You are on page 1of 224

1AC

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. Lifting the embargo creates economic engagement that spurs democracy in Cuba. Prospect Journal of International Affairs 12 (Project Journal of International Affairs At USCD, July 23
2012, EVALUATING THE CUBAN EMBARGO, http://prospectjournal.org/2012/07/23/evaluating-the-cubanembargo/, TL)

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 will 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.

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 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. Washingt on also pressed its allies to impose sanctions. These various measures had no evident effect, other than to intensify Cubas relia nce 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 justify 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 gro wth, Cuban society will 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.

As intellectuals we have a moral obligation to advocate for lifting the embargo OBrian 13 (Bendan OBrian, The Guardian, End Cuba Embargo,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/18/end-cuba-embargo-us , AKY) Javier Corrales, an American academic based in Massachusetts, apparently considers himself an expert on the Cuban economy and is recognised as such by the Guardian (Report, 18 July). He says the great problem for the Cuban government is that "whenever they try to imagine a better Cuba, they can only remember the past". He should look closer to home and ask himself if it is his own government that is stuck in the past. For over 50 years, since it nationalised the property of US corporations and citizens, Cuba has suffered a crippling embargo imposed by the US. In spite of that Cuba has a far better record, including its role in world affairs, than the US, especially given its comparatively small resources. All right-thinking people should be calling for an end to this economic war against Cuba. The greater the power and influence they have the greater their moral

obligation to do so, and this includes intellectuals at US elite academic institutions and, very much, the government of our own country. 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.

Cuban Embargo fails to meet the basic standards of humanitarian policy Lopez-Levy and Abrahams 8 Arturo, Masters in International Affairs from Columbia, Harlan S., LLM,
Harvard Law School (2008, 2008 A.Lopez-Levy & H. Abrahams, ANYTHING BUT HUMAN RIGHTS: U.S. POLICY TOWARD CUBA, http://www.upf.edu/dcpis/_pdf/alopezlevy.pdf, accessed 7-19-13, BH) B. Does

the U.S. Embargo against Cuba satisfy the norms for a legitimate Human Rights policy? Analyzing the impact of specific foreign policies on the Human Rights practices of other states involves both tangible and intangible inquiries. In the case of U.S. policy toward Cuba, we must include all the tangible numbers, like political prisoners, life expectancy at birth, school attendance and achievement data, and laws restricting freedom to travel or religion. But we must also include intangible values like exercising moral leadership, empowering victims of abuse, and reinforcing nascent democratic civil sectors. By almost any standardtangible or intangibleWashingtons policy toward Cuba has short-changed real Human Rights concerns. The codification of the Embargo in the 1996 Helms-Burton legislation has retarded rather than advanced Human Rights on the island. Statistics show the number of Cuban laws contradicting Human Rights or reducing their scope actually increased in parallel to the strengthening of the Embargo. Similarly, food, health and education standards have decreased during the periods in which the Embargo has been toughened, like in the early 1960s and following the passage of Helms-Burton. Genuine substantive differences exist between a real Human Rights approach and the

policy codified in Helms-Burton . The statute was motivated by the exiles dream of recovering properties nationalized five decades ago as part of a revolution. The laws definition of government in transition or democratic government includes a requirement of restitution or compensation for nationalized properties. These interests have little to do with improving Human Rights in Cuba today. Indeed, such emphasis on private property is absent from the major Human Rights treaties.

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 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 ambitions has 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 Israel allow anyone with these kinds of malici ous designs against us to have control of weapons of destruction that can threaten our existence. 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 US-Cuba Relations Advantage


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 traffickin g. 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 failure to reform will cause Cuban instability. 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 themsel ves 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.

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
and the Caucasus

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?

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 million in 2010 alone. TB 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.
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.

ding such fundamental topics as the lifting of the blockade, Cubas exclusion from the arbitrary and illegal lis t of terrorism-sponsoring countries, and return of the territory occupied by the Guantanamo Naval base, and others. An essential part of that agenda was the release of the five Cuban anti-terrorists who remained imprisoned or retained in the United States, he added. Action on Draft Taking the floor ahead of action on the draft resolution, the representative of the United States said that his country, like others, determined the conduct of its economic relationships with other States based on its best interest. Regarding Cuba, the priority of President Obamas Administration was to empower Cubans to determine their own future. Connections must be built between the American and Cuban people, and those links should help to provide Cubans with the tools necessary to move forward. In that regard, the hundreds of thousands of Cuban Americans who had sent remittances and travelled to the island since the start of the Obama Administration were a central part of the strategy to help Cubans have the opportunities that they deserved. Such actions provided alternative sources of information and strengthened civil society, he stressed. In contrast, the resolution presented by Cuba today sought to identify an external scapegoat for the countrys economic problems, where in fact, they were caused by the Cuban Governments policies over the last half a century. Indeed, he went on, Cuba still had one of the most restrictive economic systems in the world. Irrespective of United States policy, it was unrealistic to expect Cub a to thrive unless it opened its monopolies, respected international property rights and allowed unfettered access to the Internet, among other things. He stressed that the United States was in fact a deep and abiding friend to the Cuban people; by its o wn account it was one of Cubas principal trading partners, and it had authorized an estimated $1.2 billion in humanitarian assistance in 2011, among other forms of assistance. The country remained committed to the welfare of the Cuban people despite such Cuban policies as those that allowed for the detention of Alan Gross, who had been sentenced to 15 years in prison in Cuba for facilitating Internet access for Cubas Jewish population. In addition, the Assembly could not ignore the ease and frequency with which Cuba inflicted politically motivated detentions, impeded access to journalism and restricted similar freedoms. The resolution before the Assembly today only served to distract from the real problems facing the Cuban people, he stressed, adding that the United States would therefore vote against it. Next, the delegate of Nicaragua condemned the United States embargo for its negative consequences it had inflicted on the Cuban children, women and men. For the twenty-first time, the General Assembly, which represented

the Governments of the world, was speaking out for the Cuban people in a unanimous way, calling for the ending of blockage. In that vein, her delegation would vote in favour of the resolution and for
the generous nation of Cuba, which supported its people, the sick or elderly, through its social programmes. Nicaragua and Cuba had commenced cooperation, including technological assistance, to lift people out of poverty. Cuba was making significant contributions to humanity. The Assembly had just heard the representative of the United States try to justify Washingtons embargo, but such a measure was unjustifiable. In any case, the Cuban people were determined and would never bend; they were known for their nobility in the Latin American and Caribbean region. The United States had defied the General Assembly by continuing the criminal blockade. It was now high time to rectify the violations by the United States of international law and the United Nations Charter. The United States should not continue to be deaf to the international communitys call. The embargo remained an obstacle to Cubas social and economic development. She also urged the United States to release the five Cuban heroes who had been detained. Any coercive measures ran

counter to multilateralism. The United States imperialistic policy was unacceptable under Latin American norms, which valued good neighbourliness.

Agriculture

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, Represent ative Lampson

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
believes that the economic 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 Furthermore, 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 S tates.129 Thus, both countries could save considerable amounts of time and money because of reduced transportation costs.130 Moreover, American

farmers products could be easily and quickly transported to Cuba if the embargo were lifted.131 C. The Cuban
Economy The Cuban economy is in terrible shape.132 Presently, the Cuban economy has stagn ated 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 i ts major commercial markets together with the Soviet subsidies it had been receivin g.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 bi llion.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. agricul tural 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 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 tr ade 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 Havan a more than four decades ago. The document states that because of the 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 away, the report no tes. 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 p ossibilities 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 (Farmers
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. W hile 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 effecti ve 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 pl an. They do not export paddy rice from Asia so the Cubans have to crunch the numbers to see which is the best deal for them, Roberts added. I think they will continue 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 firs t one in Cancun and we had people from 22 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).

Human rights

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)

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 United

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 i n 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 famine


Embargo causes food shortages- removal is key to stop the suffering of Cuban citizens Zimmerman 10 (CHELSEA A. ZIMMERMAN, assistant professor at Barnard College)(dd/mm/yy,
Rethinking The Cuban Trade Embargo: An Opportune Time To Mend a Broken Policy , http://www.thepresidency.org/storage/documents/Fellows2010/Zimmerman.pdf)(PLeon)

Cuba is recovering from a series of hurricanes and tropical storms that hit Cuba in the fall of 2008 that by some estimates have caused over $9 billion worth of damage to Cuban farms and industry. Because food shortages are a serious problem in Cuba, the trade embargo with Cuba has resulted in increased suffering of the Cuban people. According to Peter Schwab, the most explosive impact of the U.S. embargo, even worse than that on public health, 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,

Cuban people have suffered from a crumbling econom y under Fidel Castros rule, and the embargo imposed by the U.S. government has only made on attempts to weaken the Castro regime. Treasury officials are devoting their energy to tracing property owned in Cuba to make sure it wasnt stolen from U.S. citizens or corporations and enforcing complex regulations regarding payment for exports to Cuba (Lukas, 1). Funds spent on Radio Marti (which is electronically jammed by the Cuban government) could instead be diverted to programs addressing food shortages. The economic sanctions imposed on Cuba have caused further suffering by the Cuban people, and have not come close to achieving the goal of establishing democracy in Cuba.
1). The

Now is time to lift Cuban embargo, Humanitarian obligations Pomerantz 13


(Phyllis Pomerantz is a professor of the practice of public policy at Duke Universitys Sanford School of Public Policy and a former staff member of the World Bank, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/nows-the-timeto-lift-the-us-embargo-on-cuba/article6790494/, SR)
Now that the election is over, the United States has a rare opportunity to do away with one of its most pointless and ineffective foreign policies the embargo of Cuba that is as obsolete as the cool 1950s and 1960s sedans still running on the streets of Havana. Just a few weeks ago, U.S. President Barack Obama sat down with leaders in Myanmar, an international pariah for many years with a military responsible for thousands of civilian deaths. The United States now trades actively with Vietnam, which remains under the control of the same Communist Party against whom it once fought and lost a terrible war. The U.S. has a normal, albeit complex, diplomatic and commercial relationship with China, another Communist country. Yet, Cuba

is still treated as a pariah, a bizarre relic of the Cold War. I just returned from a visit there and realized that lifting the embargo would be to both countries advantage. Americans would have full access to Cubas rich culture and natural beauty, and some new trade and investment opportunities. Cuba would have expanded economic options, which it needs to improve the material well-being of its citizens. The U.S. has had normal diplomatic and commercial relationships with regimes and despots
of all stripes from Mobutu in Zaire to Mubarak in Egypt. The list is long. So what makes Cuba so special? Is it because it is so close to the continental United States? No the U.S. has had a good, if testy, formal relationship with Mexico for many years, including when it was a oneparty state. Is it because Cuba poses a military threat? Maybe, once upon a time. But if Americans got over the Vietnam War, they surely can put the Cuban (or was that Soviet?) missile crisis behind them, especially since the U.S. now has quite a normal relationship with Russia. What about a security threat? Arguably, almost every country could be wittingly or unwittingly harboring e xtremist plotters. Somehow, though, I dont think al-Qaeda operatives are drinking mojitos on Cuban beaches. Cuba loosened its ban on organized religion some time ago, but imagining either the government or its people sympathetic to Islamic fundamentalism is quite a stretch. Is it because Cuba lacks economic opportunities for U.S. business? Granted, its not a potential powerhouse such as Russia, China or even Vietnam for commercial purposes. But th e U.S. has maintained good relationships (and made money) with many small, poor countries. Whats one more? Is it because Americans are standing on principle over Cubas human-rights record or strident rhetoric? Its hard to argue this when the White House has entertained leaders of countries with even worse records and positions. Moreover, many of those countries do not have education, health-care or food systems that reach the poor. Cuba does, although increasingly it is a challenge. Of course, America

should care about human rights and, along with that, everyone should have access to adequate food, education and health care. But sadly, none of these reasons explain why the U.S. keeps a strict embargo on Cuba and has no

diplomatic relationship with it. No, the real reason is because of a small vocal minority (Cuban-American exiles and their
families) who happen to be clustered in an electoral swing state (Florida) that gives them political clout. Some say the attitudes of the younger generation are softening toward Cuba. Does Washington really need to wait another generation or two?

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 ineffi cient 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.

Human rights - Foreign Policy success


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 Morality/decision rules


The Cuban embargo has systemic impacts of malnutrition and death on those it attempts to help the Cuban citizens Birns and Mills 13 Larry, COHA (Council on Hemispheric Affairs) director, Frederick B., COHA Senior
Research Fellow (January 30, 2013, COHA, BEST TIME FOR U.S. CUBA RAPPROCHEMENT IS NOW, http://www.coha.org/best-time-for-u-s-cuba-rapprochement-is-now/, accessed 7-18-13, BH)

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. A more recent report by Human Rights Watch also points to the needless suffering caused by the embargo: The United States economic embargo on Cuba, in place for more

than half a century, continues to impose indiscriminate hardship on Cubans, and has failed to improve human rights in the country. (2012 Report on Cuba) The embargo, then, has harmed those whom it purportedly meant to benefitthe average Cuban. A benevolent foreign policy towards Cuba would collaterally seek to benefit the Cuban people, not bring hunger, hardship, and in some cases death to an innocent civilian population. Since it is unlikely that the majority of Cubans would willingly impose such adversity on themselves or their kith and kin for over fifty years, such a punitive and coercive measure fails another important test of moral acceptability. The Cuban Embargo is immoral. Wittness for Peace 11
(Witness for Peace (WFP) is a politically independent, nationwide grassroots organization of people committed to nonviolence ,http://www.witnessforpeace.org/section.php?id=100, Libbie)
For nearly five decades,

the U.S. government has continued a failed and inhumane policy toward our island neighbor of Cuba. WFP's partnerships with the Cuban people have taught us that the U.S. embargo and travel ban toward Cuba is:
An Unnecessary Policy. The Cold War is over and Cuba is not a threat to the international community. The embargo against Cuba only hurts
people in Cuba and the United States. A Hypocritical Policy. We have opened or expanded economic relations with states that are much more hostile toward the U.S., and/or more aggressive to their own citizens than Cuba is. Why do we continue to isolate Cuba? An Unpopular Policy. Public opinion polls indicate that the overwhelming majority of Americans disagree with the embargo and with the undue influence afforded hardliners in the Cuban-American community. Furthermore, the United Nations has consistently condemned the U.S. embargo.

An Immoral Policy. The embargo causes innocent people to suffer in both countries. In Cuba, millions of people are denied access to food, medicine and other critical goods. U.S. citizens are denied access to cutting-edge medicines produced in Cuba. The embargo is considered immoral and unethical by most countries, by religious leaders, and people of conscience around the world.
An Unfair Policy. The embargo penalizes U.S. family farmers unable to trade with Cuba while giant corporate farmers can. U.S . farmers are not allowed to engage in fair trade to meet Cuba's agricultural needs. An Unconstitutional Policy. The embargo prohibits U.S. citizens the legal right to travel to Cuba - a ban most scholars consider unconstitutional.

