstacles to legal sales of U.S.agricultural commodities to Cubaby eliminating the cash- in-advance provision required for all such sales to Cubaand to end travel restrictions on all Americans to Cuba), Representative Kevin Brady (R-TX), the Republican ranking member on the House Ways and Means Committee, outlined some of these drawbacks. Cubas economic climate is intolerant of U.S. firms: there exists no accord on U.S. individual or corporate property claims. Indeed, in spite of the Obama administrations move to allow U.S. telecommunication firms to apply for licenses to conduct business in Cuba, few such companies have rushed in. This is in no small part due to the important challenges associated with policy unpredictability under the current Cuban regime, not to mention significant questions arising from issues of human rights and labor relations. In spite of these considerations, at the time of this publication, H.R. 4645 had been approved in the House Agriculture Committee and awaited further consideration on the Foreign Affairs and Financial Services committees before reaching the House floor.

Baby steps arent enough. Perales 10 -- Jose Perales. Perales is a senior program associate at the Woodrow Wilson Center Latin American
Program. Christopher Sabatini is the senior director of policy at the Americas Society and Council of the Americas. The Woodrow Wilson Center is one of Washingtons most respected institutions of policy research and public dialo gue. Created by an act of Congress in 1966, the Center is a living memorial to President Woodrow Wilson and his ideals of a more informed public policy commu- nity in Washington. It supports research on in- ternational policy issues; organizes conferences, seminars, and working groups; and offers resi- dential fellowships for scholars, journalists and policymakers. Center director Lee H. Hamilton is a widely respected former member of Congress who chaired the House International Relations Committee. The Latin American Program focu- ses attention on U.S.-Latin American relations and important issues in the region, including democratic governance, citizen security, peace processes, drug policy, decentralization, and economic development and equality. (The United States and Cuba: Implications of an Economic Relationship WOODROW WILSON CENTER LATIN AMERICAN PROGRAM. http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/LAP_Cuba_Implications.pdf August 2010 Accessed: July 3, 2013. AK)

Sabatini noted that the ability to affect significant change on the embargo falls within the scope of executive regulatory authority, particularly in areas such as telecommunications and some elements of travel
particularly in licensing for cultural and educational exchanges and even some elements of marketing trips. In this sense the Obama administration took a first step on April 13, 2009, when [he] President Obama announced an

increased allowance for U.S. telecommunications companies to establish licensing agreements to allow roaming coverage on the island and establish a fiberoptic cable to Cuba, with the stated purpose of helping Cubans communicate with the rest of the world. However, according to Sabatini, it turned out that despite the fanfare, the regulations that came out of the U.S. bureaucracy five months later did little realistically to allow U.S. companies to establish the necessary and sufficient links to allow broad communication between Cubans and the rest of the world. For instance, in his announcement, President Obama called for the establishment of a fiberoptic cable linking Cuba to the outside world. However, regulations prohibiting U.S. equipment transfers or sales to the island for commercial purposes persist. Similarly, the regulations continued to prevent the sale of handsets on the island for commercial purposes and
blocks infrastructure investments such as cell phone towers, routers, and switchers. All of these sorts of now-prohibited equipment is essential if there is to be any meaningful broad- based access to the tools of communication.

After Chavez, A chance to rethink relations


White 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 Chavez, A Chance to Rethink Relations, The New York Times, March 7, 2013,

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/08/opinion/after-chavez-hope-for-good-neighbors-in-latinamerica.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0, Accessed: July 3, 2013, SD) FOR most of our history, the United States assumed that its

security was inextricably linked to a partnership with Latin America. This legacy dates from the Monroe Doctrine, articulated in 1823, through the Rio pact, the postwar treaty that pledged the United States to come to the defense of its allies in Central and South America. Yet for a half-century, our policies toward our southern neighbors have alternated between intervention and neglect, inappropriate meddling and missed opportunities. The death this week of President Hugo Chvez of Venezuela who along with Fidel Castro of Cuba was perhaps the most vociferous critic of the United States among the political leaders of the Western Hemisphere in recent decades offers an opportunity to restore bonds with potential allies who share the American goal of prosperity. Throughout his career, the autocratic Mr. Chvez used our embargo as a wedge with which to antagonize the United States and alienate its supporters. His fuel helped prop up the rule of Mr. Castro and his brother Ral, Cubas current president. The embargo no longer serves any useful purpose (if it ever did at all); President Obama should end it, though it would mean overcoming powerful opposition from CubanAmerican lawmakers in Congress. An end to the Cuba embargo would send a powerful signal to all of Latin America that the United States wants a new, warmer relationship with democratic forces seeking social change throughout the Americas. I joined the State Department as a Foreign Service officer in the 1950s and chose to serve in Latin America in the 1960s. I was inspired by President John F. Ke nnedys 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 t he 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 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 Ra l Castros announcement that he will retire in 2018, the imp lacable 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

reelection 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 five decades. The president and his new secretary of state, John Kerry, should

quietly reach out to Latin American leaders like President Juan Manuel Santos of Colombia and 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 measure of democratic change to justify its reintegration into a hemisphere composed entirely of elected governments. If, however, our present policy paralysis continues, we will soon see the emergence of two rival camps, the United States versus Latin America. While Washington would continue to enjoy friendly relations with individual countries like Brazil, Mexico and Colombia, the vision of Roosevelt and Kennedy of a hemisphere of partners cooperating in matters of common concern would be reduced to a historical footnote.

U.S. Constituencies want to normalize relations with Cuba


Hanson and Lee 13, Stephanie Hanson, associate director and coordinating editor of the Council on Foreign Relations. Brianna Lee, Senior Production Editor of the Council on Foreign Relations. (U.S.-Cuba Relations, Council on Foreign Relations, January 13, 2013,

http://www.cfr.org/cuba/us-cuba-relations/p11113#p3, Accessed: July 3, 2013, SD) What is U.S. public opinion on the isolation of Cuba? Some U.S. constituencies would like to resume relations. U.S. agricultural groups already deal with Cuba, and other economic sectors want access to the Cuban market. Many Cuban-Americans were angered by
the Bush administration's strict limits on travel and remittances, though a small but vocal contingent of hard-line Cuban exiles, many of them

the majority of Cuban-Americans say that the embargo has failed, and support lifting the travel ban or loosening the embargo or some steps along that continuum of liberalization and normalization," says Julia E. Sweig, CFR director of Latin American studies. Ending the economic embargo against Cuba would require congressional approval. Opinions in Congress
based in Florida, does not want to normalize relations until the Communist regime is gone. "When they're polled, are mixed: A group of influential Republican lawmakers from Florida, including former representative Lincoln Diaz-Balart, his brother Mario Diaz-Balart, and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen are stridently anti-Castro. Still, many Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN), the top-ranking Republican

favor improving relations with Cuba. In 2009, on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, released a report calling for U.S. policy changes. He said: "We must recognize the ineffectiveness of our current policy and deal with the Cuban regime in a way that enhances U.S. interests" (PDF).

Lifting Embargo key to Regional Relations


Sheridan 09 , Mary Beth Sheridan, Washington Post Reporter (U.S. Urged to Relax Cuba Policy to Boost Regional Relations, the Washington Post, May 29, 2009,
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2009-05-29/politics/36798831_1_cuba-scholar-oas-members-travel-restrictions, Accessed: July 3, 2013, SD)

Eliminating the Cold War-era ban would be largely symbolic, because Cuba has shown no sign of wanting to return to the OAS, the main forum for political cooperation in the hemisphere. But the debate shows how central the topic has become in U.S. relations with an increasingly assertive Latin America. The wrangling over Cuba threatens to dominate a meeting of hemispheric foreign ministers, including Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, scheduled for Tuesday in Honduras. "Fifty years after the U.S. . . . made Cuba its litmus test for its commercial and diplomatic ties in Latin America, Latin America is turning the tables," said Julia E. Sweig, a Cuba scholar at the Council on Foreign Relations. Now, she said, Latin countries are "making Cuba the litmus test for the quality of the Obama administration's approach to Latin America." President Obama has taken steps toward improving ties with Cuba, lifting restrictions on visits and money transfers by Cuban Americans and offering to restart immigration talks suspended in 2004. But he has said he will not scrap the longtime economic embargo until Havana makes

democratic reforms and cleans up its human rights record. Ending the embargo would also entail congressional action. Obama

is facing

pressure to move faster, both from Latin American allies and from key U.S. lawmakers. Bipartisan bills are pending in Congress that would eliminate all travel restrictions and ease the embargo. Cuba has sent mixed signals about its willingness to respond to the U.S. gestures. Latin American leaders say that isolating Cuba is anachronistic when most countries in the region have established relations with communist nations such as China. The OAS secretary general, Jos Miguel Insulza, has called the organization's 1962
suspension of Cuba "outdated" -- noting it is based on the island's alignment with a "communist bloc" that no longer exists. However, he has suggested that OAS members could postpone Cuba's full participation until it showed democratic reforms. Cuban exile organizations and some U.S. lawmakers are strongly opposed to readmitting the island. "If we invite Cuba back in, in spite of their violations, what message are we sending to the rest of the hemisphere -- that it's okay to move backwards away from democracy and human rights, that there will be no repercussions for such actions?" Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), a Cuban American, demanded in a speech. He threatened to cut off U.S. funding for the OAS -- about 60 percent of its budget -- if the measure passed. Clinton said last week that Cuba should be readmitted only if it abided by the OAS's Democratic Charter, a set of principles adopted in 2001 that commits countries to hold elections and to respect human rights

and press freedoms. Most Latin American countries broke relations with Cuba after its 1959 revolution. Nearly all have restored diplomatic ties, and the United States will soon be the only holdout in the hemisphere. The Cuba ban could be lifted by a two-thirds vote of the OAS foreign ministers on Tuesday. However, the organization generally works by consensus, and several countries have indicated they do not want a showdown with the United States. Diplomats have been trying in recent days to hammer out a compromise. U.S. diplomats introduced a resolution that would instruct the OAS to open a dialogue with Cuba about its "eventual reintegration," consistent with the principles of "democracy and full respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms." A diplomat said last night that the United States appears to be softening its opposition to lifting the ban as long as Cuba's full reinstatement is contingent on moving toward democracy. He spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the talks. Venezuela, an ally of Cuba, has indicated it will not support any resolution that includes such conditions. "This is 'Jurassic Park,' " fumed Venezuelan Ambassador Roy Chaderton. "We're still in the Cold War." Some Latin American diplomats worry that the Cuba imbroglio (misunderstanding) could further marginalize the OAS. The organization is respected for monitoring elections, and it has tried to broker disputes in the hemisphere. But critics lambaste it as largely a debating society. Venezuela has threatened to quit the organization and form an alternative regional group. It has set up a leftist trade alliance known as ALBA with several poor countries in Latin America. Cuba has derided the OAS as a U.S.-dominated tool of the United States. Peter Hakim, president of the InterAmerican Dialogue, a think tank in Washington, said the Cuba resolution has trapped the Obama administration between two of its priorities: democracy promotion and better relations with its neighbors. In 2001, the U.S. government supported the Democratic Charter, a milestone in a region once known for dictatorships. But Obama told hemispheric leaders in Trinidad and Tobago last month that he wanted to form closer partnerships and not have the United States dictate policy. "There's

really two different values at play here: multilateralism versus democracy. You can't have multilateralism and then let one country, i.e. the U.S., make the decision for a multilateral organization," Hakim said.

Lifting the embargo makes the US more credible Crowther 09 --- Colonel Glenn A. Crowther, research professor at Strategic Studies Institute (KISS THE EMBARGO
GOODBYE, February 2009, SSI, http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub906.pdf, accessed July 4, 2013,MY) The United States has a motive and a history of operating against the Cuban government, and therefore against the Cuban people. The proof that

The government uses the embargo as the only excuse for maintaining its internal security apparatus. If we were to drop the embargo, either Cuba would have to dismantle its security apparatus, or be revealed as being hypocritical. Either result would be good for both the United States and the Cuban people. Dismantling the repressive security
the United States is still operating against them is obviousthe embargo. structure would provide a modicum of freedom for the Cubans. Maintaining the security apparatus would significantly delegitimize the Cuban government domestically and internationally and could only hasten the demise of the current system. Lifting

the embargo would be a strong sign to the international community that the United States is magnanimous and inclusive. Maintaining it makes us look petty and vindictive to the rest of the world. We cannot
convince anyone that Cuba is a threat to the United States, nor can we make the case internationally that more of the same will have a positive impact. Lifting

the embargo would signal that we are ready to try something different to bring democracy to Cuba. Lifting the embargo improves democracy, relations, and US global reputation Hanson, Batten, & Ealey 1/16 --- Daniel Hanson, Dayne Batten & Harrison Ealey, 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, January 16, 2013, Forbes, http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/01/16/its-time-for-the-u-s-to-end-its-senseless-embargo-of-cuba/, accessed June 28, 2013, MY)

For the first time in more than fifty years, Cuban citizens can travel abroad without permission from their government. The move, part of a broader reform package being phased in by Raul Castro, underscores the irrationality of Americas continuation of a five-decade old embargo.
While the embargo has been through several legal iterations in the intervening years, the general tenor of the U.S. position toward Cuba is a hardline not-in-my-backyard approach to communism a la the Monroe Doctrine. The

official position is outdated,

hypocritical, and counterproductive. The Cuban embargo was inaugurated by a Kennedy administration executive order in
1960 as a response to the confiscation of American property in Cuba under the newly installed Castro regime. The current incarnation of the embargo codified primarily in the Helms-Burton Act aims at producing free markets and representative democracy in Cuba through economic sanctions, travel restrictions, and international legal penalties. 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 this progress, 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. At the Miami International Airport, visitors arriving from a Cuban airport are seven times more likely to be stopped and subjected to further customs inspections than are visitors from other countries. More than 70 percent of the Treasurys Office of Foreign Assets Control i nspections each year are centered on rooting out smuggled Cuban goods even though the agency administers more than 20 other trade bans. Government

resources could be better spent on the enforcement of other sanctions, such as illicit drug trade from Columbia, rather than the search for contraband cigars and rum. At present, the U.S. is largely alone in restricting access to Cuba. The embargo has long been a point of friction between the United 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 nationalized during the
Castro takeover have dropped their claims. Moreover, since Europeans, Japanese, and Canadians can travel and conduct business in Cuba unimpeded, the sanctions are rather toothless. The State Department has argued that the cost of conducting business in Cuba is only negligibly higher because of the embargo. For American multinational corporations wishing to undertake commerce in Cuba, foreign branches find it easy to conduct exchanges. Yet, 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 unemployment rate currently stands at 8.1 percent. Whats

worse, U.S. sanctions encourage Cuba to collaborate with regional players that are less friendly to American interests. For instance, in 2011, the country inked a deal with Venezuela for the construction of an underwater communications link, circumventing its need to connect with US-owned networks close to its shores. Repealing the embargo would fit into an American precedent of lifting trade and travel restrictions to countries who demonstrate progress towards democratic ideals. Romania, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary were all offered normal
trade relations in the 1970s after preliminary reforms even though they were still in clear violation of several US resolutions condemning their human rights practices. China, a communist country and perennial human rights abuser, is the U.S.s second largest trading partner, and in November, trade restrictions against Myanmar were lessened notwithstanding a fifty year history of genocide and human trafficking propagated by its military government. Which, of course, begs the question: when will the U.S. see fit to lift the embargo? If Cuba is trending towards democracy and free markets, what litmus test must be passed for the embargo to be rolled back? The cost of the embargo to the United States is high in both dollar and moral terms, but it is higher for the Cuban people, who are cut off from the supposed champion of liberty in their hemisphere because of an antiquated Cold War dispute. The progress being made in Cuba could be accelerated with the help of American charitable relief, business innovation, and tourism. A perpetual embargo on a developing nation that is moving towards reform makes little sense, especially when Americas

allies are openly hostile to the embargo. It keeps a broader discussion about smart reform in Cuba from gaining life, and it makes no economic sense. It is time for the embargo to go. Lifting the embargo increases our sphere of influence Grisworld 05 --- Daniel Griswold is director of the Cato Institute's Center for Trade Policy Studies (Four Decades of Failure:
The U.S. Embargo against Cuba, October 12, 2005, http://www.cato.org/publications/speeches/four -decades-failure-us-embargoagainst-cuba, accessed July 3, 2013, MY) Yes, more American dollars would end up in the coffers of the Cuban government, but dollars would also go to private Cuban citizens. Philip Peters, a former State Department official in the Reagan administration and expert on Cuba, argues that American tourists would boost the earnings of Cubans who rent rooms, drive taxis, sell art, and operate restaurants in their homes. Those dollars would then find their way to the hundreds of freely priced farmers markets, to carpenters, repairmen, tutors, food venders, and o ther entrepreneurs. Second, restrictions

on remittances should be lifted. Like tourism, expanded remittances would fuel the private sector, encourage Cubas modest economic reforms, and promote independence from the government. Third, American farmers and medical suppliers should be allowed to sell their products to Cuba with financing arranged by
private commercial lenders, not just for cash as current law permits. Most international trade is financed by temporary credit, and private banks, not taxpayers, would bear the risk. I oppose subsidizing exports to Cuba through agencies such as the Export-Import Bank, but I also oppose banning the use of private commercial credit. Finally, the

Helms-Burton law should be allowed to expire. The law, like every other aspect of the embargo, has failed to achieve its stated objectives and has, in fact,

undermined American influence in Cuba and alienated our allies. Lifting or modifying the embargo would not be a victory for Fidel Castro or his oppressive regime. It would be an overdue acknowledgement that the four-and-a-half decade embargo has failed, and that commercial engagement is the best way to encourage more open societies abroad. The U.S. government can and should continue to criticize the Cuban governments abuse of human rights in the U.N. and elsewhere, while allowing expanding trade and tourism to undermine Castros authority from below. We should apply the presidents sound reasoning on trade in general to our policy toward Cuba . The most powerful force for change in Cuba will not be more sanctions, but more daily interaction with free people bearing dollars and new ideas. How many decades does the U.S. government need to bang its head against a wall before it changes a failed policy? People don't want the embargo anymore Crowther 09 --- Colonel Glenn A. Crowther, research professor at Strategic Studies Institute (KISS THE EMBARGO
GOODBYE, February 2009, SSI, http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub906.pdf, accessed July 4, 2013,MY)

Although many believe there is unity in thinking among all Cubans in the United States, conversations with people from each of these groups demonstrate that this is not true. Although the diminishing group of original exiles still tends to be extremely antiCastro, many of the others just want the whole thing to end so that they can either go home, or get this all behind them. Others just want to be able to help their families at home or be free to travel back and forth at will. The offspring of the original exiles (the oldest of whom are now in their early 50s) tend to be anti-Castro, however many of them are not as enthusiastic as their parents about overthrowing the Revolution. Most desire that the Castro regime go away and Cuba be free, but they
feel that time will make this happen, and they are not usually dedicated to this cause like their parents. In private conversation, however, a trend appears. Very

few Cubans in the United States actually want the embargo to continue.