Denial of health care is immoral Wilkinson 9 Director of the Centre for Caribbean and Latin American Research and Consultancy (11/28/09,
Stephen, Cruel Cuban embargo must end, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/28/cuba-embargoun-united-nations, ADL) The report also highlights the moral case by detailing the cost to the Cuban people the very people it is supposed to help. A meaner, more inhumane policy is hard to imagine. For example, the report shows how

the embargo stops Cuba from obtaining diagnostic equipment and replacement parts for equipment used in the detection of breast, colon, and prostate cancer. It stops Cuba from obtaining materials that are needed for pediatric cardiac surgery and the diagnosis of pediatric illnesses. It
prevents Cuba from purchasing antiretroviral drugs for the treatment of HIV-Aids. It stops Cuba from obtaining materials used for the diagnosis of Downs' Syndrome and drugs that alleviate the side effects of chemotherapy. I

have seen the cancer wards in a Havana hospital where children with leukemia were vomiting 16 hours per day for lack of these drugs. It is hard to imagine how the suffering of children can possibly help make Cuba democratic or endear the US to their parents. We have a moral obligation to lift the embargo Henderson 8 A research fellow with the Hoover Insitution and an associate professor of economics in the Graduate School of Business
and Public Policy at the Naval Postgraduate School (2/21/2008, David R. Henderson, AntiWar.com, End the Cuban Embargo, http://antiwar.com/henderson/?articleid=12395 // SM)

The Moral Case for the Embargo Let's step back and consider the proponents' case for the embargo. They make two arguments. The first is a straight moral argument: Castro (we need not quibble with whether it's Ral or Fidel) is an evil man who heads an evil regime. The Castros have murdered many innocent people, stolen a lot of property, and put many innocent people, including homosexuals, in prison. So far, I agree with the argument. But here's the non
sequitur: because of all this, the U.S. government should forcibly prevent Americans from trading with Cuba. Why is it a non sequitur? Because

for the trade embargo to be a logical response to the vicious facts about the Cuban government, one would have to show that the embargo would speed the end of the Cuban government. No one has done that. Jeff Jacoby, in a 1998 article in the Boston Globe, made the moral argument above. He ended his article with the following flourish: "The key to Cuba's salvation does not lie in constantly attacking U.S. policy. It lies in washing away the corrupt and fetid stain of Fidelismo. The embargo is regrettable and has its costs, but it is not what keeps Cubans on their knees. The dictator is. Instead of harping on the embargo, American leaders should be saying, loudly and insistently, what every Cuban yearns to hear: "'Castro must go.''' But notice something interesting. American leaders did say, loudly and insistently, that Castro must go. And, at the same time, President Bush II strengthened the embargo. What happened to Castro? He lasted more years in power. His leaving power had nothing to do
with the embargo; it was caused by his bad health. It is possible that Castro's bad health is due to lousy socialized medicine, but, if so, that's more his fault than it is the effect of the embargo.

If your moral argument is that a policy must be kept in place to achieve a

certain end, and the policy clearly does not achieve that end, aren't you morally obligated to reconsider the policy?

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.

Cuba is no longer a security threat-continuing embargo only allows egregious human rights abuses to continue Griswold 02-Associate director for Catos Trade Policy Studies (5/27/02, Daniel, Cato Institute, No: The
Embargo Harms Cubans and Gives Castro an Excuse for the Policy Failures of his Regime,http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/no-embargo-harms-cubans-gives-castro-excuse-policyfailures-regime) HC
Former president Jimmy Carters five-day visit to Cuba arguably did more to promote freedom on that oppressed island than the U.S. governments trade and travel embargo has accomplished in four decades. In a live, televised speech to the people of Cuba, Ca rter challenged his host, communist dictator Fidel Castro, to allow free speech, free elections and free religious worship. In addition to publicizing a prodemocracy petition campaign that the state-run Cuban media had ignored, Carter challenged the U.S. government to lift its trade and travel embargo, a position entirely consistent with his demand for more human rights in Cuba. Since 1960, Americans have been barred from trading with, investing in or traveling to Cuba. The embargo had a national-security rationale before 1991, when Castro served as the Soviet Unions proxy in the Western Hemisphere. But all that changed with the fall of Soviet communism. Today, a decade after losing billions in annual economic aid from its former sponsor, Cuba is only a poor, dysfunctional nation of 11 million people that poses no threat to U.S. or regional security. A 1998 U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency report concluded that, Cuba does not pose a significant military threat to the U.S. or to other countries in the region. The report declared Cubas military forces residual and defensive. Some officials in the Bush administration charge that Castros government may be supplying biological-weapons material to rogue states and terrorists abroad, but the evidence is not conclusive.

The Cuban embargo already is tighter than U.S. economic sanctions against Iraq, even though Iraq is a far greater security threat.If the goal of U.S. policy toward Cuba is to help its people achieve freedom and a better life, the economic embargo has failed completely. Its economic effect is to make the people of Cuba worse-off by depriving them of lower-cost food and other goods that could be bought from the United States. It means less
And even if it were true, maintaining a comprehensive trade embargo would be a blunt and ineffective lever for change. independence for Cuban workers and entrepreneurs, who could be earning dollars from American tourists and fueling private-sector growth. Meanwhile, Castro and his ruling elite enjoy a comfortable, insulated lifestyle by extracting any meager surplus produced by their captive subjects.Cuban families are not the only victims of the embargo. Many of the dollars Cubans could earn from U.S. tourists would come back to the United States to buy American products, especially farm good s. The American Farm Bureau estimates that Cuba could eventually become a $1 billion agricultural-export market for products of U.S. farmers and ranchers. The embargo stifles another $250 million in potential annual exports of fertilizer, herbicides, pesticides and tractors. According to a study last year by the U.S. International Trade Commission, the embargo costs American firms between $684 million and $1.2 billion per year.As a foreign-policy tool, the embargo actually enhances Castros standing by giving him a handy excuse for the manifest failures of his oppressive communist system. He can rail for hours about the suffering the embargo inflicts on Cubans, even though the damage done by his domestic policies is far worse. If the embargo were lifted, the Cuban people would be a bit less deprived and Castro would have no one else to blame for the shortages and stagnation that will persist without real market reforms.Congress mistakenly raised the embargo to a new level in 1996 with the passage of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act. Known as the Helms-Burton act, it threatens to punish foreign-based companies alleged to engage in the wrongful trafficking in property confiscated by the Castro regime. The law is legally flawed because it allows U.S. courts to rule on actions of parties who were not U.S. citizens when the alleged offense took place. As a foreign-policy tool, the law perversely punishes not the Castro regime itself, but some of our closest allies, such as Canada and the European Union Economic Iran, Iraq, and North Korea have failed to change the behavior of any of those oppressive regimes;

sanctions rarely work. Trade and investment sanctions against Burma, sanctions have only deepened

the deprivation of the very people we are trying to help. President George W. Bush and Republican leaders in
Congress understand that economic engagement with China offers the best hope for encouraging human rights and political reforms in that country, yet they fail to apply that same thinking to Cuba.Pressure has been building in Congress for a new policy toward Cuba. Two years ago Congress voted to allow limited sales of food and medical supplies to Cuba on a cash-only basis, and the House voted by wide margins in 2000 and 2001 to lift the travel ban (although that provision died in the Senate). Both the Senate and the House voted this spring in favor of third-party financing for farm exports to Cuba while debating this years farm bill, but the provision was stripped from the final bill i n the conference committee.A new House caucus, the Cuban Working Group, composed of 20 Democrats and 20 Republicans, unveiled a plan recently for easing the embargo.

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 - Poverty Impact


The US Embargo on Cuba is an anti-humanitarian policy that perpetuates poverty and starvation of Cuban citizens in the name of capital exploitation and security Eaton 5-7-13 Havana bureau chief for The Dallas Morning News from 2000 to early 2005 (March 7, 2013,
Tracey, Havana Times, USAID/Cuba, a Schizophrenic Policy, http://www.havanatimes.org/?p=92675, accessed 7-18-13, BH)
Keith Bolender writes in his 2012 book Cuba Under Siege: There

is ample evidence to suggest that America is enacting collective punishment on the people of Cuba with the intent of precipitating the overthrow of the socialist experiment Douglas Dillon, under secretary of state during the Kennedy administration, helped set the tone in 1960 when he said it was Washingtons duty to cause
rising discomfort among hungry Cubans. The strategy continued in the 1970s, according to Cuba Under Siege, which quotes
a CIA officer as saying: We

wanted to keep bread out of the stores so the people would go hungry. Efforts to suffocate Cuba continue today. Yet while trying to squeeze the Cuban economy, American officials also allow Cuban-Americans to send more than $1 billion in remittances to their families every year. Its a sensible humanitarian gesture, but it erodes the impact of the sanctions that U.S. officials so carefully enforce. Time passes and these contradictory measures remain in place, ever more ingrained, part of aninstitutionalized machinery that has cost American taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. In February 2012, Desmond Butler of the Associated Press focused on one piece
of that machinery Tom Paulson, a former reporter at the Seattle Post Intelligencer, wrote that the AP story added to an ongoing discussion within the federal government about re-inventing foreign aid. Paulson runs a website called Humanosphere, which analyzes the latest news in global health, development and poverty. He was strike by the APs claim that Gross was smuggling satellite telephone cards that arent available to the public and are provided most frequently to the Defense Department and the CIA.Paulson said U.S. officials said Gross was just carrying out the normal mission of USAID. He wrote: Huh? This is the normal mission of USAID? This is certainly normal for the CIA, or those other branches of government legitimately set up to undermine authoritarian regimes around the world. But is it wise, and in our long-term interest, to be enlisting USAID in this cause as well? Should the agency that was set up primarily to bring food to the starving, medical supplies to the injured or otherwise engage in Americas humanitarian causes overseas also be doing covert political work against hostile for eign governments?

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.

Remove the Embargo for the people Carrol 08 student at the Illinois College of Law (4/18/2008, Dominique Carrol, Fidel Castro Has Finally Stepped Down: Now What
Should Be Done About That Pesky Trade Embargo?, http://www.law.illinois.edu/bljournal/post/2008/04/18/Fidel-Castro-Has-Finally-SteppedDown-Now-What-Should-Be-Done-About-That-Pesky-Trade-Embargo.aspx, HH) The direction that Raul will take Cuba is unknown. However, it is clear that the

U.S. trade embargo has helped the Cuban economy to fall into shambles. Furthermore, Raul and his older brother Fidel are still in power of the island of Cuba. The goal of bringing the end of the Castro regime has not been realized in over 46 years, and the failed policy needs to be removed. Of course one reason to lift the embargo is to allow the U.S. to reap the economic benefits of free trade with Cuba. Yet, the most compelling reason to lift the embargo remains that it would help the citizens of Cuba. Dislike for the political system of Cuba is not a valid reason to allow the suffering of innocent Cuban citizens to go on. If the economic benefits
do not persuade U.S. lawmakers and the President to lift the embargo, at least common sense should.

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 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 a ll 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 passports 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 new 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. Policy Toward Cuba,cubastudrygroup.org,2/13,http://www.cubastudygroup.org/index.cfm/files/serve?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 when she wrote: The

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,
writing that Helms-Burtons blanket sanctions have only served to give the Cuban government an alibi to declare Cuba a f ortress 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 - 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 - 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 S tates participation in the development of the international law of human rights. The Senate ratified two of those treaties 15 years later. The others continue to lang uish 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.

Human Rights Water


Soaring infection rates because Cuba doesnt have enough clean water.
Randal 00-MD, Contributor to The Journal of the National Cancer Institute (Judith, The Journal of the National Cancer Institiute, Does the US Embargo Affect Cuban Healthcare?, http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/92/12/963.full) HC
The average life expectancy in Cuba is almost 76, about the same as in the United States. And at 9 deaths per 1,000 newborns down from 70 at the outset of the Castro regime 41 years agothe countrys infant mortality rate is impressively low. Moreover, Cub a now boasts more than 30,000 physicians, the highest doctor-patient ratio in the world. But though

Cuban biotechnology has met the challenge of the loss of Soviet subsidies and the squeeze of the U.S. trade embargo with reasonable success, public health in Cuba and the countrys health care have fared less wellVisitors to Cuba, for example, are told to buy bottled watersomething few Cubans can affordbecause the local water is unfit to drink. The embargo is to blame in two ways. One is that replacement parts for the aging U.S.-made water treatment system are unavailable.The other is that water purification chemicals are exorbitantly expensive and often unobtainable. According to the American Association for World Health, the U.S. committee for the World Health Organization, illness due to waterborne causes in Cuba has soared as a result and some hospitalacquired infections have been traced to tainted water, too.Or consider the experience of Peter Greenberg, M.D., of
Stanford University Medical School. A hematologist, Greenberg has twice been to Cubain 1998 and again in 1999to lecture about his specialty and to spend time with counterparts at hospitals in Havana and Santa Clara.These hospitals were all well staffed w ith very qualified physicians, highly committed and knowledgeable in their fields, he said. He was pleased to find, too, that Cuban health care, tertiary care included, is free and available for everyone. But he also found that, because of the embargo, the management of patients can be difficult due to a lack of such items as bone-marrow aspiration needles and high-dose formulations of cytosine-arabinoside and shortages of antibiotics, equipment, current textbooks, and basic medical supplies. Variations on the above themes are not hard to find. Under a program called MEDICC (http://www.medicc.org), students working toward health sciences degrees in the United States and Canada spend 4 to 8 weeks in Cuba taking courses in their fields and doing clinical rotations mentored by local physicians.They often return from the experience to report that universal precautions are not observed in Cuba; for example, the precious few rubber gloves available are reserved for surgical procedures, and, just as cars in Cuba are likely to be vintage models, things like anesthesia and x-ray machines are, too.The American government has a Who, me? response to such observations. Washingtons chief of mission at the U.S. Interests Section at the Swiss Embassy in Havana, Vicki Huddl eston, denies that the embargo is to blame for Cubas health woes. A Dear Visitor paper that she hands out to fellow Americans says, Medicines are in short supply not because of the U.S. embargo as the Cuban government often alleges, but simply because the Cuban government has . . . not allocated the money to buy medicines.

Embargo has limited water sanitation access-infectious diseases have been on the rise for decades
American Association for World Health 97-American branch of the WHO (1/15/1997, The American Association of World Health, The Impact of The US Embargo on Health and Nutrition in Cuba, http://www.medicc.org/resources/documents/embargo/The%20impact%20of%20the%20U.S.%20Embargo%20on% 20Health%20&%20Nutrition%20in%20Cuba.pdf) HC As we have seen, programs to provide sufficient clean water to the Cuban population have been obstructed by the U.S. embargo, constituting a nearly unsurmountable barrier in the nineties,complicated by general economic limitations which the embargo has only further restricted. As a direct result, hygiene levels in Cuba have seriously degenerated in the last few years, and related diseases are on the rise, in some cases endangering not only wellbeing but also lives. The drastic decreases in drinking water treatment and sanitation problems, in combination with the general lack of adequate supply, have caused increaAmong the diseases on the rise: typhoid fever, dysenteries and viral hepatitis, which have nearly tripled their rates in waterborne diseases since 1996.27Typhoid fever, endemic to Cuba, has been most prevalent where clean drinking water is most problematic. For example, historically the town of Costa Rica in Guantnamo Province has shown high rates of typhoid fever. This, until the local aqueduct was replaced, and since then only a single case has been reported. In general, notes a report from the Health Tendencies Analysis Unit (UATS) of the Ministry of Public Health, during l995 the greatest number of outbreaks came in rural communities with poor sanitary conditions and water treatment . That year, there were nine outbreaks altogether, totaIling
112 cases, down considerably from 1993 levels, but still over twice what they were in 1989. And for the first time in the last five years, children

were dying from typhoid fever: two deaths were reported in 1995. (Cuban children receive a typhoid vaccine, but its high level of reactivity limits more intensive use.)

Human rights - Hurricane Assistance


Time to lift embargo, inhumane Wilkerson and Doherty 2008 (9/21/2008, Wilkerson, L., Doherty, P., Wilkerson was chief of staff to
Secretary of State Colin Powell. Doherty participated in the humanitarian operation in Kosovo and the Balkans. They are chairman and director, respectively, of the U.S.-Cuba Policy Initiative at the New America Foundation, in Washington, D.C. (www.newamerica.net.)http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/Time-to-lift-Cuban-embargo1752914.php)
If you live in southeast Texas, Hurricane Ike will be remembered for its destruction. But history may remember the ninth named storm of the 2008 season for swinging the 2008 presidential campaign. That's because Ike devastated a little island off Florida named Cuba. In fact, Cuba sustained damage from four hurricanes: Fay, Gustav, Hanna and Ike. Gustav hit the western end of Cuba as a Category 4 storm. Ike entered the east of Cuba as a strong Category 3, then shredded the full length of the island for three days. There were reports of walls of water 50 feet high hitting the north shore. In a country of more than 11 million people, 2.7 million evacuated

their homes when Ike came through. Today, 444,000 homes in Cuba are damaged, meaning up to 2.2 million Cubans are living dangerously or wondering when it will be safe to go home. Food supplies on the island are nearly exhausted. The crops and livestock for domestic consumption and cash crops like tobacco and sugar cane, necessary for the hard currency to import food are devastated. The island's electrical grid is severely damaged and in some places nonexistent. Communication towers are down across the country. Roads are blocked with rubble from collapsed buildings, trees or just washed away. Schools, hospitals and clinics have suffered extensive damage or are non-functioning. And it will only get worse. With at least $5 billion of damage done to a nation where the average monthly salary is $17, the economy will not be able to support the Cuban population for quite some time. Even the Cuban military is on short rations, with perhaps a week left. With food shelves empty, hoarding and black market price gouging will quickly squeeze all families, displaced or not, with little to no income and no subsistence agriculture to fall back on. As the vast majority of Cubans become malnourished and post-disaster diseases increase in prevalence, the political situation is likely to become much more volatile within Cuba. All this could occur within the next six weeks. Faced with a displaced, hungry
and frustrated population, Havana could do what it has done in the past: allow a mass migration to head north. In 1980, responding to unrest triggered by economic downturn, Havana launched the Mariel boatlift that brought 125,000 Cuban immigrants over a five-month period to South Florida. In 1994, facing another economic catastrophe, the Castro government allowed at least 35,000 Cubans to leave the island an episode that cost the U.S. Treasury more than $500 million. The U.S. government is now offering Cuba a $1.5 million package of temporary shelter for 10,000 families and household items for 8,000 with an additional $3.5 million conditional on the survey of a U.S. disaster assessment team. In contrast, Haiti, which was hit by three storms, has already received $19 million in aid from the U.S. government. Even Burma, which has a military dictatorship more repressive than Cuba's and was ravaged by Cyclone Fargis, received $50 million in aid. Indeed, an increase in funding for traditional humanitarian items is not what Cuba

needs or wants from the United States. Their government believes that there would be no prospect of a crisis if the U.S. economic embargo were not blocking them from purchasing the needed supplies on the open market. Cuba can get food from other countries in the region. Rather, Cuba's infrastructure needs repair. The country needs electrical components like poles, cable and transformers. The Cubans need heavy-duty construction equipment and materials. The only market that can respond fast enough is the United States. Without those supplies, the boats could very well sail before November. Americans with
family in Cuba will be furious with the Bush administration for placing politics over saving lives. Cuban refugees who make it onto U.S. soil will benefit from the wet-foot/dry-foot policy that other Latino immigrants a key demographic this cycle view with considerable hostility. South Florida is already reeling from the domestic economic recession, and a new load of low-skilled immigrants will put downward pressures on wages and exclusion will risk increased levels of criminal activity. At a minimum, CNN will be showing pictures of thousands of malnourished and water-logged Cubans being picked up on the high seas and then sent to the notorious U.S. Naval Station at Guantanamo, only to be repatriated to a growing catastrophe. It is now time to lift the embargo, let Cuba buy what it needs and move on. The U.S. policy of isolation to bring about regime change has failed to achieve its goals for 50 years. Fidel Castro has grown old and retired. Cuba is no longer sponsoring revolution overseas but exporting doctors and nurses instead. And by giving Havana a ready-made excuse for economic failure, the embargo has the perverse effect of supporting the Castro regime rather than weakening it. The Bush administration is between a rock and a hard place. If it continues with business as usual, Havana may very well decide the outcome of the U.S. elections. If it moves to end the embargo and Cuba purchases the supplies it needs to rebuild, it will have prevented the disaster that it foresaw, but Cuba will cease to be an electoral goldmine for the GOP. America needs to put

politics aside. It is time to do the right thing. Protect the lives of innocent Cubans, protect our electoral process, end a 50-year-old failed policy and be good Samaritans after all.

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.

Human rights - Right To Travel


Embargo restricts right to travel Dodd (no date) Christopher Dodd, Democratic Politician of Connecticut (Should the U.S. End Its Cuba
Embargo?, Scholastic, No Date, http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/article/should-us-end-its-cuba-embargo, accessed: 6/28/13, ckr) 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. Lifting travel ban essentialCuban culture similar to U.S.-- Constitutional American rights 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) I think that it's very important the moment that the Cubans' family, the Cubans in Cuba start receiving substantial aid from their families, it makes the government irrelevant. They don't need the government to be able to subsist and to resolve their problems. That is one of the most important things that can happen out of the Cuban-Americans traveling. And I think that we must go further than that. We must absolutely lift all restrictions for Americans to travel to Cuba. It's a constitutional right of all Americans to be -- it must be protected under the laws of this country. And I think that if Cuban-Americans are allowed to go, Americans should be allowed to go. And I think that's going to have a tremendous impact, because the travel of Americans is not like the travel of Europeans or Canadians. Cubans play baseball; they don't play hockey. And our cultural nearness is very similar. You go to Cuba right now, and it's like the Russians had never gone by there. You go to Cuba right now, and you still can feel the influence of our American tradition in the past and our cultural nearness. So I think it's important that travel be permitted. I think I would wish that Obama would go further than that; I don't think it will. I think that the United States, Cuba is not a top priority right now, and I think first he's going to deal with the economy and with the Middle East and Iraq, Iran, and all of that, unfortunately.

Embargo restricts Americans freedom of movement


Lloyd 11-Delia Lloyd, (a writer based in London. Her work has appeared in The New York Times, The International
Herald Tribune, and The Financial Times. Previously,she worked as a producer at Chicago Public Radio and taught political science at the University of Chicago, Ten Reasons to Lift the Cuba Embargo, Politics Daily, http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/24/ten-reasons-to-lift-the-cuba-embargo/, June 27, 2013, KH)

10. It restricts Americans' freedom of movement. Cuba is the only country in the world where Americans are restricted by their own government from visiting freely. Yes, that's right. It's easier to go to North Korea (from the American end of things) than it is to travel to our Caribbean neighbor. In a country whose "great American novelist" -- that would be Jonathan Franzen -- just published a national epic titled "Freedom," one need not underscore this irony. Embargo theory hypocritical 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.h tml, accessed: 7/3/13, LR)

WASHINGTON -- Most Americans seem to reject the U.S. trade embargo against Cuba. According to a Washington Post/ABC poll, 57 percent of Americans now oppose the policy. A survey by Bendixen & Associates shows that only 42 percent of Cuban-Americans continue to back it. I have been conflicted on this issue for years. Until not long ago, I favored the embargo. As an advocate for free trade, I would normally have called such a measure an unacceptable restriction on the freedom of people to trade with whomever they pleased. But I thought that trading with a regime that had killed, jailed, exiled or muzzled countless of its citizens for decades was not a worthy objective, as it would also preserve that dictatorship. Any transaction with Cuba would also benefit the government. After all, the authorities were already skimming 20 percent of the remittances from Cuban-Americans and 90 percent of the salary paid to Cubans by non-American foreign investors. Eventually, I admitted to myself that there was an intolerable inconsistency in my thinking. No democracy based on liberty should tell its citizens what country to visit or whom to trade with, regardless of the government under which they live. Even though the Castro brothers, Fidel and Raul, would obtain a political victory in the very short run, the embargo could no longer be justified.

OFAC

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 specific 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 p roduce 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 Revolutionary 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 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 Solves drug trafficking

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, OFAC also is responsible for responding to economic threats posed by terrorist organizations and narcotics traffickers. By ending OFA Cs 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 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 Th e 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) 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 2AC 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 fo r 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) 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.

OFAC 2AC internal link terrorism


Removing embargo shifts resources to solve terrorism 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 eac h 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 c ould 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 an d 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 OFA Cs 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, S yria, and Sudan, 5 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 C uba does not pose a threat to US national security, 7 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. Allows for effective crack-down 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 Institute, 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.

Relations

Relations generic internal links


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/the-pointless-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, Wi nter 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" m ovement 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,

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 Cubas scant
it is Cubas own outdated economic model, inherited from the Soviet Union, of central planning. 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 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 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
WASHINGTON -- Cuban President Raul 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 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 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)

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 the mu rders 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 Ral Castros announcement that he will retire in 2018, the implacable hatred of many within the Cuban exile community continues. The fact that two of the three Cuban-American members of the Senate Marco Rubio of Florida and Ted Cruz of Texas are rising stars in the Republican Party complicates further the potential for a recalibration of Cuban-American relations. (The third member, Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, is the new chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, but his power has been weakened by a continuing ethics controversy.) Are there any other examples in the history of diplomacy where the leaders of a small, weak nation can prevent a great power from acting in its own best interest merely by staying alive? The

re-

election of President Obama, and the death of Mr. Chvez, give America a chance to reassess the
irrational hold on our imaginations that Fidel Castro has exerted for 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 based in Florida, does not want to normalize relations until the Communist regime is gone. "When they're polled,

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
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 inspections each year

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
are centered on rooting out smuggled Cuban goods even though the agency administers more than 20 other trade bans.

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. 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-embargo-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 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 Hope For Bette r 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 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.

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 c andidate -- 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 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 ma rket 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 proof that the United States is still operating against them is obviousthe embargo.

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
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 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. 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
Fidel Castro abdicated power to his brother Raul in 2008, the government has

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

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 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-ahalf 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 oil charity from socialist Venezue la. 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 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 the embargo helps everyone Griswold 05 director of the Cato institutes center for trade policy studies (10/12/05, Daniel Griswold., Cato Institute, Expanding Our
Influence in Cuba, http://www.cato.org/publications/speeches/four-decades-failure-us-embargo-against-cuba) Finally, the Helms-Burton law should be allowed to expire. The law, like every other aspect of the embargo, failed to achieve its stated objectives and has, in fact,

has

undermined American influence in Cuba and alienated our

allies.

Embargo destroys US soft power Wickham 10 (10/11/10, DeWayne, USA Today, Cuba Embargo has Outlived its Good,

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-10-12-column12_ST1_N.htm?csp=34) I don't know what, if any, advice James Jones, the White House's outgoing national security adviser, will give his successor. But the retired Marine Corps general ought to tell Tom Donilon that the United States needs to end its Cold War rift with

Cuba. More than a diplomatic annoyance, this nation's nearly half-century-old effort to strangle the life out of Cuba's communist government infects its relationship with much of the rest of the world. In 2009, for the 18th consecutive year, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution calling for an end to the U.S. trade embargo against Cuba. The measure was backed by 187 countries, including all of America's European allies. Iraq and Afghanistan, two governments that owe their very existence to the U.S., also voted for it. Only three countries (the U.S., Israel and Palau) voted against the resolution. Two others abstained. And the

(OAS) voted last year to rescind its 1962 ban on Cuba's membership in the hemispheric group. Schizophrenic policy Moments after the vote was taken, then-Honduran President Manuel Zelaya proclaimed: "The Cold War has ended." Of course, it actually ended in 1991 with the collapse of the Soviet Union. That ideological tug-of-war lasted 46 years. What Zelaya was talking about is this nation's schizophrenic attempt to isolate and topple Cuba's communist government. That has gone on for 50 years. The OAS vote was a further decline of American influence in a region of the world over which it once held sway. And while this waning influence can be attributed to a lot more than this country's frayed relations with Cuba, America's obsession with the Caribbean island nation of 11 million people chips away at this country's standing in the world. Obama is the 11th American president to manage this effort, which seeks to squeeze the
Organization of American States

life out of Cuba's government through an economic embargo that has no chance of succeeding. That's because while CubanAmerican politicians and interest groups clamor for the continuation of the ban on travel and money transfers to Cuba, Cuban Americans are exempt. They can go to Cuba as often as they like and take as much money to their relatives there as they want. So for all practical purposes, the embargo exists for domestic political purposes only. It is what a long line of politicians Democrats and Republicans have used to pander to Cuban-American voters. Lift travel ban Donilon should tell Obama that the damage

to America's standing in the world outweighs the political benefit he gets in south Florida for keeping the embargo in place. He should urge the president to test the resiliency of Cuba's communist system by allowing all Americans to travel freely to that country. He should remind Obama of what I'm sure he already knows: When it comes to freedom, the world pays more attention to what America does than what it says. Cuba's communist system is undergoing change. The government has created the opportunity for private operation of small restaurants, barber and
done beauty shops, taxis and farms. The list of privately run businesses will likely increase after the Cuban government's announcement that it will lay off 500,000 workers who must now find work in the country's embryonic private sector A surge of American

tourists will strengthen this movement. A continuation of the U.S. embargo will slow it down and whittle away at America's position on the world stage.

Embargo destroys US influence and emboldens our rivals Ricks 9 (Thomas E., covered the U.S. military for the Washington Post from 2000 through 2008, reported on U.S. military activities in
Somalia, Haiti, Korea, Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Kuwait, Turkey, Afghanistan, and Iraq, part of a Wall Street Journal team that won the Pulitzer Prize for national reporting in 2000 for a series of articles on how the U.S. military might change to meet the new demands of the 21st century, Foreign Policy, October 23rd 2009, Marine colonel: Drop the Cuba embargo, http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/10/23/marine_colonel_drop_the_cuba_embargo, TL) One thing a think tank should do is look at tomorrow as well as today. So, while everyone else in town who can spell "counterinsurgency" is honking on about Afghanistan and Iran, Marine Lt. Col. Jeff Goodes, a CNAS fellow, has been mulling a problem closer to home: Cuba. He's a three tour vet of Iraq who before coming to CNAS commanded Marine Wing Communications Squadron 28 in Cherry Point, N.C. Cuba is something that could get very big, just as soon as Fidel dies-and that, for all we know, could be tomorrow. So it is best to start thinking about it now: The Obama administration's decision to extend the U.S. economic trade embargo on Cuba for an additional year is detrimental to our national and regional security and further emboldens our economic, military, and infrastructure rivals. What is most perplexing is the fact that earlier this summer the Obama administration decided to relax some of the regulations regarding personal travel and personal money transfers from Cuban-Americans to their relatives in Cuba, as well as telecommunication exchanges between private U.S. and state-run Cuban companies: all are steps in the right direction for U.S. interests - but are not enough. While these relaxed

restrictions are certainly a step forward in normalizing relations, these steps do not outweigh the heavy diplomatic, information, and economic influence of Brazil, Venezuela, Nicaragua, China, Russia, India, and Iran, all of whom support the Cuban government and all of whom seek to be peer competitors with the United States. In short, the U.S. unilateral embargo will continue to retard regional security and stability, and further serve to erode our influence in the Americas at a time when U.S. credibility is globally scrutinized. The arguably outdated and undeniably ineffective embargo will continue to halt progress at every turn; more specifically, the diplomatic influence and credibility of the U.S., the social and political progress of Cuba, and the security and stability progress of the region. The U.S. embargo
will continue to impede potential and future cultural and scientific trade investments, shared agricultural advancements, and pertinent meteorological and environmental exchanges regarding the shared Florida Straits ecology. Furthermore, the U.S. unilateral embargo

will continue to encourage Cuba to partner with Russia, China, and Brazil for off-shore oil and natural gas exploration within the shared U.S. and Cuban economic exclusion zone. The U.S. embargo will continue to endear many of the poor Caribbean and Central American nations to the Chavez Venezuelan PetroCaribe initiative, and the embargo will ensure that no official U.S. - Cuban dialogue and/or planned cooperative action occurs with
regards to such crucial issues as regional and transnational criminal organizations, illegal immigration and extortion issues, and the growing Islamic influence on Latin American from Iranian, Syrian, and Lebanese diasporas. We must face the facts: the U.S. efforts to isolate and

have successfully driven Cuba to aggressively seek support elsewhere, as is evident in their forming and fostering diplomatic ties, seeking infrastructure support, establishing military liaisons, and accepting economic support from every government in the Americas - to include Canada - with the exception of the United States. Most of Cuba's economic and diplomatic partners have "Leftist" governments with close ties to state and non-state Islamic fundamentalists, porous national borders and often rampant organized crime cartels coupled with violent gang warfare fueled by drug trafficking, human trafficking, and extortion.
force a regime change in Cuba for nearly half a century have failed. These 50 years After all, Cuba has the backing of Hugo Chavez' endorsed ALBA and doctors for oil initiative, Evo Morales' endorsed MAS, China's $600M economic and trade stimulus grant, and Brazil's $300M infrastructure and modernization credit to list a few. To be sure, the United States

should be very concerned with the company that Cubans keep. A less adversarial tone with Cuba will reestablish much needed dialogue in the region and help address shared national border security vulnerabilities, transnational and regional crime consortiums, and environmental and ecological initiatives. The necessity for the Obama administration to lift the U.S. economic embargo is painfully obvious. It would enhance the region's security, promote economic prosperity, establish shared environmental regulations, and help re-establish our credibility and leadership vis--vis some of our most prominent global allies and competitors. Lastly, let's ask ourselves, "Has our
50 year embargo brought Cuba any closer to democracy, or have we denied the Cubans an opportunity to see the best that our free and democratic society offers?" I think the colonel is right. The embargo has been Fidel's best friend, and hasn't done the Cuban people any good. It is time to change this.