Now is the time for engagement, diplomatic transition, Florida, and Kerry Padgett 7/3 --- Tim Padgett is WLRN-Miami Herald News' Americas correspondent covering Latin America and the Caribbean
from Miami. He has covered Latin America for almost 25 years, graduate of Northwestern University (Why This Summer Offers Ho pe For Better U.S.-Cuba Relations, July 3, 2013, WLRN, http://wlrn.org/post/why-summer-offers-hope-better-us-cuba-relations, accessed July 3, 2013, MY) And yet, despite

all that recent cold-war commotion, could this finally be the summer of love on the Florida Straits? Last month the Obama Administration and the Castro dictatorship started talks on re-establishing direct mail service; this month theyll discuss immigration guidelines. Diplomats on both sides report a more cooperative groove. New Diplomacy So what happened thats suddenly making it possible for the two governments to start some substantive diplomatic outreach for the first time in years? First, Castro finished crunching the numbers on Cubas threadbare economy, and the results
scared him more than one of Yoani Snchezs dissident blog posts. To wit, the islands finances are held up by little more th an European tourists and oil charity from socialist Venezuela.

Hes adopted limited capitalist reforms as the remedy, and to make them work he has to loosen the repressive screws a turn or two. That finally includes letting Cubans travel freely
abroad, which gives them better opportunities to bring back investment capital. As a result, says Carlos Saladrigas, a Cuban-American business leader in Miami and chairman of the Washington-based Cuba Study Group, The timing is right for some U.S.-Cuban rapprochement. Cuba

is clearly in a transitionary mode, says Saladrigas. They need to change to reinsert themselves in the global order, they need to become more normal in their relations with other nations.
Changing Attitudes Second, although the White House is still intimidated by the Cuban exile lobby, its had its own numbers to ponder -namely, poll results from South Floridas Cuban-American community. Over the past five years, surveys have consistently shown that .

Over the past five years, surveys have consistently shown that Cuban-Americans, especially the more moderate younger generation and more recently arrived Cubans, favor engagement with Cuba as a way of promoting democratization there. Some polls even indicate that a majority want to ditch the failed 51-year-old U.S. trade embargo against Cuba. As a result, Obama -- who according to one exit poll won
48% of Floridas Cuban vote in last years presidential election, which would be a record for a Democratic candidate -- feels more elbow room for dilogo with the Castro regime. The Administration even recently let Gonzlez return to Cuba. The

Cuban-American

community in Miami is definitely changing, says Cuban-American Elena Freyre, president of the Foundation for
Normalization of U.S.-Cuba Relations in Miami. Its reached kind of a critical mass at this point, and I think peo ple are ready to try something different. Freyre notes that Obamas appointment this year of former Massachusetts Senator John Kerry as the new U.S. secretary of state is also having an impact. Mr.

Kerry has always felt [the U.S.s] position with Cuba made no sense, she says. Hes been very vocal about thinking that if we engage Cuba we will get a lot further. Kerry,
for example, believes the U.S. should lift its ban on U.S. citizen travel to Cuba.

The time is right, US and Cuba moving forward on relations Haven 6/21 --- Paul Haven, Associated Press bureau chief in Havana (Cuba, US Try Talking, but Face Many Obstacles, June
21, 2013, Associated Press, http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/cuba-us-talking-face-obstacles-19457659#.Uc2ttT7wJ9k, accessed June 28, 2013, MY)

They've hardly become allies, but Cuba and the U.S. have taken some baby steps toward rapprochement in recent weeks that have people on this island and in Washington wondering if a breakthrough in relations could be just over the horizon. Skeptics caution that the Cold War enemies have been here
many times before, only to fall back into old recriminations. But there are signs that views might be shifting on both sides of the Florida Straits.

In the past week, the two countries have held talks on resuming direct mail service, and announced a July 17 sit-down on migration issues. In May, a U.S. federal judge allowed a convicted Cuban intelligence agent to return to the island. This month, Cuba informed the family of jailed U.S.
government subcontractor Alan Gross that it would let an American doctor examine him, though the visit has apparently not yet happened. President Raul Castro has also ushered in a series of economic and social changes, including making it easier for Cubans to travel off the island.

Under the radar, diplomats on both sides describe a sea change in the tone of their dealings. Only
last year, Cuban state television was broadcasting grainy footage of American diplomats meeting with dissidents on Havana streets and publically accusing them of being CIA front-men. Today,

U.S. diplomats in Havana and Cuban Foreign Ministry officials have easy contact, even sharing home phone numbers. Josefina Vidal, Cuba's top diplomat for North
American affairs, recently traveled to Washington and met twice with State Department officials a visit that came right before the announcements of resumptions in the two sets of bilateral talks that had been suspended for more than two years. Washington has also granted visas to prominent Cuban officials, including the daughter of Cuba's president. "These

recent steps indicate a desire on both sides to try to move forward, but also a recognition on both sides of just how difficult it is to make real progress," said Robert Pastor, a professor of international relations at American University and former national security adviser on Latin America during the Carter administration. "These are tiny, incremental gains, and the prospects of going backwards are equally high." Embargo doesnt work and only hurts international relations Hanson et al 13- Daniel Hanson, economics researcher at the American Enterprise Institute, Dayne Batten, affiliated with the University of North Carolina Department of Public Policy ,Harrison Ealey, financial analyst, (It's Time For The U.S. To End Its Senseless Embargo Of
Cuba, 1/16/13, http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/01/16/its-time-for-the-u-s-to-end-its-senseless-embargo-of-cuba/, 7/2/13, CAS)

At present, the

U.S. is largely alone in restricting access to Cuba. The embargo has long been a point of friction between the United 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 nationalized during the Castro takeover have dropped their claims. Moreover, since Europeans, Japanese, and Canadians can travel and conduct business in Cuba unimpeded, the sanctions are rather toothless. The State Department has argued that the cost of conducting business in Cuba is only negligibly higher because of the embargo. For American multinational corporations wishing to undertake commerce in Cuba, foreign branches find it easy to conduct exchanges.

Lifting the embargo reduces international perception of the U.S. as punitive and hypocritical Dickerson 10 Sergio Dickerson, Lt.Col. in U.S. Army [United States Security Strategy in Cuba, DTIC, 1/14/10,
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf, accessed: 7/3/13, JK] The argument can also be made that the U.S. has foreign relations with China, Saudi Arabia and other non-democratic governments while applying a different standard towards Cuba. With

growing perception that Cuba no longer poses a credible threat to the U.S., it appears that U.S. policy has changed from coercive to punitive following the end of the Cold War. With a renewed focus on multilateralism, President Obama could go a long way to break this image by spreading the seeds of a new beginning in U.S.-Cuba relations The embargo is counterproductive costs alliances Hanson, et. al. 13 Daniel Hanson, Daniel Hanson is an economics researcher at the American Enterprise
Institute. (It's Time For The U.S. To End Its Senseless Embargo Of Cuba, Forbes, 1/16/13, http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/01/16/its-time-for-the-u-s-to-end-its-senseless-embargo-ofcuba/, accessed: 7/2/13, amf) Moreover, since Europeans, Japanese, and Canadians can travel and conduct business in Cuba unimpeded, the sanctions are rather toothless. The State Department has argued that the cost of conducting business in Cuba is only negligibly higher because of the embargo. For American multinational corporations wishing to undertake commerce in Cuba, foreign branches find it easy to conduct exchanges. Yet, 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 unemployment rate currently stands at 8.1 percent. Whats worse, U.S. sanctions encourage Cuba to collaborate with regional players that are less friendly to American interests. For instance, in 2011, the country inked a deal with Venezuela for the construction of an underwater communications link, circumventing its need to connect with US-owned networks close to its shores.

Repealing the embargo would fit into an American precedent of lifting trade and travel restrictions to countries who demonstrate progress towards democratic ideals. Romania,

Czechoslovakia, and Hungary were all offered normal trade relations in the 1970s after preliminary reforms even though they were still in clear violation of several US resolutions condemning their human rights practices. China, a communist country and perennial human rights abuser, is the U.S.s second largest trading partner, and in November, trade restrictions against Myanmar were lessened notwithstanding a fifty year history of genocide and human trafficking propagated by its military government. Which, of course, begs the question: when will the U.S. see fit to lift the embargo? If Cuba is trending towards democracy and free markets, what litmus test must be passed for the embargo to be rolled back?

The cost of the embargo to the United States is high in both dollar and moral terms, but it is higher for the Cuban people, who are cut off from the supposed champion of liberty in their hemisphere because of an antiquated Cold War dispute. The progress being made in Cuba could be accelerated with the help of American charitable relief, business innovation, and tourism. A perpetual embargo on a developing nation that is moving towards reform makes little sense, especially when Americas allies are openly hostile to the embargo. It keeps a broader discussion about smart reform in Cuba from gaining life, and it makes no economic sense. It is time for the embargo to go.

Cuban relations with China and Venezuela saving the regime Feinberg 11 Richard Feinberg, Richard Feinberg is professor of international political economy at the

Graduate School of International Relations and Pacific Studies, University of California, San Diego. Feinberg served as special assistant to President Clinton and senior director of the National Security Councils Office of Inter-American Affairs. He has held positions on the State Department's policy planning staff and worked as an international economist in the U.S. Treasury Department's Office of International Affairs. ( eaching Out: Cubas New Economy and the International esponse, The Brookings Institute, November 2011, http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2011/11/18-cuba-feinberg, accessed: 7/4/13, amf) Five decades after Fidel Castros 26th of July Movement marched victoriously into Havana on New Years Day, 1959, the United States and Cuba, separated by less than 100 miles of choppy waters, remain deeply distrustful neighbors entangled in a web of hostilities. Heated U.S. policy debates over how best to respond to the Cuban Revolutionthrough legislation in the Congress or executive orders issued by the Executive Branchimplicitly assume that there are only two players in contention: Washington and

Havana. Yet, this conceit takes us very far from the realities of Cuba today. Since the collapse of its former patron, the Soviet Union, a resilient Cuba has dramatically diversified its international economic relations. Initially, Cuba reached out to Europe, Canada, and a widening array of friendly states in Latin America. Over the last decade, Cuba has reached out to forge economic partnerships with major emerging market economiesnotably China, Brazil, and Venezuela. Spanish firms manage many of the expanding hotel chains in Cuba that cater to 2.5 million
international tourists each year. A Canadian company jointly owns mining operations that ship high-priced nickel to Canada and China. In the next few years, China is poised to spend billions of dollars building a large petrochemical complex at Cienfuegos. A Brazilian firm will modernize the Mariel Port so that it can accommodate very large container ships transiting the newly widened Panama Canal.

Petroleum companies from ten or more countries have lined up to explore for deepsea oil in Cuban waters in the Gulf of Mexico. Despite these advances, the Cuban economy remains in the doldrums (as described in Section 1). The main constraint slowing the Cuban economy is not U.S. sanctions (even as they have hit Cubas many commercial partners would like to invest more in Cuba and would prefer to purchase more Cuban exports to correct the imbalances in their bilateral trade accounts, but are

hard). ather, it is Cubas own outdated economic model, inherited from the Soviet Union, of central planning.

frustrated by Cubas scant economic offerings. Section 2 of this policy paper tells the story of Cubas outreach to the dynamic emerging market economies, as seen from the perspective of Cuba and also through the eyes of its Chinese, Brazilian, Venezuelan and Mexican partnersexamining their motivations as well as their anxieties and frustrations. How does Cuba fit into their international economic and geo-political strategies, and what are the domestic political drivers behind their friendships with Havana? Canadian interests are also explored, as Ottawa has sharply differentiated its Cuba policy from those of its close North American ally.

While comprehensive U.S. sanctions attempt to undermine the Cuban economy, European countries have been sending development assistance, albeit in modest amounts. European aid
targets its resources to empower municipalities, private farmers and cooperatives to strengthen social forces less dominated by Havanas powerful bureaucracies. Section 3 describes these European and Canadian cooperation programs as well as the creative initiatives of the non-governmental organization Oxfam, and draws lessonspointing out potential pitfalls as well as opportunitiesfor future international development programs operating in the difficult Cuban context.

Cuba building relations with China now recent talks Latino Daily News 6/19/13 Latino Daily News: Hispanically Speaking News. (Cuban VP Strengthens
elations with China on Trip Abroad, Latino Daily News, 6/19/13,

http://www.hispanicallyspeakingnews.com/latino-daily-news/details/cuban-vp-strengthens-relations-withchina-on-trip-abroad/25261/, accessed: 7/4/13, amf) Cuban First Vice President Miguel Diaz-Canel and Chinese President Xi Jinping gave a new push to longstanding bilateral relations with a meeting here Tuesday. We want you to feel at home, Xi told Diaz-Canel at the start of the meeting at the Great Hall of the People, which was only open to the media for a few minutes.

Joined by a large political retinue, Diaz-Canel was the first senior Cuban leader to meet with Xi since he became Chinas president in March. While the officials remarks to the media stayed within the bounds of diplomatic propriety, tangible steps to boost trade relations and other ties have been taken in recent weeks. Indeed, Diaz-Canel and Chinese counterpart Li Yuanchao on Monday presided over the signing of several bilateral cooperation accords. Those agreements included a donation by the Asian giant, an interest-free loan to Cuba and another credit for purchases of farm machinery and equipment.
The amounts were not disclosed.

The two countries have learned from one another during the process of building socialism, the Chinese vice president said Monday after a meeting with his Cuban counterpart, the official
Xinhua news agency said. Diaz-Canel, for his part, said then that Cuba viewed its relations with China from a strategic

perspective and was interested in bolstering bilateral cooperation. Beijings Communist Party secretary, Guo Jinlong, and Cuban President Raul Castro also met earlier this month in Havana, a sit-down that ended with the signing of cooperation accords in the areas of energy, transportation, tourism and biotechnology. China is Cubas second-largest trading partner with two-way trade valued at more than $2 billion in 2011, up from $590 million in 2004, according to official figures. Lifting the embargo makes the US more credible Crowther 09 --- Colonel Glenn A. Crowther, research professor at Strategic Studies Institute (KISS THE EMBARGO GOODBYE, February 2009, SSI, http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub906.pdf, accessed July 4, 2013,MY)
The United States has a motive and a history of operating against the Cuban government, and therefore against the Cuban people. The

The government uses the embargo as the only excuse for maintaining its internal security apparatus. If we were to drop the embargo, either Cuba would have to dismantle its security apparatus, or be revealed as being hypocritical. Either result would be good for both the United States and the Cuban people. Dismantling the repressive security structure would provide a modicum of freedom for the Cubans. Maintaining
proof that the United States is still operating against them is obviousthe embargo. the demise of the current system. Lifting

the security apparatus would significantly delegitimize the Cuban government domestically and internationally and could only hasten

the embargo would be a strong sign to the international community that the United States is magnanimous and inclusive. Maintaining it makes us look petty and vindictive to the rest of the world. We cannot convince anyone that Cuba is a threat to the United States, nor can we make the case internationally that more of the same will have a positive impact. Lifting the embargo would signal that we are ready to try something different to bring democracy to Cuba.

Lifting the embargo is key to Obamas credibility- solves a litany of global conflicts Dickerson 10- Lieutenant Colonel Sergio M. Dickerson of the US Army War College, (United
States Security Strategy Towards Cuba, 1/14/10, Strategic Research Project, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA518053-Accessed-6-27-13,RX)
Today, 20 years have passed since the fall of the Berlin Wall its

time to chip away at the diplomatic wall that still remains between U.S. and Cuba. As we seek a new foreign policy with Cuba it is imperative that we take into consideration that distrust will characterize negotiations with the Cuban government. On the other hand, consider that loosening or lifting the embargo could also be mutually beneficial. Cubas need and Americas surplus capability to provide goods and services could be profitable and eventually addictive to Cuba. Under these conditions, diplomacy has a better chance to flourish. If the Cuban model succeeds President Obama will be seen as a true leader for multilateralism. Success in Cuba could afford the international momentum and credibility to solve other seemingly wicked problems like the Middle East and Kashmir. President Obama could leverage this international reputation with other rogue nations like Iran and North Korea who might associate their plight with Cuba.35 The U.S. could begin to lead again and reverse its perceived decline in the greater global order bringing true peace for years to come. Lifting the Embargo key to boost relations with Europe, South America, and Canada Hanson, Batten and Ealey, 1/16- Daniel Hanson, Dayne Batten, and Harrison Ealey. Daniel is an

economics researcher at the American Enterprise Institute, Dayne is affiliated with the UNC Department of Public Policy, and Ealy is a financial analyst at Forbes, (Its Time for the U.S. to End its Senseless Embargo of Cuba Forbes 1/16/13 http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/01/16/its -time-for-the-u-s-to-end-itssenseless-embargo-of-cuba/Accessed-7-2-13-RX)
At present, the

U.S. is largely alone in restricting access to Cuba. The embargo has long been a point of friction between the United 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 nationalized during the Castro takeover have dropped their claims. US-Canada relations key to solve oil, the environment, disease, and terror Milne 2007- Noella Milne, Partner, Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, Canada's oldest and largest speakers'
forums with a membership comprised of some of Canada's most influential leaders from the professions, business, labour, education and government, (Canada-U.S. Relations: Our Common Cause Agenda in a Perilous World, January 22 2007 http://speeches.empireclub.org/62962/data-Accessed-7-2-13-RX)