Embargo increases foreign resistance to US policy and ideas Pepperdine 99, pepperdine school of public policy, Rethinking Cuba:
The Maturation of United States Foreign Policy, http://publicpolicy.pepperdine.edu/master -public-policy/content/capstones/rethinkingcuba.pdf

HK
It is clear that U.S. Castro remains. But

policy toward Cuba must change. It is also clear that little substantive change will take place in Cuba while the world around Castro is changing at an increasing rate, and so too should Americas posture toward Cuba. The rise of the information age has opened the door to a whole new world of international relations. Speaking on the rise of the Internet, Former Vice Presidential candidate, Jack Kemp, has declared
"America is at the epicenter of the greatest revolution the world has ever seen. This is 1776 for the whole world." The old adage that information is power takes on increasing relevance in the 21st Century. The free exchange of information has been instrumental in

the transformation of the geo- political sphere. Ambassador Berk considers the exchange of ideas with the West as the key
element in the fall of the Iron Curtain, saying "It was information and people-to- people contact that hastened the collapse of Communism in Europe." Information and people-to-people contact holds the same power to promote change in Cuba, if the United States undertakes the necessary ventures to put America in full public view of Cuba and works directly with Cuban people to promote change. The current global climate is such that it warrants the opening of Cuba. Without the cooperation of the global community, U.S. Cuban policy has been rendered ineffective and isolating. In order to promote change, the United States cannot stand alone. With the explosion of global commerce, other nations

The perception that America refuses to accept international constraints makes it difficult for America to persuade other nations to accept constraints, especially in a time of economic prosperity. The U.S. has been resistant to international pressure, but working within a multi-lateral framework does not mean giving up a piece of U.S. sovereignty in order to acquiesce to the demands of other nations. It is a matter of respecting the sovereignty of other nations. This presents the opportunity to promote internal changes in other nations through the strength of American ideas, rather than through external pressures. In the words of Jack Kemp, "We should be in the business of promoting the truth,
are less receptive to perceived American Rethinking Cuba 33 self-righteousness. our products, our ideas, to the whole world." Kemp refers to this as a "foreign policy predicated on the Golden Rule," and is confident that the strength of American ideas will continue to flourish around the world. In time, Cuba too will evolve into a free-market society headed by a regime that is not hostile to Washington.

Lifting the embargo key to solve relations _NOTE: THIS CARD LACKS WARRANTS
Trani 13 President and Distinguished Professor at Virginia Commonwealth University (6/23/13, Eugene P., World Affairs
Council, Trani: End the embargo on Cuba, http://www.timesdispatch.com/opinion/their-opinion/columnistsblogs/guest-columnists/end-the-embargo-on-cuba/article_ba3e522f-8861-5f3c-bee9-000dffff8ce7.html // AD)

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. Russia supports lifting embargo Bridge 12 (9/14/12, Robert Bridge, Moscow votes to end Washingtons 52-year Cuban embargo,
http://rt.com/politics/moscow-cuba-washington-embargo-churkin-669/, AZ)

US presidents from John F Kennedy to Barack Obama have kept the Cuban people under a harsh American economic embargo, which Russia says has failed to influence the Cuban peoples sovereign choice. When Cuban
All leader Fidel Castro made the historic decision to align his country with the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War, the Kennedy administration imposed a harsh embargo on the Caribbean nation (But not before the story goes cigar-smoking JFK was able to buy, through his press secretary Pierre Salinger, 1,201 Havana Petit H. Upmann cigars). Fifty-two years later, the embargo which has been ineffectual at curing Cuba of communism remains in force. On Tuesday, Russia threw its support behind a UN resolution that calls on

Washington to end the trade embargo, Russian Permanent Representative to the United Nations Vitaly Churkin said at a meeting of the UN General Assembly on Tuesday. "We hope that after the US government eases its embargo in certain areas in particular, on US citizens' visiting relatives in Cuba, as well as on making money transfers and postal orders . Other steps for the final lifting of the embargo will follow," the Russian ambassador said from the rostrum of the UN General Assembly. He stressed that Russia has consistently called for the termination of the embargo, in addition to halting political and military pressure that aggravates confrontational tendencies in international relations." The UN General Assembly on Tuesday voted overwhelmingly to condemn the US commercial, economic and financial embargo against Cuba. Russia was among 188 UN member states that voted in favor of the resolution, which calls on Washington to lift the
embargo against Cuba "as soon as possible." Robert Bridge, RT

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 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.

U.S.- Cuba cooperation would be the best

Johnson et. al 10, Director of the National Security Program, (September 2010 , Andy Johnson, Director of the National
Security Program, Kyle Spector, Policy advisor, Kristina Lilac, National Security Program ,http://content.thirdway.org/publications/326/Third_Way_Memo_-_End_the_Embargo_of_Cuba.pdf)

HK

The US has had normal trade relations with many countries just as problematic, if not more so, than Cuba, including China, Vietnam (President Clinton lifted the 1975 trade embargo in 1994), and even the Soviet Union throughout the Cold War.8 In an Third Way Memo 2 era of global economic integration, maintaining strong economic relations with other countries is vital to growing the economy. The rest of the world has recognized that Cuba does not pose a threat and has normalized trade relations, leaving the US alone in its imposition of the embargo. As long as other countries are willing to supply Cuba with all of its needs, the US embargo will never be effective and will only hurt the US economy. Furthermore, by blaming the US for Cubas lack of economic prosperity and using the embargo as a scapego at, Cubas leadership has eluded responsibility for the poor standard of living on the island and routinely portrays the US as an oppressor of the Cuban people. Cuba has the potential to be a sizeable market for US goods should the embargo come to an end. Despite all of the trade restrictions, the US exported $710 million worth of food to Cuba in 2008, making the US Cubas largest food supplier.9 A March 2010 Texas A&M University study f ound that expanding agricultural trade and travel between the US and Cuba could result in $365 million in increased sales of US goods in Cuba and create 6,000 new jobs in the US.10 Moving Cuba Forward 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 communist 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 such as counter-narcotics efforts could 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 course a necessary next step. Lifting the antiquated embargo would help to move Cuba into the 21st 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 Canada Relations
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."

US-Cuba Relations internal links


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 chari ty 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. 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.

Ending the embargo improves relations Pepperdine 99, pepperdine school of public policy, Rethinking Cuba:
The Maturation of United States Foreign Policy, http://publicpolicy.pepperdine.edu/master -public-policy/content/capstones/rethinkingcuba.pdf

HK
The primary goal of United States foreign policy is to protect American interests. During the Cold War, this policy was broadly understood to be principally anti- Communist. As a result, tight restrictions were placed on Cuba to contain the potential spread of communism. The end of the Cold War has brought a significant reduction in the threat posed by communism, but the U.S. remains committed to promoting change in Cuba. The post-Cold War era has been described as the Information Age, and with free trade and democracy taking root around the world, America has even less patience for Castros totalitarian communism. According to U.S. Secretary of State Madeline Albright, "The poli cy of the United States is clear. We want a peaceful transition to democracy in Cuba. It is that simple. It is that unshakable. We will never compromise our principles nor cease our efforts." U.S. policy continues to enforce an embargo against Cuba. Cuba is the only nation in the Western Hemisphere that has not undergone a democratic transition, and the U.S. has centered its policy efforts on promoting this change. However, in a world moving toward globalization, containment and economic sanctions have virtually ceased to be effective policy tools. U.S. efforts to isolate Cuba have been hindered in part because of international trade between Cuba and other nations, while at the same time creating international tension over Americas unilateral approach. Furthermore, the anti -Castro foundation of the policy makes little allowance for the day the aging dictator no longer rules Cuba. If no policy change is undertaken, it is likely that post-Castro Cuba will remain

antagonistic toward the United States and American ideology. American policy must mature past the containment strategy, and develop new methods of achieving foreign policy goals. The authors of this
analysis contend that it is possible to promote change in Cuba via a long term multi-stage plan. Combining economic solutions with diplomatic engagement and the promotion of Cuban civil society, the United States Rethinking Cuba 3 can end 40 years of

Cold War hostility, and at the same time remain true to its ideals encapsulated by current policy. The future of our relations with Cuba begins now.

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 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. 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 econ omic 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

describe a sea change in the tone of their dealings. Only last year, Cuban state television was broadcasting

the radar, diplomats on both sides

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

approchement Is Now, COHA, 1/30/13,

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.
not been inadvertently granted such citizenship.) Again, Caribbean

(To help counter this possibility, some countries have suspended "economic citizenship" programs to ensure that known terrorists have

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 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
realistically at the Cuban issue. Castro will rule until he dies. The only issue is what happens then? 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 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 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 o wn 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 islan d 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 ma king 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 eventual 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 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. 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.

US-Cuba relations provide unprecedented benefitstrade, cost reduction, improved foreign relations
Zimmerman 8 (No date, Chelsea A., Rethinking The Cuban Trade Embargo: An Opportune Time To Mend a Broken Policy, http://www.thepresidency.org/storage/documents/Fellows2010/Zimmerman.pdf)
This proposal sets forth multiple reasons for the failure of the U.S. policy of economic sanctions to promote democracy in Cuba, but I will now focus on the costs and benefits of a gradual modification of the current policy. The U.S. needs to adopt a new approach to Cuba

that is not based on sanctions, passivity, and waiting. The U.S. government should instead take a more pragmatic approach when trying to encourage change in Cuba, especially with the opportunity created by the change in
leadership of both countries and with the recent reforms announced by Raul Castro which will over time eliminate the states information monopoly. The opportunities involved in gradually loosening trade restrictions with Cuba and promoting cooperation on issues of mutual benefit far outweigh the risks. Benefits for the U.S. in reducing financing restrictions and travel restrictions with Cuba

include the following: 1) U.S. agribusinesses will benefit from substantial revenue increases derived from a more significant share of food exports to Cuba, from reduced transportation costs and delays caused by travel restrictions, and from the elimination of cumbersome payment requirements; 2) the U.S. government will benefit from additional tax revenues on the increase in sales; 3) funds wasted on attempts to de-legitimize the Castro regime, such as Radio and TV Marti, estimated to be in excess of $35 million annually, instead can be used for more productive purposes, such as academic and cultural exchanges; 4) the U.S. Treasurys administrative expenses of enforcing complex financing restrictions and investigating illegal U.S. investments and travel to Cuba will be reduced and redirected to a more practical use, such as investigating terrorist networks abroad; and 5) improved foreign relations with some of the U.S.s most important allies including the European Union and OAS partners will result from the reform measures (Sweig). Offsetting these benefits are the
costs of enforcement of increased trade activities and travel with Cuba as well as the reality that these measures will not force the collapse of Cuban communism or result in a rapid transition to a democratic government.

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-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 urgently needed rehabilitation of its hemispheric policy ought to also include consideration of Cubas own pressing nation al 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.

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.

EU supports Cuban relations Bandow 12(12/11/12, Bandow, D., Senior fellow, Cato institute, writer for Fortune magazine, National
Interest, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Times, http://www.cato.org/people/doug-bandow)

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.

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 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 legitimacy" 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 state-controlled 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 "nongovernmental organization" (NGO) promised to be the key for access to donor money from international development actors, both private and public.

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 Kennedys focus on Latin America rekindled the promise of the Good Neighbor Policy of Franklin D. Roosevelt and transformed the whole concept of inter-American relations. Tragically, after

Kennedys assassination in 1963, the ideal of the Alliance for Progress crumbled and la noche mas larga the longest night began for the proponents of Latin American democracy. Military regimes flourished, democratic governments withered, moderate political and civil leaders were labeled Communists, rights of free speech and assembly were curtailed and human dignity crushed, largely because the United States abandoned all standards save that of anti-Communism. During my Foreign Service career, I did what I could to oppose policies that
supported dictators and closed off democratic alternatives. In 1981, as the ambassador to El Salvador, I refused a demand by the secretary of state, Alexander M. Haig Jr., that I use official channels to cover up the Salvadoran militarys responsibility for the murders of four American churchwomen. I was fired and forced out of the Foreign Service. The Reagan administration, under the illusion that Cuba was the power driving the Salvadoran revolution, turned its policy over to the Pentagon and C.I.A., with predictable results. During the 1980s the United States helped expand the Salvadoran military, which was dominated by uniformed assassins. We armed them, trained them and covered up their crimes. After our counterrevolutionary efforts failed to end the Salvadoran conflict, the Defense Department asked its research institute, the RAND Corporation, what had gone wrong. RAND analysts found that United States policy makers had refused to accept the obvious truth that the insurgents were rebelling against social injustice and state terror. As a result, we pursued a policy unsettling to ourselves, for ends humiliating to the Salvadorans and at a cost disproportionate to any conventional conception of the national interest. Over the subsequent quarter-century, a series of profound political, social and economic changes have undermined the traditional power bases in Latin America and, with them, longstanding regional institutions like the Organization of American States. The organization, which is headquartered in Washington and which excluded Cuba in 1962, was seen as irrelevant by Mr. Chvez. He promoted the creation of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States which excludes the United States and Canada as an alternative. At a regional meeting that included Cuba and excluded the United States, Mr. Chvez said that the most positive thing for the independence of our continent is that we meet alone without the hegemony of empire. Mr. Chvez

was masterful at manipulating Americas antagonism toward Fidel Castro as a rhetorical stick with which to attack the United States as an imperialist aggressor, an enemy of progressive change, interested mainly in treating Latin America as a vassal continent, a source of cheap commodities and labor. Like its predecessors, the Obama administration has given few signs that

it has grasped the magnitude of these changes or cares about their consequences. After President Obama took office in 2009, Latin Americas leading statesman at the time, Luiz Incio Lula da Silva, then the president of Brazil, urged Mr. Obama to normalize relations with Cuba. Lula, as he is universally known, correctly identified our Cuba policy as the chief stumbling block to renewed ties with Latin America , as it had been since the very
early years of the Castro regime. After the failure of the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion, Washington set 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 Kremlins 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 fa stest-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 t hink 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-UN relations advantage - Impacts


Without UN support, nuclear proliferation would follow Zedillo 5 - Ernesto Zedillo, director, Yale Center for the Study of Globalization, former president of Mexico [A World Without the UN?
Forbes, 3/28/05, http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2005/0328/041.html, accessed: 6/27/13, JK] Not so fast! The first question that must be posed is whether a system of collective responsibility to pursue peace and security still makes equal sense for the strong and the weak countries of the world. I believe it does. The weak want to know that if they're threatened by another country the international community will not be indifferent. The powerful know that even if they had the resources to wage war successfully against any potential aggressor state, it would be better to spare those resources if their security and national interest could be indubitably protected by other means. They also know that today's security threats are very different from traditional intercountry conflicts. Terrorists

and other transnational criminals, along with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, constitute perils that no country, irrespective of its economic or military might, can defeat alone.
Cooperative and collective action is required.

UN relations are key to keeping world peace IHEU 8 - International Humanist and Ethical Union, world union in which human rights are respected and everyone can live life of dignity
[Does the UN have the power to do its job? http://iheu.org/content/does-un-have-power-do-its-job, accessed: 6/27/13, JK] In a 2007 poll, two

out of three Americans were disappointed at UN failures. Yet the same proportion wants the UN to play a strong role in settling global problems. The UN was designed with a Secretariat which was
given the power to implement policies and actions designed by the member states. The UN was never intended as a world government and was never given the power and the funding to achieve goals not fully agreed upon. The strongest political body, the Security Council, has 15 members with five major countries holding veto power. Even the threat of a veto determines what comes up before the Council. The Secretary General is far more secretary than general. If the major powers cannot agree on an action, it will not happen. Much of the UN's work is not controversial. Over 80% is humanitarian and highly effective given the small budget allocated for it. The

UN is the first recourse for aiding both natural and manmade disasters. Essentials for survival come quickly--bags of food, crates of medicine, blankets and tents. Rescue workers under the blue flag appear in hours. Through its many agencies, the UN promotes clean water, safe schools, vaccination and education campaigns. The UN is a leader in promoting security, education, and empowerment of women. The greatly feared worldwide pandemic, triggered by avian flu, has so far been avoided, thanks to
international cooperation carried out through the UN. Disappointment with the UN springs primarily from the UN's limited ability to control human rights abuses, and particularly the genocides in Rwanda and Darfur. The Rwanda genocide happened because the US, under President Clinton, actively lobbied against sending more peacekeepers. The ongoing genocide in Darfur continues in part because China protects Sudan from excessive attention in the Security Council. The Sudanese government uses the currency it earns from selling oil to China, to buy weapons from China. Yet even in the mine-strewn and politically explosive area of peacekeeping the

UN has negotiated 172 peaceful settlements of regional conflicts. The UN peacekeepers can keep a peace process going, but only when there is a process to keep. The major
powers must agree to effectively intervene for the UN to carry out its function. When governments agree the UN can intervene with speed and effectiveness. In some cases, as in Haiti, the UN has a strong mandate to use force to protect civilians. In the war in Lebanon between Hezbollah and Israel, when tensions threatened to ignite the entire Middle East, the participants and the governments wanted a ceasefire. The UN was there, ready and able to call a halt using peacekeepers. They stopped what could have been a spreading conflagration. There are currently 16 peacekeeping operations. The need for peacekeepers has grown sharply from 10,000 personnel in 1999, to 85,000 in 2007. Amazingly, the UN spends less on peacekeeping worldwide, than New York City spends on the annual budget of the Police Department. The UN is developing a Peace-building Commission to prevent countries at risk from falling into or returning to internal conflict. The

UN is desperately needed. Problems are now global, crossing borders without passports. Climate change, resistance to international terrorism, weapons proliferation, epidemics spread by world travel, all demand cooperation. The participation of the world's largest economy, the US, is essential . It is tragic that the US has pursued a mostly unilateral approach,
rejecting the Kyoto Climate Change Treaty, the International Criminal Court, and payment of its arrears in dues to the UN.

US-UN relations adv - Internal Links


The embargo tanks UN relations recent resolution proves Villarreal 12 Ryan Villarreal, reporter on foreign affairs with a focus on Latin America. He also covers human
rights and environmental issues worldwide. (UN Calls For End To US Embargo of Cuba, International Business Times, November 14, 2012, http://www.ibtimes.com/un-calls-end-us-embargo-cuba-880522, accessed: 7/2/13, LR)

The United Nations has called for an end to the U.S. embargo of Cuba that has been in place for over half a
century.

For the 21st consecutive year, the U.N. General Assembly adopted a resolution opposing the embargo after 188 member states voted in favor of it.
There were three votes against it from the U.S., Israel and Palau, while two others, the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia, abstained. The United States embargo continues to severely affect the day-to-day welfare of Cuban citizens, read a June 2012 statement from the U.N. Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean or CEPAL. CEPAL said that the embargo has driven up medical, agricultural and manufacturing costs, as well as for infrastructure projects.

Embargo destroys UN relations recent vote proves 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-continue-cuban-embargo, accessed: 7/4/13, LR)

In a near unanimous vote at the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday, the vast majority of the world voted to put an end the U.S. economic embargo against Cuba. Aside from the moral argument, the driving principles behind the vote to end the embargo were those regarding the sovereign equality of states, non-intervention in internal affairs, and the freedom of international trade and navigation. In total, 188 countries voted in favor of the resolution, with the U.S., Israel, and Palau voting against it, and the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia abstaining. It was the twenty first consecutive year that the resolution passed by an overwhelming majority in the U.N. The last time the United States
had normal relations with Cuba, the Andy Griffith Show was the most popular show on TV, African Americans couldnt vote, McDonalds only had 228 locations, and Barack O bama would not be born for another year. It was indeed a different world. It was thought that President Obama knew this as well when he made headlines in 2009 by stating that he sought a new beginning with Cuba, as the outdated and damaging policy was more ideological than practical, Tuesdays vote showed that when it came to the embargo, nothing has changed.

Lifting Embargo Key to Improving US-UN involvement RIA Novosti 12 RIA Novosti (in Russian: ) or sometimes shortly RIA (Russian: ) is one of
the largest news agencies in Russia.[1] RIA Novosti is headquartered in Moscow and operates about 80 bureaus internationally. The agency publishes news and analysis of social-political, economic, scientific and financial subjects (Condemnedagain: 'Genocidal' US embargo on Cuba slammed by UN for 21st year, RIA Novosti, November 14, 2012, http://rt.com/news/cuba-embargo-un-vote-635/, Date Accessed: June 28, 2013, SD) 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. T his 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. He criticized America for what ed a costly double standard for wasting hundreds of millions of dollars from the taxes that are paid by US citizens in the useless and illegal subversion against Cuba. US president Barack Obama has taken measures to facilitate US travel to the island nation, but has thus far refrained from taking any further steps to lift the embargo. The US justifies its stance by saying it is waiting for signs of changes in Cubas political regime and improvements in the island states human rights record. The embargo was originally introduced with a view to crippling Cubas communist regime, which took power in the country following the 1959 revolution headed by Fidel Castro. A loyal friend? In fact, US envoy at the UN assembly, Ronald D. Godard argued the embargo is one of the tools in our overall efforts to encourage respect for the human rights and basic freedoms to which the United Nations itself is committed. Cubas resolution seeks to identify an external scapegoat for the islands economic problems when they are principally caused by the economic policies that Cuban government has pursued for the past half century, Godard said. He stressed that the US was a loyal friend to Cuba and it is working to empower Cubans who wish to determine their own future. Citing the case of Alan Gross, a US ci tizen who was arrested in Cuba and currently serving a 15-year sentence for setting up internet networks on the island, Godard said his imprisonment had halted diplomatic proceedings with Cuba. Minister Rodriguezs speech was greeted by thunderous applause, while Godards was met with comparative silence at the assembly vote.

Embargo kills UN relations international law violation: recent vote proves Reuters 12Thomas Reuters, Chicago Tribune writer (For 21st time, UN urges end to embargo on Cuba,
Chicago Tribune, http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-11-13/business/chi-for-21st-time-un-urges-us-to-endembargo-on-cuba-20121113_1_trade-embargo-cuban-people-change-cuba-policy, 11/13/12, Accessed 7/2/13, jtc) Repeating an annual ritual, the U.N. General Assembly called on Tuesday for the United States to lift its trade embargo against Cuba, whose foreign minister said the blockade against the communist-run island was tantamount to "genocide." For the 21st year, the assembly's vote was overwhelming, with 188 nations - including most of Washington's closest allies - supporting the embargo resolution, a result virtually unchanged from last year. Israel, heavily dependent on U.S. backing in the Middle East, and the tiny Pacific state of Palau were the only two countries that supported the United States in opposing the non-binding resolution in the 193-nation assembly. The Pacific states of the Marshall Islands and Micronesia abstained. President Barack Obama further loosened curbs last year on U.S. travel and remittances to Cuba. He had said he was ready to change Cuba policy but was still waiting for signals from Havana, such as the release of political prisoners and guarantees of basic human rights. But Obama has not lifted the five-decade-old trade embargo, and the imprisonment of a U.S. contractor in Cuba has halted the thaw in Cuban-U.S. relations. Havana's Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez told the assembly that Cuba had high hopes for Obama when he was first elected in 2008 and welcomed his calls for change. But he said the result had been disappointing. "The reality is that the last four years have been characterized by the persistent tightening of -- the embargo," he said. 'EXTERNAL SCAPEGOAT' Rodriguez said the "extraterritoriality" of the blockade measures - the fact that Washington pressures other countries to adhere to the U.S. embargo - violates international law. He added that the blockade is not in U.S. interests and harms its credibility. "It leads the U.S. to adopt costly double standards," he said, adding that the embargo has failed to achieve its objectives of pressuring the government to introduce economic and political freedoms and comply with international human rights standards. " There is no legitimate or moral reason to maintain this embargo that is anchored in the Cold War," he said. 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."

Lifting embargo key to UN relations international hatred of the embargo Betancourt 13 [Roger R. Betancourt, Professor in the Department of Economics at the University of Maryland,

received a B.A. in Economics from Georgetown University (Washington DC) and a Ph.D. in Economics from the University of Wisconsin (Madison), Sh ould the US Lift the Embargo? Development Research Center, 4/13, http://devresearchcenter.org/2013/04/08/should-the-us-lift-the-embargo-by-rogerbetancourt/, accessed: 6/27/13, JK] This is even more applicable in the case of the US, which has more alternatives due to its higher level of wealth. With respect to restrictions motivated by national security, selective restrictions that apply to all countries, including China, would be more than sufficient to satisfy these

lifting of these restrictions, the US would benefit more in terms of improving its international relations with almost every other country in the world. They vote against the US embargo every year at the UN.
objectives. While Cuba would benefit more economically than the

US from the

US isolated in international community sole supporter of the embargo Piccone 09 Ted Piccone, senior director of foreign policy at Brookings Institution, served on the State
Department, National Security Council and Pentagon (The United Nations Denounces the US Embargo on CubaAgain, Brookings, 10/27/09, http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2009/10/27-cuba-un-votepiccone, Accessed 6/28/13, AM) For the 18th year in a row, the United Nations General Assembly unequivocally calls for the end of "the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States of America against Cuba." And once again, the United States finds itself completely isolated from even its closest friends in the international

community.
It wasnt supposed to be this way. President Obama is committed to a new course of multilateral engagement in which the United States reassumes its mantle of responsible global citizen. And in many ways, from the formal creation of the G-20 to re-joining the UN Human Rights Council, the administration has not just talked the talk, but walked the walk, earning him a rather premature though welcomed Nobel Peace Prize. But when it comes to Cuba, its back to the same old story: all politics is local, in this case, Miami, Florida. Earlier this year, there was some justified hope that, after eight years of an increasingly onerous set of laws and regulations restricting trade, travel and remittances between the United States and Cuba, President Obama would fulfill his promise to try a new path of pragmatic but principled engagement. And winning Florida last November despite losing the majority of Cuban American votes in Miami should have given the White House some elbow room to take some bold actions. But even supporters are disappointed by the excessively cautious steps this administration has taken so far to extend that "unclenched fist" to our closest island neighbor. If anything, the president seems to have limited his options by locking himself in to a policy of mutual reciprocity that lets Havana determine the pace of progress in unfreezing 50 years of icy relations. On more than one occasion, the president has reiterated his view that, in return for letting Cuban-American families travel and send remittances to their loved ones on the island, the Castro regime must take the next step toward better relations. He reportedly asked his Spanish counterpart, Prime Minister Jose Luis Zapatero, to tell President Raul Castro to get moving on democratic reforms. According to an unnamed U.S. official quoted in El Pais, Obama said, "We're taking steps, but if they don't take steps too, it's going to be very hard for us to continue." Of course, the fact that financial donations from pro-embargo Cuban Americans to the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee, which happens to be led by pro-embargo Cuban-American Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ), have jumped six-fold since 2006 also may have something to do with this approach. It at least seems to reaffirm another old clich: money talks. While a tit-for-tat approach may assuage the shrinking number of hard-liners in Miami, it is unlikely to have any effect on the intended audience the Cuban regime, now ruled by Fidel Castros "younger" brother (78 years old) and a cohort of aged revolutionaries. Cuba has made it very clear that it is prepared to sit down and talk with the United States in a spirit of mutual respect, i.e., accepting the regime as it is, rather than as we would like it to be. Until then, it will happily promote the image of David vs. Goliath on the world stage. It is just too potent and too successful a narrative in winning friends for Havana to abandon, even more so now that its economy is in a shambles and it needs all the friends it can get.

Similarly, the modest steps the administration has taken so far is unlikely to get much mileage with the other group one would want to influence the European and other allies who are rooting for a more multilateral, cooperative and pragmatic U.S. policy on this and a host of other issues. Washington will have to do much more to begin turning the tide of international public opinion against the embargo. This does not mean that the United States should abandon its defense of human rights for all Cubans. But it might want to change its tactics. Spain is touting its policy of quiet diplomacy as a better model for the European Union, which it chairs in 2010, and has a few, albeit meager concessions by Havana to back up its argument. We, after 50 years of attempting to punish Cuba for its bad behavior, have none. So a policy designed to isolate a small, poor Caribbean island has come around full circle to isolate the superpower instead. The lopsided UN vote reminds us yet again that its time for a change. If President Obama wants to show the world he is prepared to lead in a new direction, there are a multitude of steps he can take to ease the embargo and improve bilateral relations without waiting for Congress to act. These include expanding licenses for people-to-people travel for educational, cultural and humanitarian purposes; allowing more Cubans to travel to the United States; easing the licensing of tradable medicines developed in Cuba; reviewing whether Cuba should remain on the list of state sponsors of terrorism; and pursuing agreements on disaster relief and marine conservation. But something tells me that at next years UN vote, very little will have changed, in Havana or in Washington.

US-UN relations adv relations low now


UN relations low now contentious political issues Bellamy, Morrison, and Shays 06 in an interview with the Yale Journal of International Affairs Carol
Bellamy served as Executive Director of the United Nations Childrens Fund (UNICEF) from 1995 to 2005, and is currently the President and CEO of the School for International Training in Bra leboro, Vermont. David Morrison is currently the Director of Communications for the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). U.S. Representative Christopher Shays has served as a Republican congressman representing the fourth district of Connecticut since 1974. He is the Vice-Chair of the House Commi ee on Government Reform. (The U.S. Relationship with the United Nations, Yale Journal of International Affairs, 2006, http://yalejournal.org/wpcontent/uploads/2011/01/061207bellamy-morrison-shays.pdf, Accessed: 6/28/13, sh)

The relationship between the United States and the UN has deteriorated in the last decade. The relationship is especially strained because in the United States the public focus is almost entirely on the political half of the UN organization, where many of the more contentious issues arise. It is important to
take into consideration the broader dimensions of the United Nations, which range from confronting the various health emergencies of the moment to addressing problems in the environment and global poverty.