In the energy field, Canada and the U.S. have a strong relationship, with the U.S. being the world's largest energy producer, consumer and importer, and Canada the largest foreignenergy supplier to the United States of oil, natural gas, uranium and electricity. We both see eyeto-eye on the importance of a market-based approach to energy resource development--our oil sands being a great example, growing from a pipe dream in the early '80s to production today of a million barrels a day, on the way to three million or more by 2015. We

see increasing amounts of oil and natural gas production being controlled by government-Russia, for example, using its energy strength for wider geo-political ends. Also nationalization by Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia. At the recent G-8 meeting in St. Petersburg, Prime Minister Harper succeeded in getting the market-based approach to energy resources development agreed in a number of important texts. In our approach to environmental stewardship, the United States and Canada both afford an important role to technology and innovation as important means of addressing global

challenges and finding solutions. For example, we are already partners, along with other countries and the private sector, in the Weyburn project in Saskatchewan to study the possibility of capturing and storing carbon dioxide in geological forms such as oil
fields. Another

area of multilateral co-operation where the embassy has been active has been the preparedness for pandemics . Canada and the United States are concerned about the potential for a human influenza pandemic that would have significant global health, economic and social consequences. Canada, drawing on our SARS experience, and the United States have worked together to raise international consciousness and preparedness for another pandemic. While the pandemic threat is global, the co-ordinated response must be also at the regional and country level. And in this
regard, Canada and the United States have each developed its own Influenza Pandemic response plans, which are continually updated and shared. We at the embassy follow this issue closely. I would like to add a final area of common endeavour--one closer to home. It is directed towards the most important responsibility a government has. That

is to protect and defend the freedom, independence and sovereignty of our two countries. NORAD is an emblem of common endeavour. It stands for shared strategic vision for defence of the continent, shared decision making, and unrivalled interoperability of our personnel, radars and aircraft. NORAD is evolving in the post 9/11 world. Last year, we renewed the NORAD agreement in perpetuity, ending the previous five-year cycles. The new agreement gives NORAD added responsibility for maritime warning. We have a proud tradition and history of Canada-U.S. defence co-operation-arguably the most complex in the world. Over 80 treaty-level agreements, and more than 250 memoranda of understanding. More than 600 members of the Canadian Forces serve in the U.S. and on exchange with U.S. forces. Canadian Forces have the distinction of being the most interoperable with the United States of any of the NATO allies. We train together, patrol together, serve together. The Defense Development and Defense Production Sharing Agreements manage defence industry trade, and the related research and development-approximately $2 billion in trade flows annually. We are an integral part of the U.S. defence industrial and technology base and the largest foreign supplier, contributing to both economic growth and jobs on both sides of the border, and to the interoperability of our forces in the field. One example is the current Joint Strike Fighter project, supporting interoperability but also access to up to $8 billion in industrial participation opportunities. The embassy in Washington plays a key part in this activity. We have an active and robust Defense Liaison Office, which interacts daily with our Department of National Defense on policy and operational issues, including cooperation on Afghanistan. I myself have already visited NORAD twice, and the AWACS base in Oklahoma once, to underscore the importance Canada attaches to this relationship. The embassy has taken a lead role in addressing the current ITARS problem, in defence procurement, and tomorrow, we host a visit of the Minister of National Defence to his new U.S. counterpart. On Capitol Hill, our job is to make members of Congress aware of the significant Canadian role in defending the continent and our major contribution to the campaign in Afghanistan. Before I conclude, I want to come back to perhaps our greatest personal and economic common cause--"daily" life along our shared borders--whether it be truckers delivering auto parts between Windsor and Detroit, day shoppers travelling between Montreal and Plattsburg, or friends and family making a spontaneous trip across the border to visit one another in Toronto or Buffalo or Vancouver and Bellingham. The

shared protection and mobility across our shared border is our most important economic bi-lateral common cause issue with the United States. After all, the
border is not an imaginary line across the 49th parallel; it is an ever-evolving complex entity that interconnects our lives, our economies and our continued prosperity. Canada has seen a gradual thickening of the border over the past four years, initiatives that jeopardize our long-standing commercial and people-to-people connections. Recently we have seen measures introduced in food inspection and the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI)--the new passport rules--both initiatives which, if not implemented carefully, will undermine the foundation of NAFTA, the backbone of our economic integration, as well as our 140 years of shared friendship and family connections. The air rule for WHTI will be implemented tomorrow. I expect this will go smoothly since passport usage is around 95 per cent and the U.S. intends to demonstrate flexibility in the implementation. And while land and sea implementation is still 11 or potentially more months away, we are still encouraging the U.S. to take all of the necessary time required to get this right. We cannot rush into this and have a "cold turkey" implementation without appropriate flexibility and phasing-in. But we are encouraged by recent indications that the Administration and Congress may be more flexible in the implementation of WHTI related to land crossings. Let me conclude. I've said on a number of occasions the paradox of the Canada-U.S. relationship is that the steadier it is, the more attention is given to any difference that may arise between us. Yes, we've had disputes. I know when things are bumpy, having lived through the softwood lumber issue. But we solved it. And yes, we have a problem in the defence co-operation realm. And we're working to solve it. My point to you is that, if you overlook those areas where things are smooth, you miss the fundamental nature of our relationship. You are looking only at the occasional blemish on the skin, not grasping the basic sinews that connect our two countries--and that give us important strengths and advantages. You also risk overlooking how Canada's international agenda is supported and how national interests are furthered by our common cause endeavour with the United States. And that, to me, would do not just a disservice to our neighbours to the south, and our bilateral relationship, it would also impede reaching our national objectives as a country. So

whether it is Afghanistan, weapons of mass destruction, the Western Hemisphere, trade, pandemics, energy and the environment or the defence of North America, there are many ways where the national interest of the United States and Canada converge. This brings real meaning to a

recent observation of a senior member of the U.S. Administration, "We often speak of our two countries as being friends, neighbours and allies. Canada is also a good and reliable partner."

Lifting the embargo is key to regaining international reputation Holmes 10- Michael G. Holmes, MA The School of Continuing Studies, Georgetown (SEIZING THE MOMENT, June 21, 2010, Georgetown, https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/bitstream/handle/10822/553334/holm esMichael.pdf?sequence=1-Accessed-7-2-13-RX] From an image stand point repealing the sanctions and removing the embargo is symbolic. It shows Cuba and the world that although the United States is pro democracy, it does not wish to impose its values on other nations. The Cuba Democracy Act was an attempt to force democratic changes in
Cuba.10 By repealing the act the United States, illustrates that it respects the sovereignty of nations. Considering that this Act did allow for the application of U.S. law in a foreign country11, repealing it not only sends the message about U.S. views on sovereignty but also shows that the administration is taking steps to ensure that sovereignty is actually respected.

Repealing the Helms-Burton Law will certainly stimulate foreign investment in Cuba as well. Many foreign countries were leery of investing in Cuba out of fear of being sued or losing property under the provisions established by the Helms-Burton Act.12 This return of foreign investment will further secure Cuba's place in the global marketplace. It also will help to silence skeptics who will question U.S. intentions. Since the
sanctions against Cuba were unilateral U.S. actions, an unsolicited change in course will undoubtedly spark speculation.

Allowing all countries to invest in Cuba again underscores the United States' position of desiring for all countries to participate in the global market place. It is difficult to imagine that the benefits of lifting the embargo will not be immediate and substantial in regards to the United States reputation in the world. Looking at the long-term benefits of removing the sanctions, the two benefits that stand out the most are trade and fuel. Lifting the embargo improves democracy, relations, and US global reputation Hanson, Batten, & Ealey 1/16 --- Daniel Hanson, Dayne Batten & Harrison Ealey, 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, January 16, 2013, Forbes, http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/01/16/its-time-for-the-u-s-to-end-itssenseless-embargo-of-cuba/, accessed June 28, 2013, MY) For the first time in more than fifty years, Cuban citizens can travel abroad without permission from their government. The move, part of a broader reform package being phased in by aul Castro, underscores the irrationality of Americas continuation of a fivedecade old embargo. While the embargo has been through several legal iterations in the intervening years, the general tenor of the U.S. position toward Cuba is a hardline not-in-my-backyard approach to communism a la the Monroe Doctrine. The official position is outdated, hypocritical, and counterproductive. The Cuban embargo was inaugurated by a
Kennedy administration executive order in 1960 as a response to the confiscation of American property in Cuba under the newly installed Castro regime. The current incarnation of the embargo codified primarily in the Helms-Burton Act aims at producing free markets and representative democracy in Cuba through economic sanctions, travel restrictions, and international legal penalties. 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 this progress, 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. At

the Miami International Airport, visitors arriving from a Cuban airport are seven times more likely to be stopped and subjected to further customs inspections than are visitors from other countries. More than 70 percent of the Treasurys Office of Foreign Assets C ontrol inspections each year are centered on rooting out smuggled Cuban goods even though the agency administers more than 20 other trade bans. Government

resources could be better spent on the enforcement of other sanctions, such as illicit drug trade from Columbia, rather than the search for contraband cigars and rum. At present, the U.S. is largely alone in restricting access to Cuba. The embargo has long been a point of friction between the United 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 nationalized during the Castro takeover have dropped their claims. Moreover, since Europeans, Japanese, and Canadians can travel and conduct business in Cuba unimpeded, the sanctions are rather toothless. The State Department has argued that the cost of conducting business in Cuba is only negligibly higher because of the embargo. For American multinational corporations wishing to undertake commerce in Cuba, foreign branches find it easy to conduct exchanges. Yet, 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 unemployment rate currently stands at 8.1 percent. Whats

worse, U.S. sanctions encourage Cuba to collaborate with regional players that are less friendly to American interests. For instance, in 2011, the country inked a deal with Venezuela for the construction of an underwater communications link, circumventing its need to connect with US-owned networks close to its shores. Repealing the embargo would fit into an American precedent of lifting trade and travel restrictions to countries who demonstrate progress towards democratic ideals. Romania, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary
were all offered normal trade relations in the 1970s after preliminary reforms even though they were still in clear violation of several US resolutions condemning their human rights practices. China, a communist country and perennial human rights abuser, is the U.S .s second largest trading partner, and in November, trade restrictions against Myanmar were lessened notwithstanding a fifty year history of genocide and human trafficking propagated by its military government. Which, of course, begs the question: when will the U.S. see fit to lift the embargo? If Cuba is trending towards democracy and free markets, what litmus test must be passed for the embargo to be rolled back? The cost of the embargo to the United States is high in both dollar and moral terms, but it is higher for the Cuban people, who are cut off from the supposed champion of liberty in their hemisphere because of an antiquated Cold War dispute. The progress being made in Cuba could be accelerated with the help of American charitable relief, business innovation, and tourism. A perpetual embargo on a developing nation that is moving towards reform makes little sense, especially when Americas

allies are openly hostile to the embargo. It keeps a broader discussion about smart reform in Cuba from gaining life, and it makes no economic sense. It is time for the embargo to go. Lifting the embargo increases our sphere of influence Grisworld 05 --- Daniel Griswold is director of the Cato Institute's Center for Trade Policy Studies (Four Decades of Failure: The U.S. Embargo against Cuba, October 12, 2005, http://www.cato.org/publications/speeches/four-decades-failure-usembargo-against-cuba, accessed July 3, 2013, MY)

Yes, more American dollars would end up in the coffers of the Cuban government, but dollars would also go to private Cuban citizens. Philip Peters, a former State Department official in the Reagan administration and expert on Cuba, argues that American tourists would boost the earnings of Cubans who rent rooms, drive taxis, sell art, and operate restaurants in their homes. Those dollars would then find their way to the hundreds of freely priced farmers markets, to carpenters, repairmen, tutors, food venders, and other entrep reneurs. Second, restrictions

on remittances should be lifted. Like tourism, expanded remittances would fuel the private sector, encourage Cubas modest economic reforms, and promote independence from the government. Third, American farmers and medical suppliers should be allowed to sell their
products to Cuba with financing arranged by private commercial lenders, not just for cash as current law permits. Most international trade is financed by temporary credit, and private banks, not taxpayers, would bear the risk. I oppose subsidizing exports to Cuba through agencies such as the Export-Import Bank, but I also oppose banning the use of private commercial credit. Finally, the

Helms-Burton law should be allowed to expire. The law, like every other aspect of the embargo, has failed to achieve its stated objectives and has, in fact, undermined American influence in Cuba and alienated our allies. Lifting or modifying the embargo would not be a victory for Fidel Castro or his oppressive regime. It would be an overdue acknowledgement that the four-and-a-

half decade embargo has failed, and that commercial engagement is the best way to encourage more open societies abroad. The U.S. government can and should continue to criticize the Cuban governments abuse of human rights in the U.N. and elsewhere, while allowing expanding trade and tourism to undermine Castros authority from below. We should apply the presidents sound reasoning on trade in general to our policy toward Cuba. The most powerful force for change in Cuba will not be more sanctions, but more daily interaction with free people bearing dollars and new ideas. How many decades does the U.S. government need to bang its head against a wall before
it changes a failed policy?

People don't want the embargo anymore Crowther 09 --- Colonel Glenn A. Crowther, research professor at Strategic Studies Institute (KISS THE EMBARGO GOODBYE, February 2009, SSI, http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub906.pdf, accessed July 4, 2013,MY) Although many believe there is unity in thinking among all Cubans in the United States, conversations with people from each of these groups demonstrate that this is not true. Although the diminishing group of original exiles still tends to be extremely antiCastro, many of the others just want the whole thing to end so that they can either go home, or get this all behind them. Others just want to be able to help their families at home or be free to travel back and forth at will. The offspring of the original exiles (the oldest of whom are now in their early 50s) tend to be anti-Castro, however many of them are not as enthusiastic as their parents about overthrowing the Revolution. Most
desire that the Castro regime go away and Cuba be free, but they feel that time will make this happen, and they are not usually dedicated to this cause like their parents. In private conversation, however, a trend appears. Very

United States actually want the embargo to continue.

few Cubans in the

Now is the time for engagement, diplomatic transition, Florida, and Kerry Padgett 7/3 --- Tim Padgett is WLRN-Miami Herald News' Americas correspondent covering Latin America and the Caribbean from Miami. He has covered Latin America for almost 25 years, graduate of Northwestern University (Why This Summer Offers Hope For Better U.S.-Cuba Relations, July 3, 2013, WLRN, http://wlrn.org/post/whysummer-offers-hope-better-us-cuba-relations, accessed July 3, 2013, MY) And yet, despite all that recent cold-war commotion, could this finally be the summer of love on the Florida Straits? Last month the Obama Administration and the Castro dictatorship started talks on re-establishing direct mail service; this month theyll discuss immigration guidelines. Diplomats on both sides report a more cooperative groove. New Diplomacy So what happened thats suddenly making it possible for the two governments to start some substantive diplomatic outreach for the first time in years? First, Castro finished crunching the numbers on Cubas threadbare economy, and the results scared him more than one of Yoani Snchezs dissident blog posts. To wit, the islands finances are held up by little more than European tourists and oi l charity from socialist Venezuela. Hes adopted limited capitalist reforms as the remedy, and to make them work he has to loosen the repressive screws a turn or two. That finally includes letting Cubans travel freely abroad, which gives them better
opportunities to bring back investment capital. As a result, says Carlos Saladrigas, a Cuban-American business leader in Miami and chairman of the Washington-based Cuba Study Group, The timing is right for some U.S.-Cuban rapprochement. Cuba

is clearly in a transitionary mode, says Saladrigas. They need to change to reinsert themselves in the global order, they need to become more normal in their relations with other nations.

Changing Attitudes Second, although the White House is still intimidated by th e Cuban exile lobby, its had its own numbers to ponder --

namely, poll results from South Floridas Cuban-American community. Over the past five years, surveys have consistently shown that.

Over the past five years, surveys have consistently shown that Cuban-Americans, especially the more moderate younger generation and more recently arrived Cubans, favor engagement with Cuba as a way of promoting democratization there. Some polls even indicate that a majority want to ditch the failed 51-year-old U.S. trade embargo against Cuba. As a result, Obama -- who according to one exit poll won 48% of Floridas Cuban vote in last years presidential election, which
would be a record for a Democratic candidate -- feels more elbow room for dilogo with the Castro regime. The Administration even recently let Gonzlez return to Cuba. The Cuban-American community in Miami is definitely changing, says Cuban-American Elena Freyre, president of the Foundation for Normalization of U.S.-Cuba elations in Miami. Its reached kind of a critical mass at this point, and I think people are ready to try something different. Freyre notes that Obamas appointment this year of former Massachusetts Senator John Kerry as the new U.S. secretary of state is also having an impact. Mr.

Kerry has always felt [the U.S.s] position with Cuba made no sense, she says. Hes been very vocal about thinking that if we engage Cuba we will get a lot further. Kerry, for example, believes the U.S. should lift its
ban on U.S. citizen travel to Cuba.

Lifting Embargo key to Regional Relations


Sheridan 09 , Mary Beth Sheridan, Washington Post
eporter (U.S. Urged to elax Cuba Policy to Boost egional elations, the Washington Post, May 29, 2009, http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2009-05-29/politics/36798831_1_cuba-scholar-oas-members-travel-restrictions, Accessed: July 3, 2013, SD) The U.S. government is fighting an effort to allow Cuba to return to the Organization of American States after a 47-year suspension. But the resistance is putting it at odds with much of Latin America as the Obama administration is trying to improve relations in the hemisphere. Eliminating the Cold War-era ban would be largely symbolic, because Cuba has shown no sign of wanting to return to the OAS, the main forum for political cooperation in the hemisphere. But the debate shows how central the topic has become in U.S. relations with an increasingly assertive Latin America. The wrangling over Cuba threatens to dominate a meeting of hemispheric foreign ministers, including Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, scheduled for Tuesday in Honduras. "Fifty years after the U.S. . . . made Cuba its litmus test for its commercial and diplomatic ties in Latin America, Latin America is turning the tables," said Julia E. Sweig, a Cuba scholar at the Council on Foreign Relations. Now, she said, Latin countries are "making Cuba the litmus test for the quality of the Obama administration's approach to Latin America." President Obama has taken steps toward improving ties with Cuba, lifting restrictions on visits and money transfers by Cuban Americans and offering to restart immigration talks suspended in 2004. But he has said he will not scrap the longtime economic embargo until Havana makes democratic reforms and cleans up its human rights record. Ending the embargo would also entail congressional action.