UN and General Assembly resolutions condemn Embargo The Nation 12 (11/15/12, Un condemns US embargo on Cuba, http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistannews-newspaper-daily-english-online/international/15-Nov-2012/un-condemns-us-embargo-on-cuba, ADL) The UN General Assembly adopted by a thumping majority a new resolution condemning the commercial, economic and financial embargo that the United States has imposed on Cuba for the past 50 years. The resolution was passed by a vote of 188-3 with two abstentions, 193-member Assembly President Vuk Jeremic announced at the end of a nearly three-hour debate. Israel and
Palau joined the United States in opposition, while Micronesia and the Marshall Islands abstained. The General Assembly has passed a similar resolution every year since 1992. Before the vote, Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez slammed the persistent tightening of the embargo during the first four years of the Barack Obama administration. It is an act of aggression and a permanent danger to the

stability of the nation, he said. Speaking for the United States, senior State Department official Ronald Godard accused Havana of
seeking to identify an external scapegoat for the islands economic problems when they are principally caused by the economic polici es that Cuban government has pursued for the past half century. The countries of Latin America and the Caribbean had previously joined together to call

for the end of the embargo as contrary to the principles of the UN Charter and international law. The US delegate, Ronald Godard, said that his country, like others, determined the conduct of its economic relationships with other
States based on its best interest. With regards to Cuba, the priority of President Obamas administration was to empower Cubans to determine their own future. Todays resolution, he said, sought to identify an external scapegoat for Cubas economic problem s, where in fact they were caused by the countrys policies over the last half a century. Irrespective of US policy, it was unrealistic to expect Cub a to thrive unless it opened its monopolies, respected international property rights and allowed unfettered access to the Internet, among other things, the representative added.

U.S. unpopular with the UN over embargo Charbonneau 12 Reuters UN bureau chief (November 13, Louis, Reuters, U.N. urges end to U.S. Cuba embargo for 21st year http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/13/us-cuba-embargo-unidUSBRE8AC11820121113, ML) For the 21st year, the assembly's vote was overwhelming, with 188 nations - including most of Washington's closest allies - supporting the embargo resolution, a result virtually unchanged from last year. Israel, heavily
dependent on U.S. backing in the Middle East, and the tiny Pacific state of Palau were the only two countries that supported the United States in opposing the non-binding resolution in the 193-nation assembly. The Pacific states of the Marshall Islands and Micronesia abstained. President Barack Obama further loosened curbs last year on U.S. travel and remittances to Cuba. He had said he was ready to change Cuba policy but was still waiting for signals from Havana, such as the release of political prisoners and guarantees of basic human rights. But Obama has not lifted the five-decade-old trade embargo, and the imprisonment of a U.S. contractor in Cuba has halted the thaw in Cuban-U.S. relations. Havana's Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez told the assembly that Cuba had high hopes for Obama when he was first elected in 2008 and welcomed his calls for change. But he said the result had been disappointing. "The reality is that the last four years have been characterized by the persistent

tightening of ... the embargo," he said. 'EXTERNAL SCAPEGOAT' Rodriguez

said the "extraterritoriality" of the blockade measures the fact that Washington pressures other countries to adhere to the U.S. embargo - violates international law. He added that the blockade is not in U.S. interests and harms its credibility. "It leads the U.S. to adopt costly double standards," he said, adding that the embargo has failed to achieve its objectives of pressuring the government to
introduce economic and political freedoms and comply with international human rights standards. "There is no legitimate or moral reason to maintain this embargo that is anchored in the Cold War," he said. 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." U.S. envoy Ronald
Godard rejected the resolution's call for ending the blockade and Cuba's allegation that the United States was to blame for Cuban financial difficulties. He added that the government in Havana was putting the brakes on Cuba's further development, not the United States. "It is the Cuban government that continues to deprive them of that aspiration," he said, adding that Cuba was seeking an "external scapegoat for the island's economic problems." Godard said Washington was not punishing the Cuban people. He said $2 billion in remittances were sent from the United States to Cuba last year, while Washington had authorized over $1.2 billion in humanitarian assistance. He repeated Washington's calls for Cuba to "immediately release Mr. (Alan) Gross," a U.S. contractor serving a 15-year sentence in Cuba for setting up Internet networks, work that a judge said was a crime against the Cuban state. Gross' imprisonment halted efforts by Obama to improve long-hostile relations between the United States and Cuba. Rodriguez received a resounding ovation after his speech. No one applauded Godard as the assembly proceeded to the vote.

Embargo Links to Poor Foreign Relations Procon.org 6/13/13 ProCon.org is an independent, nonpartisan, 501(c)(3) nonprofit public charity. (June 6, 2013, Pro & Con Arguments: "Should the United States Maintain Its Embargo against Cuba? http://cuba-embargo.procon.org) Most of the world opposes the embargo, and maintaining it is detrimental to the reputation of the United States among the international community. The United Nations has formally denounced the US embargo on Cuba every year since 1991. In 2012, 188 countries in the UN General Assembly voted to condemn the US policy; only Israel and Palau sided with the United States. [13] American allies, such as Canada, Britain, Italy, Mexico, and France are the leading suppliers of tourists to Cuba. [14] The US sanctions make the US look stubborn and childish in the eyes of the world. During his Mar. 2012 visit to the island, Pope Benedict XVI said the embargo "unfairly burdens" the Cuban people. [18] Other countries do not approve of the embargo Snow 10, (October, 26, 2010, Associated Press, Cuba embargo: UN vote urges US to lift embargo, http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2011/10/25/un_condemns_us_embargo_of_cuba____again/, AKY) The U.N. General Assembly voted overwhelming Tuesday to condemn almost a half-century of U.S. sanctions against Cuba, demanding an end to what member states say is a Cold War anachronism that only hurts ordinary people.
It was the 19th consecutive year that the General Assembly took up the symbolic measure, calling for the "Necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States of America against Cuba."

Global speakers expressed

disappointment that the U.S. maintains the embargo almost two years after President Barack Obama's election raised hopes for a thaw between the former Cold War enemies. "South Africa calls on the U.S. to end its unilateral isolation of Cuba," that country's Ambassador Baso Sangqu said. "We urge the U.S. to engage in a meaningful dialogue with Cuba. We further call for accelerated action to dismantle the unjust sanctions regime against Cuba." 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.

U.N wants U.S to lift embargo AP 2008 (10/29//2008, associated press, http://www.nbcnews.com/id/27439866/ns/world_news-united_nations/t/un-urgesamerica-lift-cuba-embargo/#.UemYRI3VBqU)

UNITED NATIONS The U.N. General Assembly overwhelmingly approved a resolution on Wednesday urging the United States to repeal its 47-year-old trade embargo against Cuba. It was the 17th straight year

Roque said he hopes the next U.S. president will respond to the international appeal. But he said whatever the eventual decision, "I would like to reiterate that they shall never be able to bring the Cuban people to their knees." U.S. diplomat Ronald Godard said every country has the right to restrict trade. He said the embargo is justified because the Cuban government is undemocratic and restricts political and economic freedom . The vote in the 192member world body was 185 to 3, with two abstentions. The U.S., Israel and Palau voted "no" while Micronesia and
that the General Assembly called for the embargo to be repealed "as soon as possible." Cuban Foreign Minister Felipe Perez the Marshall Islands abstained. That was one more "yes" vote than last year's vote of 184 to 4 with one abstention. When the final vote flashed on the screen in the General Assembly chamber, there was loud applause. Advertise

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. Iran Are alies with Cuba USA Today, 1/12( 1/12/12, Iran's leader Ahmadinejad denounces capitalism while in Cuba,
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2012-01-11/Ahmadinejad-Iran-Cuba/52509546/1, AW)

Ahmadinejad held a private meeting later with President Raul Castro and was expected to meet with Fidel Castro. In all, he planned to spend less than 24 hours on the island before flying to Ecuador. At the university, the Iranian leader railed against the United States and its allies and said heartless capitalism is the root cause of war."Thankfully we are already witnessing that the capitalist system is in decay," Ahmadinejad said. "On various stages it has come to a dead end

politically, economically and culturally.""You see that when it lacks logic, they turn to weapons to kill and destroy," he added. Ahmadinejad, who received an honorary doctorate from the university, did not take questions or talk about a bombing earlier Wednesday in Tehran that killed a nuclear scientist working at Iran's

The Iranian leader spoke warmly of his Cuban hosts, describing the relationship of the two countries as "solidarity between two revolutionary peoples," although the two revolutions couldn't have been more different. Iran's ushered in a religious Islamic
main uranium enrichment facility.Iran's government blamed the killing on Israel, the U.S. and Britain. The U.S. denied involvement. government, while Communist Cuba under Fidel Castro was officially atheist for decades.Nevertheless, Iran and Cuba have found common cause in standing up to Washington. Fidel Castro, who is retired, has repeatedly warned that a confrontation pitting the U.S. and Israel against Iran could result in a nuclear exchange. Ahmadinejad began his Latin America tour shortly after Washington imposed tougher sanctions on Tehran over its nuclear program. He previously visited Venezuela and Nicaragua.

US interference Leads to Nuclear War USA Today, 1/12( 1/12/12, Iran's leader Ahmadinejad denounces capitalism while in Cuba,
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2012-01-11/Ahmadinejad-Iran-Cuba/52509546/1, AW) Nevertheless, Iran

and Cuba have found common cause in standing up to Washington. Fidel Castro, who is retired, has repeatedly warned that a confrontation pitting the U.S. and Israel against Iran could result in a nuclear exchange. Ahmadinejad began his Latin America tour shortly after Washington imposed tougher sanctions on
Tehran over its nuclear program. He previously visited Venezuela and Nicaragua.

Iran Wants to be with Cuba Press TV 2/13(2/6/13, US efforts to harm Iran-LatAm ties futile: Iranian official
http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/02/06/287485/irancuba-ties-render-us-efforts-futile/ AW)

Sheikholeslam said Iran has long stood by Cuba and the two countries have supported each other politically and economically despite the efforts by the United States and the West to harm Tehran-Havana relations. He went on to say that the expansion of Iran-Cuba ties has dealt a heavy blow to US propaganda campaign against the Islamic Republics relations with Latin America. Referring to the close relations between the two countries, Ricardo emphasized that Cuba is eager to strengthen political, economic, cultural and parliamentary cooperation with Iran. On December 28, 2012, US President
Barack Obama enacted Countering Iran in the Western Hemisphere Act which calls for the US State Department to work out a st rategy within six months to address Iran's growing hostile presence and activity in Latin America. Since

2005, Iran has opened six new embassies in Latin America. It now has 11 embassies and 17 cultural centers in the region. Iran has talked with Cuba AFP 12/11(12/28/11, AFP, Iranian president to visit Venezuela, Cuba,
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jDvPydZuPLYTGmeW9JSMSwNHnEqA?docId=CNG.434478700d46f4e513e8666855 4dd8fa.211, AW) TEHRAN Iranian

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is to visit Venezuela and Cuba as part of a four-nation Latin America tour in the second week of January 2012, an official said Wednesday. Ahmadinejad
will also visit Nicaragua and Ecuador on the trip, his international affairs director, Mohammad Reza Forghani, told the official news agency IRNA.All

the countries are left-leaning and share an ideological antagonism towards Iran's archfoe, the United States."Mr Ahmadinejad will first go to Caracas to visit (Venezuelan President) Hugo Chavez," Forghani said,
confirming an announcement made Tuesday by Chavez."He will then go to the swearing-in ceremonies for Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, who has been re-elected," he said.Ahmadinejad will then travel to Cuba and to Ecuador, where he will hold talks with the respective leaders.Iran

has been seeking to boost its ties with sympathetic Latin American countries in recent years, to the concern of the United States.The trip was announced ahead of new sanctions expected to be imposed by the
United States and Europe on Iran's oil and financial sectors in a bid to halt Tehran's controversial nuclear programme.

Lifting Embargo Causes US to give in to Castro regime and allows anti americanism to spread among Latin America PETER BROOKES 4 15, 2009 (Peter Brookes is a Heritage Foundation senior fellow and a former deputy assistant secretary of
defense,http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2009/04/keep-the-embargo-o, SR)

IN another outreach to rogu ish regimes, the Obama ad ministration on Monday an nounced the easing of some restrictions on Cuba. Team Bam hopes that a new face in the White House will heal old
wounds. Fat chance. Sure, it's fine to allow separated families to see each other more than once every three years -even though Cubanos aren't allowed to visit America. And permitting gifts to Cuban relatives could ease unnecessary poverty -- even though the regime will siphon off an estimated 20 percent of the money sent there. In the end, though, it's still Fidel Castro and his brother Raul who'll decide whether there'll be a thaw in ties with the United States -- or not. And in usual Castro-style, Fidel himself stood defiant in response to the White House proclamation, barely recognizing the US policy shift. Instead, and predictably, Fidel demanded an end to el bloqueo (the blockade) -- without any promises of change for the people who labor under the regime's hardline policies. So much for the theory that if we're nice to them, they'll be nice to us. Many are concerned that the lack of love from Havana will lead Washington to make even more unilateral concessions to create an opening with Fidel and the gang. Of course, the big empanada is the US economic embargo

against Cuba, in place since 1962, which undoubtedly is the thing Havana most wants done away with -- without any concessions on Cuba's part, of course. Lifting the embargo won't normalize relations, but instead legitimize -- and wave the white flag to -- Fidel's 50-year fight against the Yanquis, further lionizing the dictator and encouraging the Latin American Left. Because the economy is nationalized, trade will pour plenty of cash into the Cuban national coffers -- allowing Havana to suppress dissent at home and bolster its communist agenda abroad. The last thing we should do is to fill the pockets of a regime that'll use those profits to keep a jackboot on the neck of the Cuban people . The political
and human-rights situation in Cuba is grim enough already. The police state controls the lives of 11 million Cubans in what has become an island prison. The people enjoy none of the basic civil liberties -- no freedom of

speech, press, assembly or association. Security types monitor foreign journalists, restrict Internet access and foreign news and censor the domestic media. The regime holds more than 200 political dissidents in jails that rats won't live in. We also don't need a pumped-up Cuba that could become a serious menace to US interests in Latin America, the Caribbean -- or beyond. (The likes of China, Russia and Iran might also look to partner with a revitalized Cuba.) With an influx of resources, the Cuban regime would surely team up with the rulers of nations like Venezuela, Nicaragua and Bolivia to advance socialism and anti-Americanism in the Western Hemisphere. The embargo has stifled Havana's ambitions ever since the Castros lost their Soviet sponsorship in
the early 1990s. Anyone noticed the lack of trouble Cuba has caused internationally since then? Contrast that with the 1980s some time. Regrettably, 110 years after independence from Spain (courtesy of Uncle Sam), Cuba still isn't free. Instead of utopia, it has become a dystopia at the hands of the Castro brothers. The US embargo remains

a matter of principle -- and an appropriate response to Cuba's brutal repression of its people. Giving in to evil only begets more of it. Haven't we learned that yet? Until we see progress in loosing the Cuban people from the yoke of the communist regime, we should hold firm onto the leverage the embargo provides. Peter Brookes is a Heritage Foundation senior fellow and a former deputy
assistant secretary of defense.

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.