Obama is facing pressure to move faster, both from Latin American allies and from key U.S. lawmakers. Bipartisan bills are pending in Congress that would eliminate all travel restrictions and ease the embargo. Cuba has sent mixed signals about its willingness to respond to the U.S. gestures. Latin American leaders say that isolating Cuba is anachronistic when most countries in the region have established relations with communist nations such as China. The OAS secretary general, Jos Miguel Insulza, has called the organization's 1962

suspension of Cuba "outdated" -- noting it is based on the island's alignment with a "communist bloc" that no longer exists. However, he has suggested that OAS members could postpone Cuba's full participation until it showed democratic reforms. Cuban exile organizations and some U.S. lawmakers are strongly opposed to readmitting the island. "If we invite Cuba back in, in spite of their violations, what message are we sending to the rest of the hemisphere -- that it's okay to move backwards away from democracy and human rights, that there will be no repercussions for such actions?" Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), a Cuban American, demanded in a speech. He threatened to cut off U.S. funding for the OAS -about 60 percent of its budget -- if the measure passed. Clinton said last week that Cuba should be readmitted only if it abided by the OAS's Democratic Charter, a set of principles adopted in 2001 that commits countries to hold elections and to respect human rights and press freedoms. Most Latin American countries broke relations with Cuba after its 1959 revolution. Nearly all have restored diplomatic ties, and the United States will soon be the only holdout in the hemisphere. The Cuba ban could be lifted by a two-thirds vote of the OAS foreign ministers on Tuesday. However, the organization generally works by consensus, and several countries have indicated they do not want a showdown with the United States. Diplomats have been trying in recent days to hammer out a compromise. U.S. diplomats introduced a resolution that would instruct the OAS to open a dialogue with Cuba about its "eventual reintegration," consistent with the principles of "democracy and full respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms." A diplomat said last night that the United States appears to be softening its opposition to lifting the ban as long as Cuba's full reinstatement is contingent on moving toward democracy. He spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the talks. Venezuela, an ally of Cuba, has indicated it will not support any resolution that includes such conditions. "This is 'Jurassic Park,' " fumed Venezuelan Ambassador Roy Chaderton. "We're still in the Cold War." Some Latin American diplomats worry that the Cuba imbroglio (misunderstanding) could further marginalize the OAS. The organization is respected for monitoring elections, and it has tried to broker disputes in the hemisphere. But critics lambaste it as largely a debating society. Venezuela has threatened to quit the organization and form an alternative regional group. It has set up a leftist trade alliance known as ALBA with several poor countries in Latin America. Cuba has derided the OAS as a U.S.-dominated tool of the United States. Peter Hakim, president of the Inter-American Dialogue, a think tank in Washington, said the Cuba resolution has trapped the Obama administration between two of its priorities: democracy promotion and better relations with its neighbors. In 2001, the U.S. government supported the Democratic Charter, a milestone in a region once known for dictatorships. But Obama told hemispheric leaders in Trinidad and Tobago last month that he wanted to form closer

There's really two different values at play here: multilateralism versus democracy. You can't have multilateralism and then let one country, i.e. the U.S., make the decision for a multilateral organization," Hakim said.
partnerships and not have the United States dictate policy. "

Cuba-Iran ties
Iran is a growing security threat- plan key Curtain 08 Joseph W. Curtain - Lieutenant Commander, United States Navy,(ECONOMIC AND SECURITY REASONS WHY THE
U.S. SHOULD NORMALIZE RELATIONS WITH CUBA,dtic.mil,6/2008,http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/ u2/a483591.pdf,6/28/13,JW)

Cubas economy has not only survived the end of Soviet-era subsidies but has thrived in the era of globalization. This thesis documents the adjustments the Cuban government has made to the economy and the increase in foreign direct investment (FDI) that has occurred as a result. The thesis also shows how China, Venezuela and Iran continue to invest more money in the island and subsequently threaten to wield more influence over Cuba . The U.S. has the opportunity to mitigate the threats posed by Venezuela and Iran vis--vis Cuba. However, the policy espoused by current policy makers is logically flawed. The Helms-Burton Act contains
unrealistic benchmarks for ending the embargo that provide little incentive for Cuban leaders to liberalize. Neither presidential candidate advocates a change in this legislation. In contrast, this thesis argues that the normalization of relations with Cuba can diminish the influence Iran and Venezuela have on Cuba and keep potential threats from coming ninety miles off the coast of the U.S. The next president should call for Congress to repeal the Helms-Burton Act so that executive discretion can be exercised with respect to Cuban foreign policy.

Iran influence threatens US security Curtain 08 Joseph W. Curtain - Lieutenant Commander, United States Navy,(ECONOMIC AND SECURITY REASONS WHY THE
U.S. SHOULD NORMALIZE RELATIONS WITH CUBA,dtic.mil,6/2008,http://www.dtic. mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a483591.pdf,6/28/13,JW) If Chavez has a kindred political kindred spirit, it would be Iranian

known on the world stage for his


conversely, it can be argued that those

Mahmoud president Ahmadinejad. Like Chavez, he is best inflammatory and incendiary rhetoric . And like Chavez, sometimes his

penchant for outrageous statements makes it hard to take him seriously (i.e., Does he really believe the Holocaust did not happen?). Although,

very same outrageous statements are all the more reason to take him seriously. Both presidents preside over petro-rich countries and both presidents have made no attempts to hide their disdain for U.S. imperialism. And like those of Venezuela, Irans policies by themselves pose a security threat to the U.S. What causes Ahmadinejads Iran to be perceived as t he number one threat to world stability in the Gallup poll and what would cause President Bush to say that he is even more evil than Fidel Castro or Gaddafi is the combination of his inflammatory anti-U.S./anti-Israel rhetoric and his claim that Iran is justified in its pursuit of nuclear power . But what gets less press is the fact that Iran, like Venezuela, has begun to invest heavily in Cuba. And like Venezuela, Iran may pose much more of a threat to the U.S. with an alliance with Cuba. Without Cuba, Iran can only pose a threat to the U.S. in the Middle East; however, with Cuba and Venezuela, Iran can bring its threat ninety miles off the shore of the U.S. The April 7, 2007, State Department Western
Hemisphere overview cites concerns about Hugo Chavezs deepened Venezuelan relationships with Iran and Cuba.95 Though the State Departments report is unclassified and certainly is not a comprehensive intelligence report on the extent of the relationship between Venezuela, Cuba and Iran, it is decidedly vague about exactly what the deepened relationship consists of and why the U.S. should be concerned. Yet despite the ambiguous State Department threat assessment linking Venezuela and Cuba to Iran, there

is plenty of circumstantial evidence that links the three nations in what can amount to be a potentially volatile triangular threat to U.S. interests. Though there have certainly been several recent links tying Iran to Venezuela and Cuba, a red flag was
definitely raised at the thirty-five nation International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) vote to refer Irans case for nuclear energy to the United Nations Security Council in February 2006.

Plan key to diminishing Iranian influence in the region Curtain 08 Joseph W. Curtain - Lieutenant Commander, United States Navy,(ECONOMIC AND SECURITY REASONS WHY THE
U.S. SHOULD NORMALIZE RELATIONS WITH CUBA,dtic.mil,6/2008,http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a483591.pdf,6/28/13,JW)

Cubas economy has not only survived the end of Soviet-era subsidies but has thrived in the era of globalization. This thesis documents the adjustments the

Cuban government has made to the economy and the increase in foreign direct investment (FDI) that has occurred as a result. The prospect of the U.S.s Cuban trade embargo actually accomplishing its goal seems to diminish more and more with the every dollar of FDI invested in Cuba. The thesis also shows how China, Venezuela and Iran continue to invest more money in the island and subsequently threaten to wield more influence over Cuba . The U.S. has the opportunity to mitigate the threats posed by Venezuela and Iran vis--vis Cuba. However, the policy espoused by current policy makers is logically flawed. The Helms-Burton Act contains unrealistic benchmarks that provide little incentive for Cuban leaders to liberalize. Senator McCain espouses a position little different from President Bushs hard-line implementation of HelmsBurton, an approach that has failed to produce change. Senator Obama advocates liberalization within the context of Helms-Burton, an approach already tried by President Clinton without producing significant change. In contrast, this thesis argues that the

normalization of relations with Cuba can diminish the influence Iran and Venezuela have on Cuba and keep potential threats from coming ninety miles off the coast of the U.S. The next president should call for Congress to repeal the Helms-Burton Act so that executive discretion can be exercised with respect to Cuban foreign policy. Embargo allows for strong Cuba-Iran ties Curtain 08 Joseph W. Curtain - Lieutenant Commander, United States Navy,(ECONOMIC AND SECURITY REASONS WHY THE
U.S. SHOULD NORMALIZE RELATIONS WITH CUBA,dtic.mil,6/2008,http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a483591.pdf,6/28/13,JW) Within a little more than 15 years, Cuba has unquestionably transitioned from a country that was economically dependent on the Soviet Union to one with a much healthier international trade balance. Cuba now trades more than $2 billion of merchandise and goods with the E.U., more than $730 million with China, and more than $690 million with Canada. Its levels of FDI have increased exponentiallyfrom $2 million in 1990 to over $480 million in 2005 and over $2.2 billion overall from 1993- 2004. Cubas tourism industry is booming as wellincreasing from 500,000 international tourists in 1993 to over 2.3 million tourists in 2005an astonishing 360% increase.132 Finally, the commitment Canadian, Chinese and Venezuelan companies have made to invest billions of dollars into nickel and oil exploitation are additional signs of Cubas increased trend toward global economic interconnectedness. This global economic expansion has helped Cuba lift itself from a post Soviet Union economic recession in the 1990s to an average of slightly over 5% economic growth from 2000 to 2004133 which increased to 9% in 2005, 10% in 2006 and 8% in 2007.134 Thus this economic expansion leads to the question Andrew Zimbalist posed back in 1993: If Castro has been able to maintain his grip on power during the crises of the last four years, then there is little prospect for his political demise as the economy begins to stabilize and slowly improve.135 Zimbalists point is more salient now than it was then. If Fidel Castros

regime was going to crumble because of the economic effects of the U.S. embargo, it should have deteriorated in the wake of the Soviet Unions dissolution and the absence of billions of dollars of annual aid. But the economy did just the opposite. Instead, it rebounded in the late 1990s and has shown consistent growth in the 2000sso much so that Cuba witnessed the recent peaceful transition of power from Fidel to his brother Raul. A
current spin on Zimbalists point would be: If Raul Castros regime can continue to sustain economic growth, then there is little prospect for the demise of the communist regime in the post-Fidel era. The recent

Cuban economic expansion is perhaps the clearest signal that the U.S.Cuban policy needs an overhaul. It is not working. It was a policy designed in
the Cold War that no longer makes sense in the globalized world of economic interconnectedness. Some critics might argue that maintaining the current policy cannot hurt the U.S., and at the very least, it is sending the right signal to Cubas communist leaders. The question they would ask is, What is the worst that could happen by staying the course? The

problem with the status quo logic is it overlooks the fact that the embargo has contributed to the growing influence of Venezuela, Iran and China in Cuba through their increasing investments in the Cuban economy.

Cuba Venezuela Ties


Venezuela trade with Cuba mainly based on oil Hanson et. al. 1/31/13 - Stephanie Hanson, associate director and coordinating editor at CFR.org, the website
of the Council on Foreign Relations. She manages the editorial production of the website and covers economic and political development in Africa and Latin America. Her work has been published in the Los Angeles Times, Bookforum, San Francisco Chronicle, Newsday, and on the websites of the New York Times, Newsweek, and the Washington Post. (U.S.-Cuba Relations, Council on Foreign Relations, 1/31/13, http://www.cfr.org/cuba/us-cubarelations/p11113#p3, accessed: 6/28/13, amf.) In October 2000, Chvez

and Fidel Castro signed the Integral Cooperation Accord, an agreement that specified an exchange of Venezuelan oil for Cuban goods and services. The accord was reaffirmed and extended for another ten-year period in 2010. Venezuela now sells Cuba some 90,000 barrels of crude oil daily at preferential prices, and Cuba sends tens of thousands of medical
professionals to work with Venezuelan communities. Florida International University's Martin calls the relationship "very intimate," and says it is getting "stronger and stronger every year."

Strong relationship between Cuba and Venezuela ideology and trade Global Times 6/8/13 Globaltimes.cn. (Venezuela-Cuba ties to stay strong: official, The Global Times,
6/8/13, http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/787836.shtml#.UdXIwT6sa9c, accessed: 7/4/13, amf)

Friendship between Venezuela and Cuba will continue to stay strong, Venezuelan National Assembly President Diosdado Cabello said Friday. The solidarity, friendship and camaraderie between the two nations, promoted by their respective former leaders, Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro, will continue to thrive for many years, said Cabello, who
began an official three-day visit to Cuba on Friday. Cabello, after meeting his Cuban counterpart, Esteban Lazo,

thanked the Cuban people and their leaders for giving medical treatment to Chavez. Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, Chavez's successor, is committed to continuing the policies spearheaded by Chavez, said Cabello. Lazo reiterated Cuba's respect for Venezuela's Bolivarian Revolution, the term Chavez gave to the
socialist reforms he launched to address the country's inequity.

The Cuban legislator also highlighted the extraordinary effort Chavez made to promote unity in Latin America and the Caribbean, saying Chavez served as an inspiration for other revolutionaries in the
region. With Chavez in power, the

two countries had maintained good relations. Venezuela supplies Cuba with 100,000 barrels of oil per day, and in exchange, Cuba provides Venezuela with more than 45,000 professionals, mainly in medical and healthcare fields. Cuba and Venezuela key to ALBA bloc leaders of the anti-US alliance Egan 7/4/13 Louise Egan, Senior Correspondent to Reuters, covering cover economics, fiscal policy, central
banking, and G20. (Latin America furious over Bolivia incident in Snowden saga , Reuters, 7/4/13, http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/07/03/usa-security-latinamerica-idINDEE9620GQ20130703, accessed: 7/4/13, amf) ANTI-U.S. RHETORIC

Bolivian officials were quick on Tuesday to accuse the United States of strong-arming the Europeans into denying access to their air space in an "act of intimidation" against Morales for suggesting while
attending an energy conference in Moscow that he would consider granting asylum to Snowden if requested. The restrictions were later lifted and Morales was on his way home after a stopover in the Canary Islands. Snowden is believed to be still in the transit area of a Moscow airport, where he has been trying since June 23 to find a country that will offer him refuge from prosecution in the United States on espionage charges. The Bolivian government said it had filed a formal complaint with the United Nations and was

studying other legal avenues to prove its rights had been violated under international law. Legal experts say Bolivia could take its case to the International Court of Justice in The Hague if
Austrian officials had boarded Morales' plane in Vienna without his consent, presumably to search for Snowden. Bolivian Defense Minister Ruben Saavedra said authorities did not board the plane, contradicting an Austrian official who said the aircraft had been boarded and checked. Some Bolivians took to the streets in protest, burning the French and European Union flags outside the French Embassy in the capital of La Paz.

Bolivia is part of the ALBA alliance of Latin American socialist countries that has for years delighted in confronting Washington. Morales has yet to restore full diplomatic relations with the United States after expelling the U.S.
ambassador in 2008. But the regional leftist

bloc's two leading members - Cuba and Venezuela - are in a cautious rapprochement with the United States that likely would be dashed if they gave sanctuary to Snowden. U.S. President Barack Obama has warned that giving Snowden asylum would carry serious costs.

Embargo is a block in Venezuelan relations plan solves Suggett 9 James Sugget, Staff Writer for Venezuela Analysis, (Obama Should End Cuba
Embargo and Learn About Latin America, Says Venezuelas Chvez, Article for Venezuela Analysis, 3/23/2009, http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/4315, Accessed 6/28/13, AW) President Obamas willingness to dialogue with Venezuela and Cuba and his pledge to find cooperation and mutual interest mark a departure from the harsh cold war rhetoric of the administration of former U.S. President George W. Bush. However, the Venezuelan government views Obamas scolding of Venezuela for lacking good international behavior, his refusal so far to end the embargo against Cuba, and the U.S. State Departments recent report critiquing human rights worldwide as obstacles to improving U.S.-Latin American relations. Lifting restrictions on Cuba develops Venezuelan influence Pascual et. al. 09 Carlos Pascual, director of foreign policy at Brookings Institution ( Gustavo Arnavat
Attorney at law Ann Louise Bardach Author/Journalist University of California Santa Barbara dr. ramon Cols Co-Director Center for the Understanding of Cubans of African Descent dr. Jorge i. domnguez Vice-provost for international Affairs Antonio Madero professor of Mexican and latin American politics and Economics Harvard University daniel erikson Senior Associate for U.S. policy Director of Caribbean programs inter-American Dialogue dr. Mark falcoff resident Scholar Emeritus American Enterprise institute dr. damin J. fernndez provost and Executive Vice president purchase College dr. Andy s. Gomez Nonresident Senior Fellow, The Brookings institution Assistant provost, University of Miami Senior Fellow, institute for Cuban and Cuban American Studies Jess Gracia Former Spanish Ambassador to Cuba paul hare Former British Ambassador to Cuba francisco J. (pepe) hernndez president Cuban American National Foundation dr. William LeoGrande Dean, School of public Affairs American University dr. Marifeli prez-stable Vice president for Democratic Governance inter-American Dialogue Jorge r. pin Energy Fellow Center for Hemispheric policy University of Miami dr. Archibald ritter Distinguished research professor Emeritus Department of Economics and Norman paterson School of international Affairs Carleton University Andrs rozental Nonresident Senior Fellow, The Brookings institution Former Deputy Foreign Minister of Mexico Carlos saladrigas CoChairman Cuba Study Group, Cuba: A New Policy of Critical and Constructive Engagement Brookings, April 2009,

Accessed 6/26/13, http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2009/4/cuba/0413_cuba.pdf)

The first two initiatives simply encourage a broadening of U.S. government public and private participation in activities that assist the growth of Cuban civil society and should be carried out regardless of Cubas conduct. The U.S. government should expand the assistance envisioned in the first basket by encouraging other

governments, multilateral institutions, organizations, and individuals to support educational exchanges as well as the improvement of human rights and the growth of civil society. in addition, in order to
enhance access to knowledge, the U.S. government should allow private individuals, groups, and the Cuban government access to normal commercial credit for the sale of communications equipment and connections to satellite and broadband networks. licensing U.S. companies to provide services for the development of Cuban offshore oil and gas would provide benefits to the United States and Cuba. (At this point it should be noted that the Secretary of Treasury has always had and continues to have the authorityas embodied in OFAC regulationsto license any transaction found to be in the U.S. national interest. This power has been used over the past fifteen years by various republican and Democratic administrations to license a variety of commercial transactions between the United States and Cuba). The following are some of the reasons we might wish to become engaged in developing Cubas offshore oil and gas. First, if U.S. and other reputable

companies are involved in Cubas offshore oil development it would reduce Cubas dependence on Venezuela for two-thirds of its oil imports. Second, it is preferable that U.S. oil companies with high standards of transparency develop these resources rather than, for example, russias notoriously corrupt oligarchy. Third, U.S. influence in Cuba is likely to increase if U.S. companies have an economic relationship on the ground. Fourth, U.S. companies have the technology and expertise to develop Cubas offshore oil and gas.

The plan is uniquely key to democracy reduces Cuban energy reliance on autocratic countries
Pinon 09 Jorge Pinon, research fellow at University of Miamis Center for Hemispheric Affairs, advisor at Brookings Institutions US Policy towards Cuba in Transition task force (Oil Work can be Part of US-Cuban Rapprochement, Oil and Gas Journal, 5/4/09, Lexis Nexis, AM) of Cuba's petroleum demand currently relies on imports, and Venezuela is the single source of these imports under heavily subsidized payment terms. This petroleum dependency, valued at over $3 billion in 2008, could be used by Venezuela as a tool to influence a future Cuban government in maintaining a politically antagonistic and belligerent position toward the US. Cuba has learned from experiences and is very much aware of the political and economic risks and consequences of depending on a single source for imported oil. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the 2003 Venezuelan oil strike taught Cuba very expensive lessons. President Raul Castro understands the risks; his recent visits to major oil exporters such as Brazil, Russia, Angola, and Algeria underscore his concerns. A relationship with Brazil would provide a balance to Cuba's current dependency, while others could bring with it corrupt and unsavory business practices. Only when Cuba diversifies suppliers and develops its offshore resources, estimated by the US Geological Survey to be at 5.5 billion bbl of oil and 9.8 tcf of natural gas undiscovered reserves, will it have the economic independence needed to consider a political and economic evolution. US restrictions
Two thirds

Although Cuban authorities have invited US oil companies to participate in developing their offshore oil and natural gas resources, US law does not allow it. American oil and oil equipment and service companies have the capital, technology, and operational know-how to explore, produce, and refine in a safe and responsible manner Cuba's potential oil and natural gas reserves. Yet they remain on the sidelines because of the almost 5-decade-old unilateral political and economic embargo. The president can end this impasse by licensing American companies to participate in developing Cuba's offshore oil and gas. Embargo regulations specifically give the secretary of the treasury the authority to license prohibited activities. The Helms-Burton law codified the embargo regulations as well as the secretary's power, embedded in the codified regulations, to rescind, modify, or amend them. The proof of this is that several years after the Helms-Burton law was enacted, former President Bill Clinton expanded travel and money transfers to the Cuban people and civil society. Cuba's future By seizing the initiative on Cuba policy, the president could claim an early and relatively easy policy success. Critically, he would position the US to play a role in Cuba's future, thereby giving Cubans a better chance for a stable and democratic future. A future Cuban government influenced by its energy benefactors would most likely result in a continuation of the current political and economic model. If Cuba's new leaders are unable to fill the power vacuum left by the departure of the old cadre, they could become pawns of illicit business activities and drug cartels , and the US could face a mass illegal immigration by hundreds of thousands of Cubans. If US companies were allowed to contribute in developing Cuba's hydrocarbon reserves, as well as renewable energy such as solar, wind, and sugarcane ethanol, the change would reduce the influence of autocratic and corrupt governments. Most importantly, it would provide the US and other democratic countries with a better chance of working with Cuba's future leaders to carry out reforms that would lead to a more open and representative society . Fifty-two years ago this October, following the nationalization of the property of U.S. citizens and corporations in Cuba, Washington enacted economic sanctions against the island nation, imposing El bloqueo, the longest embargo in modern history. This policy has not only been grossly ineffective, but has exacted a significant economic toll on both countries by restricting the movement of people, capital, and goods to and from Cuba. Over the years, these sanctions have evolved, as have the geo-political dynamics that formed the shaky reasoning behind the policy. Cuba's largest former benefactor, the USSR, has long since collapsed and its aging revolutionary leader, Fidel Castro, no longer holds formal power after handing leadership over to his brother in April 2011. Considering these seismic political changes, the embargo should be lifted to allow the unrestricted flow of trade that would bring an important level of economic growth to both the U.S. and Cuba.

US-Latin American relations


Plan sends a signal to Latin America that the US is willing to be reasonable- boosts US credibility in the region and salvages regional cooperation WHITE 3/7 -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 NYTimes March 7, 2013 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/08/opinion/after-chavez-hope-for-good-neighbors-in-latinamerica.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&partner=rss&emc=rss-Accessed-7-9-13-RX)
Yet for a half-century, our

policies toward our southern neighbors have alternated between intervention and neglect, inappropriate meddling and missed opportunities. The death this week of President Hugo Chvez of Venezuela who along with Fidel Castro of Cuba was perhaps the most vociferous critic of the United States among the political leaders of the Western Hemisphere in recent decades offers an opportunity to restore bonds with potential allies who share the American goal of prosperity. Throughout his career, the autocratic
the rule of Mr. Castro and his brother al, Cubas current president. The

Mr. Chvez used our embargo as a wedge with which to antagonize the United States and alienate its supporters. His fuel helped prop up

embargo no longer serves any useful

purpose (if it ever did at all); President Obama should end it, though it would mean overcoming powerful opposition from Cuban-American lawmakers in Congress. An end to the Cuba embargo would send a powerful signal to all of Latin America that the United States wants a new, warmer relationship with democratic forces seeking social change throughout the Americas. I joined the State Department as a Foreign Service

officer in the 1950s and chose to serve in Latin America in the 1960s. I was inspired by President John F. 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 Ke nnedys 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 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 al 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 five decades. The president and his new secretary of state, John Kerry, should quietly reach out to Latin American leaders like President Juan Manuel Santos of Colombia and 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
measure of democratic change to justify its reintegration into a hemisphere composed entirely of elected governments.

If , however,

our present policy paralysis continues, we will soon see the emergence of two rival camps, the United States versus Latin America . While Washington would continue to enjoy friendly relations with individual countries like
Brazil, Mexico and Colombia, the

vision of Roosevelt and Kennedy of a hemisphere of partners cooperating in matters of common concern would be reduced to a historical footnote. Lifting the embargo solves Latin American relations Creamer 11Robert Creamer, Robert Creamer has been a political organizer and strategist
for four decades. He and his firm, Democracy Partners, work with many of the countrys most significant issue campaigns. He was one of the major architects and organizers of the successful campaign to defeat the privatization of Social Security. He has been a consultant to the campaigns to end the war in Iraq, pass universal health care, pass Wall Street reform, change Americas budget priorities and enact comprehensive immigration reform. He has also worked on hundreds of electoral campaigns at the local, state and national level. Creamer is married to Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky from Illinois. Arianna Huffington calls his book, Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win, a masters class in electoral politics. (Changes in U.S. Cuba Policy Good First step But Its Time to Normalize Relations, 1/18/11, Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/changes-in-uscuba-policy_b_810161.html-Accessed-6-27-13-RX)
4). Our failure

to normalize relations with Cuba undermines American interests throughout the world -- and particular in Latin America.
U.S. policy towards Cuba has been a major sore point with other countries in Latin America, who view it as a vestige of Yankee paternalism toward the entire region. And

it is used by those who want to harm America as another

piece of anti-American propaganda.


Far from isolating Cuba, we have isolated ourselves. Virtually all of America's major allies have normal economic and political relationships with Cuba. Last year, the United Nations General Assembly voted for the seventeenth time -- in seventeen years -- to condemn our economic embargo of Cuba -- this time by a vote of 185 to 3.

Lifting the Embargo key to US LA relations Hirst 13 Monica Hirst - Full-time Professor at the Universidad Nacional de Quilmes, Porfessor of MA Program of Universidad

Torcuato di Tella,(Cuba-Latin America & Caribbean relations; challenges beyond normalization,wordpress.com,2013,http://blogbrasilnomundo.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/cuba-latin-america-challenges-beyondnormalization.pdf,Accessed:7/4/13,JW)

For many decades, connections with Havana had inevitable implications for US-Latin American relations, as closeness to Washington was defined by whether governments were friends or foes to Cuba. While it is true that such rigidity no longer exists, narrow mind-sets have not been completely discarded. From a Cuban perspective, closer relations with Latin America is perceived as part of a more distant and critical view towards the US. For the US government, this
is essentially an intermestic matter with resilient ideological contents, to be addressed in the context of bilaterally unsettled negotiations. For L atin A merican countries, the US blockade represents a

plaintive anachronism, and any step on Washingtons part to eliminate it would be read as a
positive sign towards the region . Europeans, on their side, have observed the recent Cuban-Latin American rapprochement with a positive view and are about to take themselves a first step toward opening negotiations with this country. Relations between European countries and Cuba have followed a dual pattern; while the European Union has resisted going ahead in a negotiation of collective accords with the island, bilateral ties have been pursued by many EU members.16 Conditions imposed by the EU are focused on expected changes from the Cuban regime regarding the protection of human rights, the rule of law, and adherence to the International Court of Justice. The seventeen bilateral accords in place cover investment, trade and cooperation initiatives. Prospects have recently emerged to draft the framework to commence a negotiation process with Brussels. In fact, Europe stands as Cubas second trade partner (after Venezuela), benefitting therefore from bilateral understandings and commercial preferences. The EU does not

support the US blockade in any way. Businesswise, European expectations are pending on the day after of the suspension by the US blockade, particularly in areas as tourism, services and infrastructure since European investments are affected by the limitations imposed by US legislation. With the current economic crises faced at home, the importance of expanding markets as well as FDI in Latin American and Caribbean countries has been reinforced. Even more meaningful than potentially expanding the Cuban domestic market, are expectations that this country could become a regional hub to serve neighboring islands together along with the southeast of the United States (Feinberg, 2012:15).

Trade is the only link to Latin American Relations Ben-Ami 13 - Shlomo Ben-Ami a former Israeli foreign minister who now serves as the vice president of the Toledo
International Center for Peace, a former Israeli diplomat, politician and historian. (Is the US Losing Latin America?,The Guatemala Times, 05 JUNE 2013, http://www.guatemala-times.com/opinion/syndicated-2/3681--is-the-us-

losing-latin-america-.html Accessed: 6/27/13, MC)

It is true that US attention to Latin America has waned in recent years. President George W. Bush was more focused on his global war on terror. His successor, Barack Obama, seemed to give the region little thought as well, at least in his first term. Indeed, at the Summit of the Americas in Cartagena in April 2012, Latin American leaders felt sufficiently confident and united to challenge US priorities in the region. They urged the US to lift its embargo on Cuba, claiming that it had damaged relations with the rest of the continent, and to do more to combat drug use on its own turf, through education and social work, rather than supplying arms to fight the drug lords in Latin America a battle that all acknowledged has

been an utter failure.It is also true that Latin American countries have pursued a massive expansion of economic ties beyond Americas sway. China is now Latin
Similarly, in 2008, ussias then-President Dmitri Medvedev identified the US war on terror as an opportunity to create strategic partnerships with rising powers such as Brazil, and with the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas (ALBA), a Venezuelan-inspired bloc opposed to US designs in the region. The energy giant Gazprom and the countrys military industries have spearheaded the Krem lins effort to demonstrate ussias ability to influence Americas neighborhood a direct response to perceived American meddling in ussias own near abroad, particularly Georgia and Ukraine. Yet it would be a mistake to regard Latin Americas broadening international relations as marking the end of US preeminence. Unlike in the bygone era of superpowers and captive nations, American

Americas second-largest trading partner and rapidly closing the gap with the US. India is showing keen interest in the regions energy indust ry, and has signed export agreements in the defense sector. Iran has strengthened its economic and military ties, especially in Venezuela.

influence can no longer be defined by the ability to install and depose leaders from the US embassy. To believe otherwise is to ignore how international politics has changed over the last quarter-century. A continent once afflicted by military takeovers has slowly but surely implanted stable democracies. Responsible economic management, poverty-reduction programs, structural reforms, and greater openness to foreign investment have all helped to generate years of low-inflation growth. As a result, the region was able to withstand the ravages of the global financial crisis. The US not only encouraged these changes, but has benefited hugely from them. More than 40%
of US exports now go to Mexico and Central and South America, the USs fastest -growing export destination. Mexico is Americas secondlargest foreign market (valued at $215 billion in 2012). US exports to Central America have risen by 94% over the past six years; imports from the region have risen by 87%. And the US continues to be the largest foreign investor on the continent. American interests are evidently well served by having democratic, stable, and increasingly prosperous neighbors.

The embargo isolates the U.S. from Latin America. Homick 2009 [Ed Homick. Ed Homick is a writer for CNN. CNN. Analysis: United States-Cuba relations begin the long
thaw. April 8 2009. http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/08/cuba.travel/ Accessed: June 28, 2013. AK]

(CNN) -- "It's time to talk to Cuba." That frank assessment from Rep. Barbara Lee, D-California, has

resonated loud and clear from the island of Cuba -- 90 miles from the southernmost point of Florida -- to

the halls of Congress. For the first time in nearly 50 years, relations between the two nations, which have a history steeped in tension, have seemed to ease a bit. That was apparent this week as a delegation from the Congressional Black Caucus traveled to the communist country on a fact-finding mission, with plans to deliver a report to the White House. Watch CNN's Ed Hornick discuss the story "Our purpose was to see if there were preconditions on the Cuban side. We heard that there were no preconditions," Lee said Wednesday. "And, in fact, we wanted to find out if they were interested. We have to remember that every country in Latin America, 15 countries, have normal relations with

Cuba. ... We're the country which is isolated."

Watch Lee discuss her visit to Cuba But even more significant were the meetings the group had with Cuban President Ral Castro and with his brother and predecessor, 82year-old Fidel Castro, a controversial political and social figure. President Obama has said he is in favor of changing the relationship with Cuba. The $410 billion budget Obama signed in March makes it easier for

Cuban-Americans to travel to Cuba and to send money to family members on the island. It could also allow the sale of agricultural and pharmaceutical products to Cuba. Three provisions

attached to the omnibus spending bill loosened restrictions enacted by former President Bush after he came to office in 2001. Bill to allow travel to Cuba has a better shot Analysts see the lawmakers' trip and Obama's campaign rhetoric as a way for the new administration to start thawing relations with Cuba before the Fifth Summit of the Americas. The summit will bring together the U.S. president and 33 other leaders from the Western Hemisphere in mid-April in Trinidad and Tobago. Watch more on the lawmakers' meeting It's a point that Fidel Castro seemed to hint at. In a letter published Tuesday in the online version of Granma, a state-run Cuban newspaper, Castro wrote that an unnamed caucus member told him "he was sure that Obama would change Cuba policy but that Cuba should also help him." "I value the

gesture of this legislative group," Fidel Castro wrote. "The aura of [the Rev. Martin] Luther King is

accompanying them. Our press has given broad coverage of their visit. They are exceptional witnesses to the respect that U.S. citizens visiting our homeland always receive." U.S. citizens are allowed to visit Cuba, an island shrouded in a virtual blackout to the U.S. and other parts of the world, but must apply for special licenses to do so. Though it is illegal, some citizens travel to a country like Mexico or Canada and then into Cuba. Not everyone is eager for change. CubanAmerican members of Congress, in particular, have voiced outrage over the easing of relations. Florida Republican Sen. Mel Martinez, who was born in Cuba, doesn't want to see changes to the embargo. "Having tourists on Cuban beaches is

not going to achieve democratic change in Cuba," Martinez has said. New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez, a Democrat and Cuban-American, said in a recent speech that the Cuban government is "pure and simple a brutal dictatorship. ... The average Cuban lives on an income of less than a dollar a day." Fidel Castro led the 1959 revolution that overthrew Cuba's Batista dictatorship. The United States broke diplomatic ties with the nation in 1961. The next year, the U.S. government instituted a trade embargo. Both policies remain in effect. Interactive: A look at the Fidel Castro's life The State Department, per its Web site, officially recognizes the country as "a totalitarian police state which relies on repressive methods to maintain control. These methods, including intense physical and electronic surveillance of Cubans, are also extended to foreign travelers." Although Castro was credited with bringing social reforms to Cuba, he has been criticized around the world for oppressing human rights and free speech. Lee said she hopes the meeting in Cuba this week will help open diplomatic channels between the two nations. "It's time to change our direction in our foreign policy. The president is doing a phenomenal job in the world, reshaping America's image and role in the world," she said. "So we want to make sure that we have the proper information to make recommendations to the president, our secretary of state and our speaker with regard to U.S. policy toward Cuba." Interactive: Learn more about Cuba Though the current stance of the U.S. government toward Cuba fits well with an older generation of Cuban-Americans who despise Castro, not all are of that mind-set. Namely, members of a younger

generation see great benefits of opening trade and direct tourism between the United States and Cuba. Jessica Rodriguez, who owns Cuba de Ayer

restaurant in Burtonsville, Maryland, is part of that younger generation looking to change the views of her community. "I think it would be good to open up some of those doors. I have so many customers who say, 'Oh, I'd like to go to Cuba.' And I say, 'Me too.' " "I think it would be great for the world to see Cuba for itself," she added. Some Cuban-Americans like Tessie Aral, owner of a Miami, Florida, travel agency that specializes in trips to Cuba, see the financial benefits of lifting the travel ban. "I think a lot of Americans are going to want to travel to Cuba because it's been the forbidden fruit for so long," Aral said. "For our country to tell us which country we can travel to, I think that's just archaic." Others in Congress see opening greater relations with Cuba as vital to the United States. A group of senators and other supporters unveiled a bill March 31 to lift the 47-year-old travel ban to Cuba. "I think that we finally reached a new watermark here on this issue," said Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-North Dakota, one of the bill's sponsors. Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Indiana, another sponsor of the bill, issued a draft report in February that said it was time to reconsider the economic sanctions. Lugar is the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Nonetheless, there is more political and diplomatic work to be done before restrictions on travel and trade could be lifted. Though it's a first step, Lee sees it as a crack in the proverbial ceiling. "We went to Cuba to listen to Cuban officials to make sure that we had the information and the facts that were necessary to bring back and at least let our administration know what we believe is possible."

Embargo undercuts foreign policy and influence in Latin America Frank 12 Marc Frank, Freelance journalist in Havana working for Reuters, the Financial
Times and ABC News. Specializes in information technology and services. (US-Cuba relations make little progress, Financial Times, September 25, 2012, http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/2ca94f5e-070a-11e2-92ef00144feabdc0.html#axzz2Y71Yog00, accessed: 7/4/13, LR)
When Barack Obama won the US presidency in 2008, many believed he would make significant progress in Cuban relations, so resolving one of the last conflicts of the cold war. But four years later, US-Cuba relations remain stuck in much the same time warp, and whether Mr Obama or his Republican challenger Mitt Romney becomes the next US president, few expect a significant breakthrough although the regions changing ideological landscape could prompt the

beginnings of a shift.

Mr. Obama lifted all restrictions on Cuban American visits soon after taking office, and in December 2010 reversed a Bush Administration ban that led to a surge in so-called people-to-people visits, which are for educational purposes rather than tourism. But he has also stepped up financial sanctions under antiterrorism laws, and this year issued tough new travel guidelines. The US position on Cuba continues to undercut our strategic position in the region and a

breakthrough would greatly enhance Obamas foreign policy legacy through solving a problem far simpler than many other global issues, said Julia Sweig, a senior fellow on Latin America at the Washington-based Council on Foreign Relations.
There is no question that Obamas first term disappointed many when it comes to Cuba, but I think it premature to assume this status quo under a second term, she added.

Embargo specifically blocks Latin America relations White 3/7 - Robert E. White, 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, The New York Times, March 7, 2013, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/08/opinion/after-chavez-hope-for-goodneighbors-in-latin-america.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0, accessed: 7/4/13, LR)
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.