SOLVENCY ADVOCATES

Executive Order
Obama should end economic sanctions associated with the State Department Terrorism list, end treasury department secondary sanctions enforcement and expand travel licensing. Vanden Heuvel 13 graduate of Princeton University (7/2/13 Katrina, The Washington Post, The U.S. should
end the Cuban embargo, http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-07-02/opinions/40316090_1_embargo-limitedprivate-enterprise-odebrecht LM)

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 U.S. 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. A former is committed to fostering private coops and businesses, and is beginning a push to make more state enterprises make their own way. This month, 100 state-run produce markets and 26 other establishments are scheduled to become private cooperatives. The government says many more establishments will follow, beginning in 2014, as an alternative to small and mediumminister of the economy spoke of how Cuba size state businesses in retail and food services, transportation, light manufacturing and construction, among other sectors. Despite the embargo, Jos Mart International Airport displays the new vitality.

Hundreds of Cuban Americans fly into see relatives, bringing everything from flat-screen TVs to consumer basics. Since President Obama lifted restrictions on family visits in 2009, remittances and material support from Cuban Americans play a growing role in the microeconomy of the island. Whereas in the 1990s, Havana was willing to permit only limited private enterprise as an emergency measure, government officials now speculate openly about aiming toward 50 percent of Cubas GDP in private hands within five years. Of course, an expanding small business sector wont resolve some central issues
facing the island: access to large-scale credit and investment and the need to boost exports and address anemic productivity, not to mention the demands of an aging population. In Havana, there is more talk about Brazils investment in renovating Mariel Harbor than abou t Edward Snowden.

Brazilian conglomerate Odebrecht had to resist threats by Floridas state government to cut off any state contracts if it invested in Cuba. This enormous deep-water port is designed to handle trade with the United States and beyond in a post-embargo world, if the embargo is ever ended. Cubas official media remains sclerotic, though there are spirited debates in a few online outlets. But the government appears to understand that the explosion of social media will transform communications and politics, and however tentatively, realizes it has little choice but to change if it is to engage a younger generation. It is long past time for the United States to end the embargo and influence Cuba, rather than threaten it. Ironically, as a result of a new Cuban migration law lifting more than 50 years of restrictions on the ability of its citizens to travel freely abroad, taking effect this year, Cubans are now freer to travel to the United States than Americans are to Cuba. The president cant end the travel ban without Congressional approval, but as Peter Kornbluh explained in a recent piece in The Nation, he can take several steps that would transform our policy. Obama should start by removing Cuba from the State Departments list of nations that support terrorism, terminating the economic and commercial sanctions that come with that designation. The Treasury could stop fining international banks for doing business with Cuba, a practice that impedes the countrys slow opening to private enterprise. At the same time, the president could expand licensing for travel to Cuba, making it easier for entrepreneurs, scientists, doctors and others to travel and explore commercial possibilities. The Cold War Cuban Democracy and Contingency Planning Program, designed for regime
change, should be reconfigured to a people-to-people exchange program that would actually have some influence.

Obama wants to end embargo Ford 09-Glen Ford, writer and reporter for black agenda report(Obama Slowly Edges Toward Ending Failed U.S.
Embargo of Cuba, Black Agenda Report, 4/15/2009, http://blackagendareport.com/content/obama-slowly-edgestoward-ending-failed-us-embargo-cuba,

No matter how you measure it, the US embargo of Cuba has been a failure, and worse, a crime against both the US and the Cuban peoples. Instead of isolating Cuba, it isolates the US and its people from Cuban cultural contributions and US businesses from the profits of Cuban trade. Still, the First Black President moves slowly, much slower than hos voters would like, toward the inevitable. Obama Slowly Edges Toward Ending Failed U.S. Embargo of Cuba A Black Agenda Radio commentary by Glen Ford President Obama will attend a summit meeting of the OAS, most of whose members now maintain good relations with Cuba and wish the U.S. would lift the trade embargo. For half a century, U.S. hatred of the Cuban revolution has driven Washington to commit the full spectrum of international crimes against its small island neighbor: invasion, biological warfare, a relentless campaign of assassination and terror, and the worlds longest trade embargo. Yet the Castro brothers and the socialist government still stand. Forty-seven years ago, when all of Latin America except for Cuba was under Washingtons thumb, the United States directed the Organization of American States the OAS to expel Cuba, which, of course, was promptly done. That was the same year, 1962, that the U.S. imposed its trade blockade on Cuba. Later this week, President Obama will attend a summit meeting of the OAS, most of whose members now maintain good relations with Cuba and wish the U.S. would lift the trade embargo. Some of them will surely tell Obama so, and in this day and age, the president of the United States has no choice but to listen. The Caribbean Community is also on record against the embargo, as is the General Assembly of the United Nations. Captains of U.S. industry, and their foreign counterparts, have for years lobbied for an end to the embargo, for the simple reason that its bad for business, putting American firms at a disadvantage in the global marketplace. The embargo against Cuba, designed to isolate the revolution, today isolates the United States from the community of nations. Cuban leader Raul Castro offered to exchange the Cuban Five for any jailed Cuban dissidents the U.S. wants. Barack Obama got ready for his Friday meeting with the leaders of the rest of the Americas by dropping a range of restrictions on Cuba, mostly involving visits Cuban Americans will be allowed to make to the island and the money and gifts they can send. The older generation of Miami Cubans last week finally bowed to the stability and longevity of the Cuban revolution. Acknowledging the handwriting that has long covered the walls, the farrightwing Cuban American National Foundation called for a significant loosening of restrictions on Cuban American contact with the island. The old reactionaries stopped short of calling for an end to the embargo, but said the issue was only symbolic and no longer important anymore. One of the Cuban American National Foundations heroes, the infamous terrorist Luis Posada, moved a little closer to his eventual encounter with justice, when a federal grand jury served up a new indictment against him in connection with bombings at Cuban tourism destinations, back in 1997. One Italian tourist was killed in the terror campaign. Posada has long been wanted by Havana in the 1976 bombing of a Cuban airliner that killed 73 people. But nowadays the Cuban government would be much happier for the return of the so-called Cuban Five, a group of intelligence agents sent by Cuba to infiltrate Miamis exile groups, where

younger versions of Luis Posada planned terrorist attacks on Cuban soil. Instead of being thanked by the FBI for doing the Bureaus job, the Cuban Five were sentenced to long terms in prison on espionage charges. Cuban leader Raul Castro offered to exchange the Cuban Five or any jailed Cuban dissidents the U.S. wants. Sounds like a good deal. And then the U.S. can end the embargo, and look a little bit less evil in the eyes of the world. For Black Agenda Radio, Im Glen Ford. On the web, go to www.BlackAgendaReport.com.

Obama should lift the Cuba embargo for an open economy Goodman 2/20 Joshua Goodman, Assistant Professor of Public Policy at Harvard Kennedy School (Obama
Can Bend Cuba Embargo to Help Open Economy, Groups Say, Bloomberg, 2/20/13, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-20/obama-should-bend-cuba-embargo-to-buoy-free-markets-reportssay.html, accessed: 6/26/13)

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 businessbacked group based in New York. Theres more Obama can do to be a catalyst for meaningful economic change.

Obama can lift important parts of the embargo by XO Bloomberg 2/20/13- Joshua Goodman, editor of Bloombergs political and economic coverage from Latin
America (Obama Can Bend Cuba Embargo to Help Open Economy, Groups Say, Bloomberg, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-20/obama-should-bend-cuba-embargo-to-buoy-free-markets-reportssay.html, accessed: 6/28/13, ML) 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 economic change.

more Obama can do to be a catalyst for meaningful

Executive order solves Cuba. 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. Jos Azel is a senior research associate at the Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies, University of Miami. 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]

Sabatini contended that other stated goals of the Obama administration have suffered a similar fate, yet he also claimed this does not mean all is lost. In his view President Obama just needs to take the next step: with the stroke of the executive pen he can introduce regulatory modifications that can allow the federal bureaucracy to meet his stated goals regarding Cuba. Regardless of the U.S.
governments actions, a post-embargo,post-CastroCubadoesnotnecessarily imply a business bonanza for U.S. companies, added Professor Jose Azel of the University of Miamis Institute for Cuban and Cuban American Studies. Conventional wisdom holds that U.S. companies will rush in to invest in the island if and when the legal and political circumstances allow them. However, given Cubas difficult economic situation, the international community needs to significantly lower its expectations regarding U.S. foreign direct investment in Cuba.Azel predicted that U.S. exports to Cuba will surge following a (hopefully) peaceful regime transition on the island; however, exports will not lead to the technological transfers, expertise, and capital requirements that the country will desperately need to grow its economy. The United States will obviously want to invest in a post-Castro Cuba; but it is companies, not countries, that make investments. To support his view, Azel explained the three principal reasons that companies engage in foreign direct investment. First, companies are resource seeking; they invest to secure country-specific resources available only within that market. Oil, nickel, and tourism are examples of such resources in Cuba.These have and will continue to attract a certain level of foreign direct investment, argued Azel, regardless of who is in power or the countrys marketfriendliness.Second,companiesareefficiency 3 seeking; they invest to make efficiency gains. Companies engage in foreign direct investment for this reason because they are looking to take advantage of lower labor costs or of a privileged distribution location. However, Cuba lacks an ideal labor force in comparison to that of its neighbors. After more than half a century under a totalitarian regime and a centrally planned command economy, Cubas labor force has not been able to develop the kind of efficiencies needed to attract foreign direct investment. Finally, companies are market seeking; they invest to establish a foothold in a new market that is deemed strategic or dense. However, while the island nation has more than eleven million citizens, its impoverishment means that its market has few effective consumers. A far more rational strategy to supply a market exhibiting these conditions would be to manufacture finished goods elsewhere and export them to Cuba.

Executive orders solve travel key to breaking the Castros grip Tampa Tribune 6/9/13 Editorials section. (Ease travel restrictions to Cuba to boost freedom, The Tampa
Tribune, 6/9/13, http://tbo.com/list/news-opinion-editorials/ease-travel-restrictions-to-cuba-to-boost-freedom20130609/, accessed:7/3/13, amf)

There is a quick way for our nation to help overwhelm Cubas censorship and propaganda.

Simply allow Americans the most effective ambassadors for democracy and free enterprise to travel more easily to Cuba. Having more Americans visit Cuba would almost surely boost capitalism in a country that is
cautiously experimenting with property rights and private enterprise.

This can be done without the political firefight of eliminating the 50-year-old Cuban embargo,
which greatly restricts trade and travel to Cuba.

We think the embargo no longer serves a useful purpose. Indeed, it gives the Cuban government a scapegoat for its failed economic policies. As John Caulfield, chief of Mission of the U.S. Interests Section in Havana, says, Cubas financial woes are a result of Cubas choice of an economic model.
But eliminating the embargo or allowing unrestricted travel to Cuba will require congressional approval, a political challenge. In contrast, President Barack Obama by executive order can require general licenses be issued for all

approved travel to Cuba.


Americans now can receive a visa to travel for such specific purposes as education and cultural studies. These trips must be guided by licensed travel services that are required to follow a strict agenda. Everything is tightly regulated by the Office of Foreign Assets Control to ensure there are no violations of the sanctions against Cuba. (Cuban-Americans appropriately have no restrictions on traveling to visit family.)

The approval process for the specific visas can be cumbersome and time-consuming. Obtaining general license is far less complicated, so expanding its use would eliminate red tape and diminish barriers to travel. It could, depending on how the executive order was written, give travelers more flexibility in what they do in Cuba. It might allow Americans to travel outside of tours. This would likely benefit those Cubans trying to establish private businesses, such as small hotels or restaurants. In any event, making travel to Cuba less daunting would result in more American visitors, which we believe would generate more support for an open society in Cuba. In April, 59 members of Congress, including Hillsborough's Rep. Kathy Castor, wrote the president urging him to "allow all current categories of permissible travel, including people-to-people, to be carried out under a general license." It is, as the representatives stress, a logical next step for the president, who already has eased some travel restrictions, including allowing flights from Tampa to Cuba, which have proved popular.
The United States' tough trade and travel prohibitions unquestionably were necessary after Fidel Castro's communist takeover, when he confiscated property, ruthlessly suppressed opposition, sought to export revolution to Latin America and provided a base for the Soviet Union. But the Cold War is over and the Soviet Union is gone. Cuba remains an authoritarian state, but its grip

seems to be slipping. That control would be further eroded should Americans be allowed to spread the seeds of capitalism and freedom in a country whose people badly need them.

Obama can solve by XO authorizing sale of American goods and services allowing companies to provide financial services Goodman 13 Joshua Goodman, Staff Writer for Bloomberg, (Obama Can Bend Cuba
Embargo to Help Open Economy, Groups Say, Article for Bloomberg, February 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, AW)

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. and 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. Obama should loosen Cuba embargo by executive fiat Goad 13 (2/20/13, Ben, The Hill, Obama should loosen Cuba embargo by executive fiat,
http://thehill.com/blogs/regwatch/administration/284033-obama-urged-to-loosen-cuba-embargo-restrictions-via-executive-fiat#ixzz2ZWOS63uV, AZ) President Obama

should unilaterally act to promote free-market growth in communist Cuba by easing a series of financial and travel restrictions, a pair of international policy groups contends in a new report. Already, steps taken by the Obama administration and the Cuban government have helped to spawn a budding independent private sector, the Americas Society and Council of the Americas determined following three years of talks and research. But progress has stalled, the business-backed undertaking concluded. Unfortunately, the changes on both sides have not gone far enough, the groups found. The two countries remain in diplomatic deadlockcreating an opportunity for private groups to provide channels to share information and build contacts. The report, issued Wednesday, lays out a series of steps that Obama can take without backing from Congress . The president could create exceptions to trade prohibitions that would
allow American businesses and vendors to buy art, merchandise and other products from verifiably independent Cuban sellers, according to the report. Existing

regulations could be amended to broaden the range of products that can be exported to the nation, the groups found. The report also calls for expanded licensed travel for U.S. executives, legal experts and organizations that could help to create an infrastructure to support increased free-market trade. Other recommendations call for sales of telecommunications hardware to Cuba and an allowance for

the nation to request technical help from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) or the International Development (IDB) in the area of market reforms.

Chvez death offers unique opportunity to successfully lift the embargo, spillover to the rest of Latin America White 13 former United States ambassador to El Salvador and Paraguay, is president of the Center for International Policy (March 7,
2013, Robert E., The New York Times, After Chvez, a Chance to Rethink Relations With Cuba http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/08/opinion/after-chavez-hope-for-good-neighbors-in-latin-america.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0, accessed 7-1713, BH) 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.

Obama should remove the Embargo Chen Weihua 9-21-10 (Chief correspondent from China Daily in New York, http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion/201009/21/content_11332059.htm, SR)Time for US to lift Cuban embargo The embargo on the island nation, only 144 km from Key West in Florida, has brought enormous hardship to the Cuban economy, society and its people. It has denied the 11 million Cubans of the opportunities to grow their country. It has taken away the necessary supply of food, clean water and medication from ordinary Cubans, women and children included. The embargo has not facilitated, but hindered economic growth in Cuba. The US tries to justify its embargo as a punishment for the Cuban government. However, the appalling collateral damage inflicted upon the Cuban people can hardly be justified. It would be no exaggeration to call the embargo a humanitarian disaster. The US has few allies on this issue. Every year since 1992, the UN General Assembly, which is meeting in New York this week, has condemned the US embargo as a violation of international law. Last year, 187 countries supported the vote. Only Israel and Palau backed the US. Within the US, the call

for lifting

the embargo has also been growing stronger. Former US secretary of state George Shultz has called the continued embargo
"insane". Still, few Americans seem to think that the embargo is a violation of human rights or international law. US experts who advocate the lifting of the embargo would not describe the sanction as inhuman either. But given the many protests on a host of issues these days, from immigration to war in Afghanistan, it is surprising not to see mass rallies calling for an end to this absurd Cuban policy. The secret to the policy is a dirty but open one, since both US political parties have long been hijacked by votes from Cuban Americans in Florida, an important state during US presidential elections. It simply exemplifies how domestic election politics can ruin another country and the lives of its millions of people. As a Chinese national, I was also not immune to the problems from the embargo. I was a Knight Fellow at Stanford University in 2004 and I had to give up my planned trip to Cuba since US rules would not allow a J-visa holder to re-enter the US from Cuba. At that time, the punishment for American citizens was even harsher. Travel to Cuba was totally banned. Violators would be prosecuted. But several of my journalist friends still managed to go to Cuba via Mexico and Canada. The Cuban government would understandably not stamp their passports. That was under George W. Bush, when US policy on Cuba was among the toughest in history. During his presidential campaign, Barack Obama promised more engagement with adversaries including Cuba.