Lifting embargo key to improving Latin American relations NY Daily News 09 - (Latin leaders urge U.S. to lift Cuba embargo, NY Daily News, 9/26/09,
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/latin-leaders-urge-u-s-lift-cuba-embargo-article-1.402175, Accessed 7/4/13, AM) Nevertheless, many other issues were also on the world leaders' agenda. Along with speeches opposing the posting of U.S. military personnel in seven Colombian army bases and multiple calls for restoring democratically elected Manuel Zelaya to the presidency of Honduras, several Latin American heads of state demanded the lifting of the economic embargo the people of Cuba have been subjected to for half a century. Their position was not new. All had called on President Obama to end the draconian measure last June at the Organization of American States' annual assembly in Honduras. Here in New York, it was Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula de Silva who issued the first plea for abolishing the blockade (as they call the embargo in Cuba), calling it an "obsolete measure." Uruguay's president, Tabar Vzquez, also expressed his country's desire for a new policy. "As Americans" [that is, all people born on the continent], he said, "we feel the ethical duty and the political responsibility of reiterating in this world forum that we will persevere in our effort for an American integration without exclusions, exceptions or blockades like the one Cuba is suffering." Evo Morales, the president of Bolivia, pointed out that in order to change the world for the better,

first "we must change the UN and end the blockade to Cuba." Venezuelan President Hugo Chvez, a friend of Fidel Castro and the Cuban Revolution, also asked that the embargo be lifted, a demand he restated Thursday night during a one-hour CNN interview with Larry
King. "As we asked him in June, Obama should break the embargo already," Chvez told King, referring to the OAS meeting. The opposition to the failed embargo policy goes beyond Latin America. In what could be a record, the

General Assembly has voted overwhelmingly for 17 years in a row to urge the U.S. to lift the anachronistic embargo.

The time is long overdue for Congress and President Obama to heed the world's opinion and toss the failed embargo into the ash heap of history. That would really be in sync with his administration's policy of engagement with and mutual respect for Cuba, Latin America and the world.

US-Cuba Relations
US-Cuba relations low nowrefusal to release Gross and political conflict Franks 10Jeff Franks, five-year writer for Reuters on Cuban relations and politics (U.S.-Cuba relations under
Obama fall to lowest point, Reuters, 3/31/10, http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/03/31/us-cuba-usaidUSTRE62U34W20100331, Accessed 7/10/13, jtc) (Reuters) - U.S.-Cuban relations have fallen to their lowest point since Barack Obama became U.S.

president and are in danger of getting worse unless the two countries take serious steps toward ending five decades of hostility, according to Cuba experts. After a brief warming last year, both countries appear to be falling back into old, antagonistic ways, obscuring whatever progress that has been made and hindering further advances, the experts said this week. "The past year has proven that when it comes to U.S.-Cuba relations, old habits die hard," said Dan Erikson of the Inter-American Dialogue think tank in
Washington. Obama, who took office in January 2009 and has said he wanted to recast U.S.-Cuban relations, lifted restrictions on travel by Cuban Americans to the communist-ruled island and initiated talks on migration issues and direct postal service. Since then, Cuban Americans have flooded the island and the two longtime ideological foes have held their first high-level discussions in years. But recent developments have been mostly negative. Cuba

jailed U.S. contractor Alan Gross in December on suspicion of spying and continues to hold him
without charges. Cuba's government has been condemned internationally for its treatment of opponents, including imprisoned dissident Orlando Zapata Tamayo, who died in February from a hunger strike, and the "Ladies in White," wives and mothers of imprisoned dissidents, were shouted down by government supporters during protest marches this month. Obama rebuked the Cuban government in a strongly worded statement on March 24, saying Cuba continues "to respond to the aspirations of the Cuban people with a clenched fist." U.S. officials think they have done enough to elicit a more positive response from Cuba, while Cuba complains that Obama has done too little. 'GENUINE GOODWILL' Miami attorney Timothy Ashby, a former U.S. Commerce Department official in charge of trade with Cuba, said neither has done what is necessary to overcome 50 years of bitterness. "Neither government is willing to take a significant step that would serve as a demonstration of genuine goodwill," he said. Both nations have taken actions that have not helped the fragile improvement begun by Obama. Obama angered the Cuban government in November when he responded to questions via email from dissident Cuban blogger Yoani Sanchez, who Cuban leaders view as at least complicit with their enemies in Europe and the United States. In February, Assistant Secretary of State Craig Kelly provoked a bitter Cuban reaction when he met with dissidents following migration talks with Cuban officials in Havana. Cuba, in turn, has soured the political climate by harshly criticizing Obama for his lack of action while taking little of its own. Its detention of Gross, which U.S. officials say Cuba has refused to discuss, has called into question its desire for change even among those who want better relations. In a letter last week to Cuba's top diplomat in Washington, 41

members of the U.S. House of Representatives said the detention of Gross "has caused many to doubt your government's expressed desire to improve relations with the United States." "We
cannot assist in that regard while Mr. Gross is detained in a Cuban prison," said the legislators, who included sponsors of pending legislation to end a U.S. ban on travel to Cuba.

Now is uniquely key to boost US-Cuba relations Padgett 7/3- Tim Padgett is WLRN-Miami Herald News' Americas correspondent covering
Latin America and the Caribbean from Miami. He has covered Latin America for almost 25 years, for Newsweek as its Mexico City bureau chief from 1990 to 1996, and for Time as its Latin America bureau chief, first in Mexico from 1996 to 1999 and then in Miami, where he also covered Florida and the U.S. Southeast, from 1999 to 2013. (Why This Summer Offers Hope For Better US-Cuba Relations, WLRN, 7/3/13 http://wlrn.org/post/why-summeroffers-hope-better-us-cuba-relations-Accessed-7-4-13-RX)

First, Castro finished crunching the numbers on Cubas threadbare economy, and the results scared him more than one of Yoani Snchezs dissident blog posts. To wit, the islands finances are held up by little more than European tourists and oil charity from soci alist

Venezuela. Hes adopted

limited capitalist reforms as the remedy, and to make them work he has to loosen the repressive screws a turn or two. That finally includes letting Cubans travel freely abroad, which gives them better opportunities to bring back investment capital. As a result, says Carlos Saladrigas, a Cuban-American business leader in Miami and chairman of the Washington-based Cuba Study Group, The timing is right for some U.S.-Cuban rapprochement. Cuba is clearly in a transitionary mode, says Saladrigas. They need to change to reinsert themselves in the global order, they need to become more normal in their relations with other nations. Current political climate in Latin America gives Obama the chance to repair ties with Cuba and Latin America Tisdall 3/5- Simon Tisdall, Simon Tisdall is an assistant editor of the Guardian and a foreign
affairs columnist. He was previously a foreign leader writer for the paper and has also served as its foreign editor and its US editor, based in Washington DC. (Death of Hugo Chavez brings chance of fresh start for US and Latin America, Guardian Newspaper, 3/5/13, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/05/hugo-chavez-dead-us-latin-americaAccessed-6-27-13-RX)
Hugo Chvez's departure furnishes Barack Obama with an opportunity to repair US ties with Venezuela, but
also with other Latin American states whose relations with Washington were adversely affected by Chvez's politics of polarisation and the Bush administration's viscerally unintelligent reaction. In particular, the change of leadership in Caracas could unlock the deadlock over Cuba , if the White House can summon the requisite political will. Possibly anticipating a transition, Washington quietly engineered a diplomatic opening with Caracas last November after a lengthy standoff during which ambassadors were withdrawn. Roberta Jacobson, assistant secretary of state for western hemisphere affairs, telephoned Nicols Maduro, Venezuela's vice-president and Chvez's preferred successor, and discussed, among other things, the restoration of full diplomatic relations. "According to US officials, the Venezuelan vice-president offered to exchange ambassadors on the occasion of the beginning of President Barack Obama's second term. Jacobson, in turn, is said to have proposed a step-by-step approach to improve bilateral relations, starting with greater co-operation in counter-narcotics, counter-terrorism and energy issues," Andres Oppenheimer reported in the Miami Herald. There is much ground to make up. "Relations between the United States and Venezuela have ranged from difficult to hostile since Chvez took office in 1999 and began to implement what he calls 21st-century socialism," wrote a former US ambassador to Caracas, Charles Shapiro. "Chvez blamed a failed 2002 coup against him on the United States (not true), nationalised US companies, insulted the president of the United States and blamed 'the empire' his term for the United States for every ill In foreign affairs, the government actively supports the Assad regime in Syria, rejects sanctions on Iran and generally opposes the US at every turn." Despite such strains, economic self-interest always prevented a complete rupture. The US remained Venezuela's most important trading partner throughout Chvez's presidency, buying nearly half its oil exports. Caracas is the fourth largest supplier of oil to the US.

shared commerce now provides a formidable incentive and a launch platform for a fresh start.
In fact, the US imports more crude oil annually from Mexico and Venezuela than from the entire Persian Gulf. This Yet it depends even more on Obama,

Whether the opportunity is grasped depends partly on Maduro, a Chvez loyalist but a reputed pragmatist with close ties to Ral Castro in Cuba.

whose first term, after a promising start, ended up perpetuating Washington's historical neglect of Latin America. He now has a chance to do better. The political climate seems propitious. Economic and cultural ties are also strengthening dramatically. Trade between the US and Latin America grew by 82% between 1998 and 2009. In 2011 alone, exports and imports
rose by a massive 20% in both directions. "We do three times more business with Latin America than with China and twice as much business with Colombia [as] with Russia," an Obama official told Julia Sweig of the US Council on Foreign Relations. Latinos now comprise 15% of the US population; the US is the world's second largest Spanish-speaking country (after Mexico). Despite this convergence, high-level US strategic thinking about the region has continued to lag, Sweig argued. "For the last two decades, US domestic politics have too often driven Washington's Latin America agenda whether on issues of trade, immigration, drugs, guns or that perennial political albatross, Cuba, long driven by the supposedly crucial 'Cuban vote' in Florida," she said.

Obama could change this dynamic if he tried and one way to do it would be to unpick the

to colour the way Latin Americans view Washington.

Cuban problem, which continues

"Having won nearly half of the Cuban American vote in Florida in 2012, a gain of 15 percentage points over 2008, Obama can move quickly on Cuba. If he were to do so, he would find a cautious but willing partner in Ral Castro, who needs rapprochement with Washington to advance his own reform agenda," Sweig said.

A move by Obama to end travel restrictions and the trade embargo on Cuba would be applauded across the region, explode old stereotypes about gringo oppressors, and help build confidence with Venezuela, the Castro
regime's key backer, she suggested.

US Should start dialogue to lift embargoleads way to solving tensions Duran 09-- Alfredo Duran, Cuban Committee for Democracy, lawyer and an advocate for dialogue as a way

to bring regime change in Cuba (in an interview with Duran, Possible Cuba Policy Changes Spark Debate, PBS Newshour, 4/8/9, http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june09/cubadebate_04-08.html, Accessed 7/3/12, jtc) Oh, I believe so. I believe that it's about time that the United States and Cuba starts in the process of dialogue on this tension. We have been maintaining this policy of embargo for the past 50 years, and it has not worked. It's not working now, and it won't work for the next 50 years. It's about time that we bring about a change. The status quo is what we need to change in Cuba. We have a whole dynamic of generational changes in Cuba. We have the historicals who are all above 80 years of age. And the only way

that we're going to bring about a future of prosperity, of liberty, of democracy in Cuba is if we can send a strong message that the United States is not the enemy of the Cuban people,

that the United States is prepared to sit down and try to resolve the differences and hopefully, in that same table, we can have the Cuban opposition sit down and discuss the future of Cuba. We need to have national reconciliation. We need to have the people starting to talk to each other in order to bring about a transition, a peaceful transition, towards democracy in Cuba. I think it was helpful...

Lifting embargo improves relations, health and economy Burns and Mills 1/30 Larry Birns ,Council on Hemispheric Affairs Director and Frederick B. Mills,

COHA Senior esearch Fellow (Best Time for U.S. Cuba approchement Is Now, Council on Hemispheric Affairs, 1/30/13, http://www.coha.org/best-time-for-u-s-cuba-rapprochement-is-now/, Accessed 7/3/12, jtc)

The Obama Administration should be prepared to take, in quick progression, three important initial steps to trigger a speedy rapprochement with Cuba: immediately phase out the embargo, free the Cuban five, and remove Havana from the spurious State Department roster of nations purportedly sponsoring terrorism. These measures should be seen as indispensable if Washington is to ever mount a credible regional policy of mutual respect among nations and adjust to the increased ideological diversity
and independence of the Latin American and Caribbean regions. Washingtons path towards an urgently ne eded rehabilitation of its hemispheric policy ought to also include consideration of Cubas own pressing national interests. A

thaw in USCuba relations would enhance existing security cooperation between the countries, amplify trade and commercial ties, and guarantee new opportunities for citizens of both nations to build bridges of friendship and cooperation. For this to happen, the Obama Administration would have to muster
political and economic reforms, Washington has had more than 50 years to see that the status quo is flawed. Over

the audacity to resist the anti-Castro lobby and their hardline allies in Congress, whose Cuba bashing has no limits. Nevertheless, it is time to replace belligerency with dtente. This essay argues that the embargo against Cuba is blatantly counterproductive, immoral, and anachronistic. If the initial purpose of this measure was to punish Havana for expropriating U.S. property and to bring about fundamental

the years, invasion, embargo, and covert psychological operations against Cuba have only served to reinforce a circle the wagons mentality in Havana. The island also has been subject to a relentless barrage of
propaganda and terrorist assaults organized by militant anti-Castro zealots to advance their cause. These attacks include the 1997 bombing of three hotels in Havana which resulted in the death of Italian tourist Fabio Di Celmo, and the deadly 1976 downing of a Cuban civilian jet. Rather than succumbing to pressure, all of these incidents have given the majority of Cuban nationals good reason to raise

defensive barricades in the face of repeated threats to the survival of their homeland. Besides being counter-productive, there are also strong moral arguments for ending the embargo. From a utilitarian point of view, the

policy is objectionable because it has brought about needless suffering without convincing evidence of praiseworthy results.
One illustration of this is what happened during what Havana calls the special period in time of peace. This refers to the economic crisis, hydrocarbon energy shortages, and food insecurity that followed the collapse of Soviet Bloc (1989 1991) which was Cubas main trading partner and the source of vital subsidies. The embargo took an especially harsh toll during the special period. According to a 1997 report Denial of Food and Medicine: The Impact of the Embargo on Health and Nutrition in Cuba by The American Association for World Health: the

U.S. embargo of Cuba has dramatically harmed the health and nutrition of large numbers of ordinary Cuban citizens. The report also observed that the U.S. embargo has caused a significant rise in suffering-and even deaths-in Cuba. The special period, including a serious food shortage in

1993, did not lead to the countrys surrender, but to the decisive restructuring of the agricultural sector, a number of economic reforms, and the diversification of trade.

Relations thawing now- embargo and terror list kill co-operation Haven, Armario, and Lee 6/21- PAUL HAVEN, Christine Armario, and Matthew Lee, Paul Have: the Associated
Press bureau chief in Havana, Cuba , Christine Armario: Education-Reporter, Associated Press, Mathew Lee: Education-Reporter, Associated Press, (US haltingly move to thaw? Associated Press, Published: Friday, June 21, 2013 at 9:30 a.m, http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20130621/WIRE/130629941/2055/NEWS?p=4&tc=pg, Accessed: 6/28/13 MC) They've hardly become allies, but Cuba and the U.S. have taken some baby steps toward rapprochement in recent weeks that have people on this island and in Washington wondering if a breakthrough in relations could be just over the horizon.

Skeptics caution that the Cold War enemies have been here many times before, only to fall back into old recriminations. But there are signs that views might be shifting on both sides of the Florida Straits. In the past week, the two countries have held talks on resuming direct mail service, and announced a July 17 sit-down on migration issues. In May, a U.S. federal judge allowed a convicted Cuban intelligence agent to return
to the island. This month, Cuba informed the family of jailed U.S. government subcontractor Alan Gross that it would let an American doctor examine him, though the visit has apparently not yet happened. President

Raul Castro has also ushered in a series of economic and social changes, including making it easier for Cubans to travel off the island. Under the radar, diplomats on both sides describe a sea change in the tone of their dealings. Only last year, Cuban state television was broadcasting grainy footage of American diplomats meeting with dissidents on Havana streets and publically accusing them of being CIA front-men. Today, U.S. diplomats in Havana and Cuban Foreign Ministry officials have easy contact, even sharing home
phone numbers.

Josefina Vidal, Cuba's top diplomat for North American affairs, recently traveled to Washington and met twice with State Department officials a visit that came right before the announcements of resumptions in the two sets of bilateral talks that had been suspended for more
than two years. Washington has also granted visas to prominent Cuban officials, including the daughter of Cuba's president. "These recent steps indicate

a desire on both sides to try to move forward, but also a recognition on both sides of just how difficult it is to make real progress," said Robert Pastor, a professor of international

relations at American University and former national security adviser on Latin America during the Carter administration. "These are tiny, incremental gains, and the prospects of going backwards are equally high."

Among the things that have changed, John Kerry has taken over as U.S. secretary of state after being an outspoken critic of Washington's policy on Cuba while in the Senate. President Barack Obama no longer has re-election concerns while dealing with the Cuban-American electorate in Florida, where there are also indications of a warming attitude to negotiating with Cuba. Castro, meanwhile, is striving to overhaul the island's Marxist economy with a dose of limited free-market capitalism and may feel a need for more open relations with the U.S. While direct American investment is still barred on the island, a rise in visits and money transfers by Cuban-Americans since Obama relaxed restrictions has been a boon for Cuba's cash-starved economy. Under the table, Cuban-Americans are also helping relatives on the island start private businesses and
refurbish homes bought under Castro's limited free-market reforms.

Several prominent

Cuban dissidents have been allowed to travel recently due to Castro's changes. The trips have been applauded by Washington, and also may have lessened Havana's worries about
the threat posed by dissidents. Likewise, a

U.S. federal judge's decision to allow Cuban spy Rene Gonzalez to return home was met with only muted criticism inside the United States, perhaps emboldening U.S. diplomats to seek further
openings with Cuba.

To be sure, there is still far more that separates the long-time antagonists than unites them. The State Department has kept Cuba on a list of state sponsors of terrorism and another that calls into question Havana's commitment to fighting human trafficking. The Obama administration
continues to demand democratic change on an island ruled for more than a half century by Castro and his brother Fidel.

For its part, Cuba continues to denounce Washington's 51-year-old economic embargo. Transfer of technology would strengthen US-Cuba relationships Lacey 9 Marc Lacey,Marc was The Timess Mexico bureau chief, responsible for covering Mexico, Central

America and the Caribbean. From 2006 to 2010, he led the newspapers coverage of Mexicos drug war, Cubas transition from Fidel Castro and Haitis struggle for stability, among other issues in more than 30 countries large and small.,The New York Times, 8/20/2009,http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/world/americas/21storm.html?_r=0,6/27/13,MH) The first tropical storms of the season have begun raging across the Atlantic, bringing with them all manner of panic and potential destruction and, behind the scenes, a little boost in United StatesCuba relations. . Weve had a close working relationship in regard to tropical cyclones that goes back to the 70s and 80s, said Max Mayfield, who retired in 2007 after seven years as director of the National Hurricane Center in Miami. Any storm that goes toward Florida goes over Cuba, so we need their observations. And they need our data from the aircraft. With coastal communities in both countries vulnerable, meteorology could bring the longtime adversaries closer together, especially with the policy of increased engagement pushed by President Obama, experts argue. Wayne Smith, a former American diplomat in Havana who is now a fellow at the Washington-based Center for International Policy, has brought an array of American officials to Cuba in recent years to look at how Cuban disaster preparedness programs manage to keep the number of hurricane deaths on the island so low.

The time is right, US and Cuba moving forward on relations Haven 6/21 --- Paul Haven, Associated Press bureau chief in Havana (Cuba, US Try Talking, but Face Many Obstacles, June 21, 2013, Associated Press, http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/cuba-us-talking-face-obstacles19457659#.Uc2ttT7wJ9k, accessed June 28, 2013, MY) They've hardly become allies, but Cuba and the U.S. have taken some baby steps toward rapprochement in recent weeks that have people on this island and in Washington wondering if a breakthrough in relations could be just over the horizon. Skeptics caution that the
shifting on both sides of the Florida Straits. In

Cold War enemies have been here many times before, only to fall back into old recriminations. But there are signs that views might be

the past week, the two countries have held talks on resuming direct mail service, and announced a July 17 sit-down on migration issues. In May, a U.S. federal judge allowed a convicted Cuban intelligence agent to return to the island. This month, Cuba informed the family of jailed U.S. government subcontractor Alan Gross that it would let an American doctor
changes, including making it easier for Cubans to travel off the island. Under

examine him, though the visit has apparently not yet happened. President Raul Castro has also ushered in a series of economic and social

the radar, diplomats on both sides

describe a sea change in the tone of their dealings. Only last year, Cuban state television was broadcasting Today, U.S. diplomats in Havana and Cuban Foreign Ministry officials have easy contact,

grainy footage of American diplomats meeting with dissidents on Havana streets and publically accusing them of being CIA front-men.

even sharing home phone numbers. Josefina Vidal, Cuba's top diplomat for North American affairs, recently traveled to
Washington and met twice with State Department officials a visit that came right before the announcements of resumptions in the two sets of bilateral talks that had been suspended for more than two years. Washington has also granted visas to prominent Cuban officials, including the daughter of Cuba's president. "These

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

US Cuba relations key to Caribbean security Birns 13 Larry Birns, Council on Hemispheric Affairs Director [Best Time for U.S. Cuba Rapprochement Is Now, COHA, 1/30/13,
http://www.coha.org/best-time-for-u-s-cuba-rapprochement-is-now/, accessed: 7/4/13, JK] The Obama Administration should

be prepared to take, in quick progression, three important initial steps to trigger a speedy rapprochement with Cuba: immediately phase out the embargo, free the Cuban five, and remove Havana from the spurious State Department roster of nations purportedly sponsoring terrorism. These measures should be seen as indispensable if Washington is to ever mount a credible regional policy of mutual respect among nations and adjust to the increased ideological diversity and independence of the Latin American and Caribbean regions. Caribbean insecurity causes bioterrorism, LNG explosions, terrorism Bryan 1 - Anthony T. Bryan, Director of the Caribbean Program North/South Center, and Stephen E. Flynn, Senior Fellow Council
on Foreign elations [Terrorism, Porous Borders, and Homeland Security: The Case for U.S.-Caribbean Cooperation, CF , 11/21/01, http://www.cfr.org/publication/4844/terrorism_porous_borders_and _homeland_ security.html, accessed: 7/4/13, JK] Terrorist acts can take place anywhere. The Caribbean is no exception. Already

the linkages between drug trafficking and terrorism are clear in countries like Colombia and Peru, and such connections have similar potential in the Caribbean. The security of major industrial complexes in some Caribbean countries is vital. Petroleum refineries and major industrial estates in Trinidad, which host more than 100 companies that produce the majority of the worlds methanol, ammonium sulphate, and 40 percent of U.S. imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG), are vulnerable targets. Unfortunately, as experience has shown in Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America, terrorists are likely to strike at U.S. and European interests in Caribbean countries. Security issues become even more critical when one considers the possible use of Caribbean countries by terrorists as bases from which to attack the United States. An airliner hijacked after departure from an airport in the northern Caribbean or the Bahamas can be flying over South Florida in less than an hour. Terrorists can sabotage or seize control of a cruise ship after the vessel leaves a Caribbean port. Moreover, terrorists with false passports and visas issued in the Caribbean may be able to move easily through passport controls in Canada or the United States.
(To help counter this possibility, some countries have suspended "economic citizenship" programs to ensure that known terrorists have not been inadvertently granted such citizenship.) Again, Caribbean

countries are as vulnerable as anywhere else to the clandestine manufacture and deployment of biological weapons within national borders. Caribbean insecurity leads to corruption, violence Brown 9 Evan Brown, member of University of Pittsburgh, Matthew B.

idgway Center for International Security Studies [D UG TRAFFICKING, VIOLENCE, AND INSTABILITY IN MEXICO, COLOMBIA, AND THE CARIBBEAN: IMPLICATIONS FOR U.S. NATIONAL

SECU ITY, Strategic Studies Institute, 10/30/09, http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB968.pdf, accessed: 7/4/13, JK]

the Caribbean has been the victim of extremely imbalanced relationships with the United States. One panelist pointed out that the islands were a minor consumer of drugs but a major transit point to the United States; with the attendant increase in corruption and violence, the Caribbean governments are ill-suited to combat it.
Panelists noted that

Cuban instability results in Latin American instability, terrorism, democratic backsliding, and distracts the US from critical hotspots including Africa, the Caucus, and North Korea Gorrell 5- Tim Gorrell, Lieutenant Colonel (CUBA: THE NEXT UNANTICIPATED ANTICIPATED ST ATEGIC
C ISIS? 3/18/05, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA433074, Accessed: 7/4/13, zs)

Regardless of the succession, under the current U.S. policy, Cubas problems of a post Castro transformation only worsen. In addition to Cubans on the island, there will be those in exile who will return claiming authority. And there are remnants of the dissident community within Cuba who will attempt to exercise similar authority. A power vacuum or absence of order will create the conditions for instability and civil war . Whether Raul or another successor from within the current government can hold power is debatable. However, that individual will nonetheless extend the current policies for an indefinite period, which will only compound the Cuban situation. When Cuba finally collapses anarchy is a strong possibility if the U.S. maintains the wait and see approach. The U.S. then must deal with an unstable country 90 miles off its coast. In the midst of this chaos, thousands will flee the island. During the Mariel boatlift in 1980 125,000 fled the island.26 Many were criminals; this time the number could be several hundred thousand flee ing to the U.S., creating a refugee crisis. Equally important, by adhering to a negative containment policy, the U.S. may be creating its next series of transnational criminal problems.
Cuba is along the axis of the drug-trafficking flow into the U.S. from Columbia. The Castro government as a matter of policy does not support the drug trade.

Cubas actions have shown that its stance on drugs is more than hollow rhetoric as indicated by its increasing seizure of drugs 7.5 tons in 1995, 8.8 tons in 1999, and 13 tons in 2000.27 While there may be individuals within the government and outside who engage in drug trafficking and a percentage of drugs entering the U.S. may pass through Cuba, the Cuban government is not the path of least resistance for the flow of drugs. If there were no Cuban restraints, the flow of drugs to the U.S. could be greatly facilitated by a Cuba base of operation and accelerate considerably. In the midst of an unstable Cuba, the opportunity for radical fundamentalist groups to operate in the region increases. If these groups can export terrorist activity from Cuba to the U.S. or throughout the hemisphere then the war against this extremism gets more complicated . Such activity could increase direct attacks and disrupt the economies, threatening the stability of the fragile democracies that are budding throughout the region. In light of a failed state in the region, the U.S. may be forced to deploy military forces to Cuba, creating the conditions for another insurgency . The ramifications of this action could very well fuel greater anti-American sentiment throughout the Americas. A proactive policy now can mitigate these potential
In fact,

future problems. U.S. domestic political support is also turning against the current negative policy. The Cuban American population in the U.S. totals 1,241,685 or 3.5% of the population.28 Most of these exiles reside in Florida; their influence has been a factor in determining the margin of victory in the past two presidential elections. But this election strategy may be flawed, because recent polls of Cuban Americans reflect a decline for President Bush based on his policy crackdown. There is a clear softening in the Cuban-American community with regard to sanctions. Younger Cuban Americans do not necessarily subscribe to the hard-line approach. These changes signal an opportunity for a new approach to U.S.-Cuban relations. (Table 1) The time has come to look

The U.S. can little afford to be distracted by a failed state 90 miles off its coast. The administration, given the present state of world affairs, does not have the luxury or the resources to pursue the traditional American model of crisis management. The President and other government and military leaders have warned that the GWOT will be long and
realistically at the Cuban issue. Castro will rule until he dies. The only issue is what happens then?

protracted. These warnings were sounded when the administration did not anticipate operations in Iraq consuming so many military, diplomatic and economic resources. There is justifiable concern that Africa and the Caucasus region are potential hot spots for terrorist activity, so these areas should be secure. North Korea will continue to be an unpredictable crisis in waiting. We also cannot ignore China . What if China resorts to aggression to resolve the Taiwan situation? Will the U.S. go to war over Taiwan? Additionally, Iran could conceivably be the next target for U.S. pre-emptive action. These are known and potential situations that could easily require all or many of the elements of national power to resolve. In view of such global issues, can the U.S. afford to sustain the status quo and simply let the Cuban situation play out? The U.S. is at a
crossroads: should the policies of the past 40 years remain in effect with vigor? Or should the U.S. pursue a new approach to Cuba in an effort to facilitate a manageable transition to post-Castro Cuba?

The plan is key to relationseven if Castro steps down in 2018 it wont be sufficient to solve relations Allam 2/25- Hannah Allam, writer for the McClatchy newspaper, (Even if aul Castro steps down in 2018,

U.S.-Cuba relations may not thaw, 2/25/13, http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/02/25/3253690_p2/evenif-raul-castro-steps-down.html, Accessed: 2/25/13, zs) Cuban President aul Castros announcement over the weekend that hell step down in 2018

after the five-year term he just began ends starts the countdown for U.S. officials contemplating a thaw in relations with the island nation. But analysts caution that so far the regimes reforms amount to window dressing.
By law, the United States is restricted from normalizing relations with Cuba as long as the island is ruled by the Castro brothers: ailing revolutionary leader Fidel, 86, and his brother Raul, 81. Raul Castro said Sunday that not only would he step aside in 2018, he also would propose term limits and age caps for future presidents, the latest in a series of moves that are hailed by some Cuba observers as steps toward reform but dismissed by others as disingenuous. But those are hardly the kinds of breakthrough reforms that State Department and independent analysts say will be needed to improve U.S.Cuba relations, which froze after the Cuban revolution of 1959 that saw Fidel Castro align himself with the communist bloc and the United States impose a trade embargo that 54 years later remains in place. Each side is making small, subtle moves, but since its a glacier, its not going to melt overnight, said Alex Crowther, a former U.S. Army colonel and Cuba specialist whose published commentaries on bilateral relations include a 2009 essay calling for an end to the embargo. Analysts of U.S.-Cuban relations said that the latest moves are primarily self-serving for the regime, allowing the two elderly brothers to handpick an acceptable successor before theyre too infirm to administer the country. aul Castros anointing of Communist Party stalwart Miguel Diaz -Canel, 52, as the favored successor was the most important takeaway from the presidents speech, several analysts agreed. It doesnt mean hes being chosen to succeed Raul, but it does mean theyre leaving the gerontocracy and opening up the aperture to younger leaders, Crowther said. Diaz-Canel is an impressive career politician, said Jorge Dominguez, a Cuban American professor of Mexican and Latin American politics and economics at Harvard University. He moved through the Communist Party ranks, serving as a provincial first secretary, minister of higher education, a member of the partys political bureau and one of the Castros gaggle of vice presidents. In those roles, he has a wider array of responsibilities that have positioned him well for

the eventual succession, Dominguez said. He has also been traveling abroad with aul to add foreign experience to what had been principally a domestic-policy resume. When Castro

elevated Diaz-Canel to first vice president and set a date for his own stepping aside, for the first time there was an expiration date for Castro rule of Cuba. It is true that other would-be successors appeared from time to time, but none was anointed, and none had a formal designation as the successor, Dominguez said. Sure, there will be political fights in the future .

Theirs is a political party, after all, and politicians will jockey for power and position. But Diaz-Canel is now the frontrunner.

The Castro brothers know by now that such moves also play well in the United States, where they just got a public relations boost with the remarks of a U.S. senator who led a delegation to Cuba this month to seek the release of Alan Gross, an American imprisoned on the island for illegally importing communications equipment while on a USAID-funded democracy-building program. After meeting Castro, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., told reporters that it was time to move on from the U.S. Cold War mentality toward Cuba. The State Department was publicly resistant Monday to calls for a softening of the U.S. stance toward Cuba, with a spokesman bluntly dismissing aul Castros promise to step down as not a fundamental change for Cuba because it lacked concrete measures toward democratic rule. We remain hopeful for the day

that the Cuban people get democracy, when they can have the opportunity to freely pick their own leaders in an open democratic process and enjoy the freedoms of speech and association without fear of reprisal, State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell told reporters Monday . Were clearly not there yet. In the 35-minute speech he gave when he was ratified for a second term as
president, Raul Castro made clear that he had no intention of moving away from his socialist roots. I was not chosen to be president to restore capitalism to Cuba. I was elected to defend, maintain and continue to perfect socialism, not destroy it, Castro told Parliament, according to a translation published in news reports. That message is why longtime Cuba observers find it hard to swallow that such an entrenched regime would willingly push reforms that could hasten the demise of Communist Party rule. Critics say Cubans are less likely to see a shift in U.S. policy than a rise in domestic unrest that forces change from within as Cubans grow impatient for promised reforms. Its political kabuki and Im not sure it can hold together for

another five years, said Jason Poblete, a Cuban-American attorney in Washington and an outspoken critic of the Castro regime. Lifting Embargo key to US-Cuba Relations that enhances security cooperation Burns and Mills 1/30 Larry Birns, Council on Hemispheric Affairs Director and Frederick B. Mills, COHA
Senior Research Fellow (Best Time for U.S. Cuba Rapprochement Is Now, Council on Hemispheric Affairs, 1/30/13, http://www.coha.org/best-time-for-u-s-cuba-rapprochement-is-now/, Accessed: 7/10/13, ckr)

The Obama Administration should be prepared to take, in quick progression, three important initial steps to trigger a speedy rapprochement with Cuba : immediately phase out the embargo, free
the Cuban five, and remove Havana from the spurious State Department roster of nations purportedly sponsoring terrorism. These measures should be seen as indispensable if Washington is to ever mount a credible regional policy of mutual respect among nations and adjust to the increased ideological diversity and independence of the Latin American and Caribbean regions. Washingtons path towards an urgently needed rehabilitation of its hemispheric policy ought to also include consideration of Cubas own pressing national interests. A thaw in USCuba

relations would enhance existing security cooperation between the countries, amplify trade and commercial ties, and guarantee new opportunities for citizens of both nations to build bridges of friendship and cooperation. For this to happen, the Obama Administration would have to muster the audacity
to resist the anti-Castro lobby and their hardline allies in Congress, whose Cuba bashing has no limits. Nevertheless, it is time to replace belligerency with dtente. This essay argues that the embargo against Cuba is blatantly counterproductive, immoral, and anachronistic. If the initial purpose of this measure was to punish Havana for expropriating U.S. property and to bring about fundamental political and economic reforms, Washington has had more than 50 years to see that the status quo is flawed. Over the years, invasion, embargo, and covert psychological operations against Cuba have only served to reinforce a circle the wagons mentality in Havana. The island also has been subject to a relentless barrage of propaganda and terrorist assaults organized by militant anti-Castro zealots to advance their cause. These attacks include the 1997 bombing of three hotels in Havana which resulted in the death of Italian tourist Fabio Di Celmo, and the deadly 1976 downing of a Cuban civilian jet. Rather than succumbing to pressure, all of these incidents have given the majority of Cuban nationals good reason to raise defensive barricades in the face of repeated threats to the survival of their homeland.

Cuba wants relations with the US embargo blocks it Snow 10- Anita Snow, Editor on Latin America regional desk at Associated Press (Cuba embargo: UN vote urges
US to lift embargo, 10/26/10, http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Latest-News-Wires/2010/1026/Cuba-embargo-UNvote-urges-US-to-lift-embargo, 7/10/13, ckr)

Last year's U.N. vote was 187-3 to end the embargo, with only Israel and the tiny Pacific island nation of
Palau supporting the United States. "This is about a cruel and aggressive policy," Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez told the body, "absolutely contrary to international law, that this government insists on

maintaining knowing that it causes harm, hardships and violates the human rights of an entire people." "This is not a bilateral issue, as is commonly repeated by the U.S. representatives," Rodriguez added, complaining about the sanctions' "remarkable extraterritorial character." Nevertheless, Cuba "will continue to be ready to establish peaceful and respectful relations with the United States," Rodriguez said.
American Ambassador Ronald D. Godard, U.S. Senior Area Adviser for Western Hemisphere Affairs, insisted that the embargo is a bilateral issue "and part of a broader set of relations meant to encourage a more open environment in Cuba and increased respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms." "We should not lose sight of that in a debate mired in rhetorical arguments of the past and focused on tactical differences, a debate that does nothing to help the Cuban people," he said.

Baby steps towards US and Cuba increased relations Haven 6/22/13- Paul Haven, former Associated Press bureau chief in Havana, deputy Latin America and
Caribbean editor (Cuba, U.S. try talking, but still face many obstacles, Daily Star, http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/International/2013/Jun-21/221161-cuba-us-try-talking-but-face-manyobstacles.ashx#axzz2XX13hW88, accessed: 6/28/13, ML) Theyve hardly become allies, but Cuba and the U.S. have taken some baby steps toward rapprochement in recent weeks that have people on this island and in Washington wondering if a breakthrough in relations could be just over the horizon. Skeptics caution that the Cold War enemies have been here many times before, only to fall back into old recriminations. But there are signs that views might be shifting on both sides of the Florida Straits. In the past week, the two countries have

held talks on resuming direct mail service, and announced a July 17 sit-down on migration issues. In May, a U.S. federal judge allowed a convicted Cuban intelligence agent to return to the island. This month, Cuba informed the family of jailed U.S. government subcontractor Alan Gross that it Castro has also ushered in a series of economic and social changes, including making it easier for Cubans to travel off the island. Under the radar, diplomats on both sides describe a sea

would let an American doctor examine him, though the visit has apparently not yet happened. President Raul

change in the tone of their dealings. Only last year, Cuban state television was broadcasting grainy footage of American diplomats meeting with dissidents on Havana streets and publically accusing them of being CIA front men. Today, U.S. diplomats in Havana and Cuban Foreign Ministry officials have easy contact, even sharing home phone numbers. Josefina Vidal, Cubas top diplomat for North American affairs, recently traveled to Washington and met twice with State Department officials. Washington has also granted visas to prominent Cuban officials, including the daughter of Cubas president. These recent

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

Appointment of Diaz Canel does not mean normalization of relations.

Alam 2013 [Hannah Alam. Hannah is a writer for the Miami herald. Even if Raul Castro
steps down in 2018, U.S.-Cuba relations may not thaw. Miami Herald. McClatchy Newspapers. 2/25/13. Accessed: July 2, 2013.]

WASHINGTON -- Cuban President Raul Castros announcement over the weekend that hell step down in 2018 after the five-year term he just began ends starts the countdown for U.S. officials contemplating a thaw in relations with the island nation. But analysts caution that so far the regimes reforms amount to window dressing. By law, the United States is restricted from normalizing relations with Cuba as long as the island is ruled by the Castro brothers: ailing revolutionary leader Fidel, 86, and his brother Raul, 81. Raul Castro said Sunday that not only would

he step aside in 2018, he also would propose term limits and age caps for future presidents,
the latest in a series of moves that are hailed by some Cuba observers as steps toward reform but dismissed by others as disingenuous. But those are hardly the kinds of breakthrough reforms that State Department and independent analysts say will be needed to improve U.S.-Cuba relations, which froze after the Cuban revolution of 1959 that saw Fidel Castro align himself with the communist bloc and the United States impose a trade embargo that 54 years later remains in place. Each side is making small, subtle moves, but since its a glacier, its not going to melt overnight, said Alex Crowther, a former U.S. Army colonel and Cuba specialist whose published commentaries on bilateral relations include a 2009 essay calling for an end to the embargo. Analysts of U.S.-Cuban relations said that the latest moves are primarily selfserving for the regime, allowing the two elderly brothers to handpick an acceptable successor before theyre too infirm to administer the country. aul Castros anointing of Communist Party stalwart Miguel DiazCanel, 52, as the favored successor was the most important takeaway from the presidents speech, several analysts agreed. It doesnt mean hes being chosen to succeed aul, but it does mean theyre leaving the gerontocracy and opening up the aperture to younger leaders, Crowther said. Diaz-Canel is an impressive career politician, said Jorge Dominguez, a Cuban American professor of Mexican and Latin American politics and economics at Harvard University. He moved through the Communist Party ranks, serving as a provincial first secretary, minister of higher education, a member of the partys political bureau and one of the Castros gaggle of vice presidents. In those roles, he has a wider array of responsibilities that have positioned him well for the eventua l succession, Dominguez said. He has also been traveling abroad with Raul to add foreign experience to what had been principally a domesticpolicy resume. When Castro elevated Diaz-Canel to first vice president and set a date for his own stepping aside, for the first time there was an expiration date for Castro rule of Cuba. It is true that other would -be successors appeared from time to time, but none was anointed, and none had a formal designation as the successor, Dominguez said. Sure, there will be political fights in the future. Theirs is a political party, after all, and politicians will jockey for power and position. But Diaz-Canel is now the frontrunner. The

Castro brothers know by now that such moves also play well in the United States, where they just got a public relations boost with the remarks of a U.S. senator who led a delegation to Cuba this month to seek the release of Alan Gross, an American imprisoned on the island for
illegally importing communications equipment while on a USAID-funded democracy-building program.

Cuba open to relations with US recent actions show News24 6/27/13 News24: Breaking News. First. (Cuba not safe for Snowden analysts, News24,
6/27/13, http://www.news24.com/World/News/Cuba-not-safe-for-Snowden-analysts-20130627, accessed: 7/4/13, amf)

US-Cuban relations have also been strained by the case of Alan Gross, a US government subcontractor who was convicted of spying and sentenced in 2011 to 15 years in prison. But now, with Raul Castro introducing timid economic reforms, a greater political pragmatism is seen as gaining ground.

Economic reform

A recent reform made it easier for Cubans to travel abroad. And Cuba is discussing migration-related questions with the United States, where hundreds of
thousands of Cubans have sought exile over the decades. extradition treaty.

Cuba is on the US black list of states protecting terrorists, and the two countries have no But that did not hamper swift co-operation in early April, when it took Havana just 48 hours to repatriate a US couple, which had abducted its own children after losing custody over them
and fled to Cuba.

The case reflects an interest in Havana in not straining relations with Washington, even if Cuba still does not want to make "unilateral and definitive concessions" without receiving anything in return, Lopez Levy told dpa. US-Cuba ties key to economic competitiveness and preventing conflict, particularly in Latin America Honda 10 Representative Mike Honda, U.S. Representative for California's 17th

congressional district, encompassing western San Jose and Silicon Valley, has served in Congress since 2001. (Honda: Embargo on Cuba No Longer Makes Sense, Roll Call, May 4, 2010, http://www.rollcall.com/issues/55_126/-45782-1.html, accessed: 7/3/13, LR)

Politically, now that Latin America stands beside Cuba as evidenced by diplomatic reinstatements with holdouts El Salvador and Costa Rica, and the reintegration of Cuba into the Organization for American States and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States the U.S. risks ruinous relations with countries that see the blockade as backward. The U.S. is already marginalized: CLACS explicitly bars U.S. participation. The impact of this Latin tack toward insularity is not insignificant. Consider grandstanding by Brazilian President Luiz Incio Lula da Silva, who rebuffed Secretary of State Hillary odham Clintons efforts to bring Brazil on Iran sanctions while courting Cubas leadership. Lula, capitalizing on Cubas appetite for growth, proposed investments in industrial, agriculture and infrastructure projects, including ports and hotels, and an agreement with Brazils oil company. We will see more of this. The Cubans are seeking suitors. Like the Bank of the South, Latin Americas attempt to wean countries off U.S. institutions like the World Bank, the longer we keep Cuba at arms length, the more likely Brazil and others will take our place. Embargo causes US-Cuba war Amash 12- Brandon Amash, writer at the Prospect Journal, (EVALUATING THE CUBAN EMBARGO, 7/23/12, http://prospectjournal.org/2012/07/23/evaluatingthe-cuban-embargo/, 6/28/13, CAS) 3.3: The current policy may drag the United States into a military conflict with Cuba. Military conflict may be inevitable in the future if the embargos explicit goal creating an insurrection in Cuba to overthrow the government is achieved, and the United States may not be ready to step
in. As atliff and Fontaine detail, Americans are not prepared to commit the military resources [] (Fontaine 57), especially after unpopular wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Much like Americas current situation with isolated rogue states such as Iran and North Korea, Cubas isolation may also lead to war for other reasons, like the American occupation of Guantanamo Bay. These consequences are

inherently counterproductive for the democratization of Cuba and the improvement of human rights. Cuba wants relations with the US Snow 10- Anita Snow, Editor on Latin America regional desk at Associated Press, (Cuba embargo: UN vote urges US to lift embargo, 10/26/10,

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Latest-News-Wires/2010/1026/Cubaembargo-UN-vote-urges-US-to-lift-embargo, 7/3/13, CAS)


Last year's U.N. vote was 187-3 to end the embargo, with only Israel and the tiny Pacific island
nation of Palau supporting the United States. "This is about a cruel and aggressive policy," Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez told the body, "absolutely contrary to international law, that this government insists on maintaining

knowing that it causes harm, hardships and violates the human rights of an entire people." "This is not a bilateral issue, as is commonly repeated by the U.S. representatives," Rodriguez added,
complaining about the sanctions' "remarkable extraterritorial character." Nevertheless, Cuba "will continue to be ready to establish peaceful and respectful relations with the United States," Rodriguez said. American Ambassador Ronald D. Godard, U.S. Senior Area Adviser for Western Hemisphere Affairs, insisted that the embargo is a bilateral issue "and part of a broader set of relations meant to encourage a more open environment in Cuba and increased respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms." "We should not lose sight of that in a debate mired in rhetorical arguments of the past and focused on tactical differences, a debate that does nothing to help the Cuban people," he said.

Removing embargo solves narcotics cooperation key Johnson, Spector and Lilac 10 - Andy Johnson, Director, National Security Program, Kyle Spector, Policy Advisor, National Security Program , Kristina Lilac, National Security Program, Senior Fellows of The Third Way Institute, (End the Embargo of Cuba, Article for The Third Way Institute, 9/16/10, http://content.thirdway.org/publications/326/Third_Way_Memo__End_the_Embargo_of_Cuba.pdf, Accessed 7/02/13, AW) Others have argued that US - Cuba cooperation on issues such as counter - narcotics efforts cou ld benefit both countries and initiate trust - building among the two countries. Policymakers on both sides of the aisle can agree that the embargo has failed to meet its stated purpose of bringing change to Cubas communist government, making a change in c ourse a necessary next step. Lifting the antiquated embargo would help to move Cuba into the 21 st century, removing the barriers currently preventing the US from engaging Cuba and presenting the US with an opportunity to bring about change in Cuba through economic and diplomatic channels. By opening Cuba, the US could finally achieve the change it has been seeking for nearly fifty years.

US-EU relations
Lifting the embargo improves democracy, relations, and US global reputation Hanson, Batten, & Ealey 1/16 --- Daniel Hanson, Dayne Batten & Harrison Ealey, 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, January 16, 2013, Forbes, http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/01/16/its-timefor-the-u-s-to-end-its-senseless-embargo-of-cuba/, accessed June 28, 2013, MY) For the first time in more than fifty years, Cuban citizens can travel abroad without permission from their government. The move, part of a broader reform package being phased in by Raul Castro, underscores the irrationality of Americas continuation of a five-decade old embargo. While the
embargo has been through several legal iterations in the intervening years, the general tenor of the U.S. position toward Cuba is a hardline not-inmy-backyard approach to communism a la the Monroe Doctrine. The

official position is outdated, hypocritical, and counterproductive. The Cuban embargo was inaugurated by a Kennedy administration executive order in 1960 as a response to the
confiscation of American property in Cuba under the newly installed Castro regime. The current incarnation of the embargo codified primarily in the Helms-Burton Act aims at producing free markets and representative democracy in Cuba through economic sanctions, travel restrictions, and international legal penalties. 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 this progress, 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. At the Miami International Airport, visitors arriving from a Cuban airport are seven times more likely to be stopped and subjected to further customs inspections than are visitors from other countries. More than 70 percent of the Treasurys Office of Foreign Assets Control inspections each year are centered on rooting out smuggled Cuban goods even though the agency administers more than 20 other trade bans. Government

resources could be better spent on the enforcement of other sanctions, such as illicit drug trade from Columbia, rather than the search for contraband cigars and rum. At present, the U.S. is largely alone in restricting access to Cuba. The embargo has long been a point of friction between the United 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 nationalized during the
Castro takeover have dropped their claims. Moreover, since Europeans, Japanese, and Canadians can travel and conduct business in Cuba unimpeded, the sanctions are rather toothless. The State Department has argued that the cost of conducting business in Cuba is only negligibly higher because of the embargo. For American multinational corporations wishing to undertake commerce in Cuba, foreign branches find it easy to conduct exchanges. Yet, 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 unemployment rate currently stands at 8.1 percent. Whats

worse, U.S. sanctions encourage Cuba to collaborate with regional players that are less friendly to American interests. For instance, in 2011, the country inked a deal with Venezuela for the construction of an underwater communications link, circumventing its need to connect with US-owned networks close to its shores. Repealing the embargo would fit into an American precedent of lifting trade and travel restrictions to countries who demonstrate progress towards democratic ideals. Romania, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary were all offered normal
trade relations in the 1970s after preliminary reforms even though they were still in clear violation of several US resolutions condemning their human rights practices. China, a communist country and perennial human rights abuser, is the U.S.s second largest trading pa rtner, and in November, trade restrictions against Myanmar were lessened notwithstanding a fifty year history of genocide and human trafficking propagated by its military government. Which, of course, begs the question: when will the U.S. see fit to lift the embargo? If Cuba is trending towards democracy and free markets, what litmus test must be passed for the embargo to be rolled back? The cost of the embargo to the United States is high in both dollar and moral terms, but it is higher for the Cuban people, who are cut off from the supposed champion of liberty in their

hemisphere because of an antiquated Cold War dispute. The progress being made in Cuba could be accelerated with the help of American charitable relief, business innovation, and tourism. A perpetual embargo on a developing nation that is moving towards reform makes little sense, especially when Americas

allies are openly hostile to the embargo. It keeps a broader discussion about smart reform in Cuba from gaining life, and it makes no economic sense. It is time for the embargo to go. The EU has made it illegal to comply with the embargo. Stern 12 - Scott Stern, undergraduate at Yale University who majors in International Relations [Lift the Cuba embargo, Yale Daily News,
2/10/12, http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2012/02/10/stern-lift-the-cuba-embargo/, accessed: 6/27/13, JK]

It has also hurt the United States relationships with other countries the European Parliament actually passed a law making it illegal for Europeans to comply with certain parts of the embargo. The purpose of the
The embargo has stunted the Cuban economy and limited Cubans access to good food, modern technology and useful medicine. embargo was undeniably to make life so difficult for Cubans that they would see the error of their ways and expel Castro and communism. The United States government has maintained for 50 years that it will not do business with Cuba until it learns to respect human rights and liberty.

Challenges for societal autonomy have been co-opted and limited by state control Hoffmann 11- Bert Hoffmann, Senior Researcher GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies ( Civil Society 2.0?: How the
Internet Changes State-Society Relations in Authoritarian Regimes: The Case of Cuba, GIGA Research Programme: Legitimacy and Efficiency of Political Systems, January 2011 https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gigahamburg.de%2Fdl%2Fdownload.php%3Fd%3D%2Fcontent%2Fpublikationen%2Fpdf%2Fwp156_hoffmann.pdf&ei=D93SUbinBNi4AOfwoHoDw&usg=AFQjCNGPPcalsf1La5yMENpZb7PxMV2i3Q&sig2=cSL3cBqrRtpr1ysxnhEqzQ

The Cuban Revolution of 1959 redefined state-societyrelations. Most existing civil society organizations were either disbanded or transformed (and new ones created) according to a mold in which loyalty and subordination to the revolutionary leadership were a conditio sine qua non.1 With the socalled "process of institutionalization" in the 1970s, state-society rela- tions were formally modeled in Marxist-Leninist fashion: the Constitution of 1976 defined the Communist Party as the "highest leading force of society and of the state, which organ- izes and guides the common effort" (Republica de Cuba 1992 5) and declared as mission of "the social and mass organizations [.] the edification, consolidation and defense of the so- cialist society" (ibid. 7). Freedom of speech and of press were limited, by constitutional pre- scription, "in keeping with the objectives of socialist society" (Republica de Cuba 1992). To this end, Article 52 of the Cuban Constitution effectively establishes a monopoly on mass media: "Material conditions for the exercise of that right are provided by the fact that the press, radio, television, cinema, and other mass media are state or social property and can never be private property" (ibid. 52,1).1 For Cuban civil society prior to 1959
see Armony/Crahan 2007; on trade unions and the women's federation see Marifeli Perez-Stable 1994.

Organizational activities that remained (at least partially) outside of these parameters were few and narrowly restricted; arguably, the most important one being the Catholic church, which
maintained a nationwide and legally recognized institutional infrastructure that included media for internal circulation (Armony/Crahan 2007).2 In the charismatic brand of socialism that characterized post-1959 Cuba and which set it apart from the standard Eastern European model (Hoffmann 2008), formal prescriptions like the constitutional provisions on the media were complemented with declarations by the charismatic leader, Fidel Castro, which carried no less practical weight. The key statement on the margins for voice were his so-called

"words to the intellectuals" from 1961, which pro- vided the following maxim: "Within the Revolution, everything. Against the Revolution, nothing."3 This sentence, repeated ad infinitum ever since, acquired law-like status and left ample discretion for the power-holders to define at every instance what was "within" and what was "against" the revolution. Aside from media, a central and related concern was on public space. In the dualism of Cuba's charismatic brand of socialism, formal restrictions on the freedom of assembly also found their informal equivalent in the slogan

"The street is Fidel's!",4 a code the state invoked to justify the prohibition or repression of protesting voices in public. The severe limits imposed on public voices contrasted with an often
surprising level of tolerance towards criticism voiced in private-an ambivalence which led Cubans to paraphrase Fidel's 1961 words as "Under the roof, everything. In the street, nothing. After the regime collapses in

Eastern Europe and the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991, a profound economic, social and ideological crisis in Cuba ensued, one that called into ques- tion the viability of state-society relations as they had developed in the three decades since 1959. Internationally, civil society had gone from
a buzzword in academia to a resounding career path in international and development politics. Particularly the role ascribed to civil society in bringing down state-socialism in Eastern Europe (Arato/Cohen 1992, Havel 1978) provided the background for the concept being taken up by U.S. policy towards Cuba, which in the early 1990s, publicly adopted "the fostering of Cuba's civil society" as a "second track" next to economic sanctions to bring about regime change in Havana. These political overtones notwithstanding, it was within the official

intellectual institutions on the island that in the mid-1990s, the term "civil society" became the focus of a key debate about the country's course (Gray/Kapcia 2008). As the concept of civil society stresses some degree of autonomy from the "political society" (state, parties, parliaments, etc.) (e.g. Fernandez 1993: 99), in a state-socialist country this conception invariably raises the question about the role of state and party and the margins of associational autonomy within such a framework. This
debate about civil society within state-socialism marked a new discussion not only for Cuba, but also internationally. An article by Rafael Hernandez from Havana's Center for American Studies (CEA) initi-ated the Cuban civil society debate in 1994. In it, he underscored the Marxist ideological cre- dentials of the term claiming its tradition in the writings of Hegel, Marx and Gramsci and argued for "the necessity and usefulness [of applying] the concept to the analysis of current problems in Cuba" (Hernandez 1994: 30).6 Hernandez argued that both civil society and

the socialist state are "organic segments of the socialist system," which are interconnected and mutually reinforcing (Hernandez 1994: 31). Moreover, the distinction between civil society and the state should
be of great practical importance for Cuba because "the dynamics of civil society have been overshadowed by a strong politicization of social relations and institutions in Cuba" (ibid.: 30). This indirect call for a de-

politicization of social relations provides the signpost for the ensuing debate: reclaiming greater autonomy of the social sphere and its organizations and institutions from the state. The background
of this argument is the deep economic crisis that has plagued Cuba since the demise of its socialist allies overseas in 1989/90 and the consequences of that crisis for Cuban society-above all, the bitter divide between the depressed peso economy and the emergent enclaves of "dollarized" sectors in tourism and joint ventures, and the rapidly growing role of illegal and legal market mechanisms.7 On this, Hernandez (ibid.: 30) writes: The problems the

Cuban society is facing cannot be contained within the limits of an economic analysis. Both the causes and the consequences of th