Last year, Obama eased the restrictions on Cuban Americans to travel and send money to Cuba. The travel ban on all Americans is also expected to be lifted. Still, this is not the great step forward that people expect from Obama over the issue. He has to show more guts to correct a decades-old policy disaster that has hurt not only Cubans

but also US reputation worldwide. Obama should end the embargo completely and immediately. As for US domestic politics, the timing for ending the embargo is also better than ever. More Cuban Americans now support lifting the embargo. Cuba has also recently released a group of "political" prisoners and announced
economic reform. For 50 years, Americans have been expecting dramatic change in Cuba. That has never happened. What they should really hope and pray now is a dramatic change in the US Cuban policy. If

Obama is a president for change, he should have heard the outcry. Mr Obama, lift this embargo.

XO solves oil spill cleanup repealing the embargo is nonsense Crdenas 12 - Jos R. Crdenas, Acting Assistant Administrator for Latin America and the
Caribbean under the Bush Administration, Senior Advisor to the Bush Administration in the U.S. Department of State, the National Security Council, and the U.S. Agency for International Development, Senior Advisor at the Organization of American States and as a senior professional staff member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, (The phony Cuba embargo debate, Article for Foreign Policy: Shadow Government, 3/21/12, http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/03/21/the_phony_cuba_embargo_debate, Accessed 6/28/13, AW) In recent weeks, an unholy alliance of political activists and economic opportunists have been trying to convince anyone who will listen that the U.S. embargo of Cuba is inviting "catastrophic" damage to Florida by preventing the U.S. from responding to a potential oil spill from a newly launched Cuban rig just outside U.S. waters. The claim is without

merit . The impetus for this contrived argument is that in late January, the Spanish oil
company Repsol began exploratory drilling in Cuban waters -- 80 nautical miles from the Florida Keys -- using a Chinese-made rig owned by an Italian company. The fact is, under

current U.S. policy , any U.S. President has broad authorities to ensure all U.S. resources and expertise can be deployed in case of a disaster off the southeastern U.S.
coast. And all indications are the administration has moved expeditiously -- with lessons learned from the Deepwater Horizon blowout in the Gulf of Mexico -- to plan a U.S.

response -- with no changes needed in U.S. law. Yet, that has not stopped the doomsday
scenarios. For example, according to one alarmist analysis, in case of an accident: "The Coast Guard would be barred from deploying highly experienced manpower, specially designed booms, skimming equipment and vessels, and dispersants. U.S. offshore gas and oil companies would also be barred from using well-capping stacks, remotely operated submersibles, and other vital technologies." The arguments, frankly, are a hash of half-truths and erroneous and contradictory statements about the U.S. embargo. For example, we are told the U.S. embargo prevents interaction between the U.S. and Cuban officials to discuss response scenarios, only to learn that they already are interacting. Meetings between U.S. and Cuban officials (and those from Bahamas, Jamaica, and Mexico) have already taken place under the auspices of the U.N. International Maritime Organization. Then there is the ludicrous scenario posited of vintage Cuban crop dusters being forced into action because the embargo allegedly would prevent U.S. aircraft from dropping oil dispersants. Nonsense. In addition, there is
the de rigueur clumsy caricature of pro-embargo Cuban Americans, who "might protest any decision allowing U.S. federal agencies to assist Cuba or letting U.S. companies operate in Cuban territory." This seems not to be aware that most Cuban Americans live in South Florida and would have a decided interest in any despoiling of the state's environment. They would hardly be averse to any U.S. mobilization to counter a spill . What they do justifiably

object to is any exploitation of the situation for political ends. Indeed, a particularly egregious example of the politicization of the issue has been the involvement of the Environmental Defense Fund, which has been positively sanguine about Cuban oil drilling. A powerful lobby able to mobilize hundreds of activists to oppose U.S. offshore drilling, they have been leading advocates of across-the-board U.S. cooperation with Cuba on offshore oil drilling, despite the latter's woeful inexperience and dearth of capabilities in offshore oil drilling. In this, they have been aided and abetted by assorted U.S. oil services companies who have been misrepresenting U.S. policy in a misguided attempt to create economic opportunity. In the end, the likelihood that Cuba possesses any commercially viable oil reserves off its shores is dubious. And, in the unlikely event that it does discover any, it's probable that they will be exploitable only after the Castro regime passes into the dustbin of history. In the meantime, however, allowing Cuba anywhere near a deepwater platform is akin to handing a hand-grenade to a monkey. The Obama administration could have done better by strong-arming foreign

companies from partnering with the Castro brothers on this project. But they appear to have

a handle on cleaning up any attendant mess -- without any superfluous changes to


U.S. policy towards the Castro dictatorship.

Humanitarian Aid Solvency Advocates


The USFG should do more to get humanitarian goods to Cuba 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)

(In order to reduce damage the following should be considered) - Create streamlined procedures to speed up the approval of essential humanitarian goods. This could involve both a standard list of exempt items and blanket exemptions for a select group of international relief organisations. This should also involve the empowerment of a technical group to specify what goods are essential, what goods are unambiguously humanitarian, and which have a credible potential for dual use. In
most sanctions regimes it is not technical experts but politicians who define how to handle a given exemption request. While the desire of politicians to control matters is understandable, the result has been greater confusion among potential supply companies, delays in decision-making, and the politicisation of humanitarian assistance. Tragic examples include the denial of purchasing rights for spare parts for breast X-ray equipment for Cuba for the stated reason of the potential for medical terrorism[sic] and the denial of permits to import nitro-glycerine paste for Iraqi angina patients due to the mistaken belief that the medicine had a potential application in building bombs.

Lifting the entire embargo


Embargo fails trade with other countries reduces its effects Chapman 4/15 Steve Chapman, writer for the Chicago Tribune (It's Time to End the U.S. Embargo of Cuba,
Reason.com, 4/15/13, http://reason.com/archives/2013/04/15/its-time-to-end-the-us-embargo-of-cuba, Accessed 7/4/13, AM) Well, maybe I exaggerate. It's just possible that the musical couple's presence or absence was utterly irrelevant to Cuba's future. Americans have somewhat less control over the island than we like to imagine. The U.S. embargo of Cuba has been in effect since 1962, with no end in sight. Fidel Castro's government has somehow managed to outlast the Soviet Union, Montgomery Ward, rotary-dial telephones and 10 American presidents. 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.
Normally it is no business of the federal government where private citizens want to spend their vacation time. But among those who claim to speak for the Cuban exile community, it is anathema for anyone to visit the island as long as the communists hold power. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., was among those lambasting the couple for daring to venture where he doesn't want them to go. Rubio claimed that people who make visits to Cuba "either don't realize or don't care that they're essentially funding the regime's systematic trampling of people's human rights." Such activity, he said, "provides money to a cruel, repressive and murderous regime." That may be true. But U.S. law allows Americans to visit the island according to certain rules enforced by the Treasury Department, and some 500,000 people from the U.S. go each year. The rules for cultural trips were tightened last year after Rubio griped that they were too lax. "The trip was handled according to a standard licensing procedure for federally approved 'people to people' cultural tours to the island," reported Reuters, "and the power couple received no special treatment, said Academic Arrangements Abroad, the New York-based group that organized the trip."

When it comes to sending money to a "cruel, repressive, murderous regime," Rubio's outrage is strangely selective. The same accusation could be laid against anyone who travels to China, Vietnam or Burma -- all of which are open to American visitors, as far as Washington is concerned. Our willingness to trade with them stems from the belief that economic improvement and contact with outsiders will foster liberalization rather than retard it. But the opposite approach is supposed to produce
this kind of progress in Cuba.

Embargo failingCuba not a threat 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)
The real dividing line in U.S. policy toward Cuba is how best to undermine the Castro regime and hasten the islands day of l iberation. For almost half a century, the U.S. government has tried to isolate Cuba economically in an effort to undermine the regime and deprive it of resources. Since 1960, Americans have been barred from trading with, investing in, or traveling to Cuba. The embargo had a national security rationale before 1991, when Castro served as the Soviet Unions proxy in the Western Hemisphere. But all that changed with the fall of Soviet communism. Today, more

than a decade after losing billions in annual economic aid from its former sponsor, Cuba is only a poor and dysfunctional nation of 11 million that poses no threat to American or regional security. A 1998 report by the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency concluded that, Cuba does not pose a significant military threat to the U.S. or to other countries in the region. The report declared Cubas military
forces residual and defensive. Some officials in the Bush administration have charged that Castros government may be sup porting terrorists abroad, but the evidence is pretty shaky. And even if true, maintaining a comprehensive trade embargo would be a blunt and ineffective lever for change. As a foreign policy tool, the embargo

actually enhances Castros standing by giving him a handy excuse for the failures of his homegrown Caribbean socialism. He can rail for hours about the suffering the embargo
inflicts on Cubans, even though the damage done by his domestic policies is far worse. If the embargo were lifted, the Cuban people would be a bit less deprived and Castro would have no one else to blame for the shortages and stagnation that will persist without real market reforms. If the goal of U.S. policy toward Cuba is to help its people achieve freedom and a better life, the

economic embargo has completely failed. Its economic effect is to make the people of Cuba worse off by depriving them of lower-cost food and other goods that could be bought from the United States. It means less independence for Cuban workers and entrepreneurs, who could be earning dollars from American tourists and fueling private-sector growth. Meanwhile, Castro and his ruling elite enjoy a comfortable, insulated lifestyle by extracting any meager surplus produced by their captive subjects. Cuba not a threat, embargo fails March 13William March, Tampa Tribune Reporter that has covered state and national politics since 1994
(Castor to Obama: Reform outdated Cuba embargo, travel ban, The Tampa Tribune, http://tbo.com/article/20130423/SERVICES02/130429992/1438, Accessed 7/4/13, jtc)

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

argues in the letter that Cuba has made significant changes in allowing free enterprise for its citizens; 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.
Cuba. As she has before, Castor

U.S. Should lift embargosmall steps undermines the regime 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) Instead of the embargo, Congress and the administration should take concrete steps to expand Americas economic and political influence in Cuba. First, the travel ban should be lifted. According to U.S. law, citizens can travel more or less freely to such axis of evil countries as Iran and North Korea. But if Americans want to visit Cuba legally, they need to be a former president or some other well-connected

VIP or a Cuban American. Yes, more American dollars would end up in the coffers of the Cuban government, but dollars would also go to private Cuban citizens. Philip Peters, a former State Department official in the Reagan administration and expert on Cuba, argues that American tourists would boost the earnings of Cubans who rent rooms, drive taxis, sell art, and operate restaurants in their homes. Those dollars would then find their way to the hundreds of freely priced farmers markets, to carpenters, repairmen, tutors, food venders, and other entrepreneurs. Second, restrictions on remittances should be lifted. Like tourism, expanded remittances

would fuel the private sector, encourage 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?

The Embargo hurts Cuba and the U.S. Dunning 98 Has a J.D. from Washington University, Journal of Urban and Contemporary Law (1998, Jeffrey, Washington University in
St. Louis, The Helms-Burton Act: A Step in the Wrong Direction for United States, Vol. 54:213, http://law.wustl.edu/journal/54/Dunni_.pdf, HH)

The current state of relations between the United States and Cuba is not beneficial to either country. While the Cuban people suffer due to the effects of the United Statess embargo,128 United States corporations also suffer from their inability to compete with foreign companies in the Cuban market. Instead of gaining international support for the embargo, the Helms-Burton Act has only angered most major United States trading partners. Moreover, the Act has given the Castro regime greater resolve to persevere in its ideological battle against the United States.129 Rather than continuing in its futile attempt to isolate Cuba from the world community130 and destroy the Castro regime,131 the United States should terminate the embargo. Prior to the passage of the Helms-Burton Act, the President could have lifted the embargo without the assistance of Congress. Through his foreign affairs authority to revoke the embargo proclamation, the President could remove most of the trade restrictions.132 However, as the Act codified the embargo, only Congress can repeal the restrictions U.S.- Cuba cooperation would be the best Johnson et. al 10, Director of the National Security Program, (September 2010 , Andy Johnson, Director of the National Security
Program, Kyle Spector, Policy advisor, Kristina Lilac, National Security Program, http://content.thirdway.org/publications/326/Third_Way_Memo_ -_End_the_Embargo_of_Cuba.pdf) HK The US has had normal trade relations with many countries just as problematic, if not more so, than Cuba, including China, Vietnam (President Clinton lifted the 1975 trade embargo in 1994), and even the Soviet Union throughout the Cold War.8 In an Third Way Memo 2 era of global economic integration, maintaining strong economic relations with other countries is vital to growing the economy. The rest of the world

has recognized that Cuba does not pose a threat and has normalized trade relations, leaving the US alone in

its imposition of the embargo. As long as other countries are willing to supply Cuba with all of its needs, the US embargo will never be effective and will only hurt the US economy. Furthermore, by blaming the US for Cubas lack of economic prosperity and using the embargo as a scapegoat , Cubas leadership has eluded responsibility for the poor standard
of living on the island and routinely portrays the US as an oppressor of the Cuban people. Cuba has the potential to be a sizeable market for US goods should the embargo come to an end. Despite all of the trade restrictions, the US exported $710 million worth of food to Cuba in 2008, making the US Cubas largest food supplier.9 A March 2010 Texas A&M University study found that expanding agricultural trade and tra vel between the US and Cuba could result in $365 million in increased sales of US goods in Cuba and create 6,000 new jobs in the US.10 Moving Cuba Forward 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 communist 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 such as counternarcotics efforts could 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 co urse a necessary next step. Lifting the antiquated embargo would help to move Cuba into the 21st 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

Lifting the Cuban embargo now is keyincreased influence and flourishing relationship Griswold 9director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute (6/15/09, Daniel, The US Embargo of Cuba is a Failure,
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/us-embargo-cuba-is-failure)

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 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. 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. Mea nwhile, 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.

U.S. Should lift embargopromotes U.S. interest Peters 2000 (Philip Peters-Vice President at Lexington Institute, researcher on Cuban economics, A Policy
toward Cuba That Serves U.S. Interests 11/2/2000, Cato Institute Policy Analysis, http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/policy-toward-cuba-serves-us-interests) As Castro remains in control, new conditions have led to a reexamination of U.S. policy. Cubas threat to hemispheric security ended when the Soviet Union dissolved, Soviet military support disappeared, and Cuban support for revolutionary movements in Latin America ended. As American sanctions have increased, Cuban dissidents and religious authorities have increasingly voiced their opposition to the embargo and to policies that seek to isolate Cuba. Economic reforms in Cuba are still incipient, but small enterprise, foreign investment, incentivebased agriculture, and other changes have had important impacts: they helped the economy survive its post-Soviet crisis, and Cubans working in those sectors have gained experience with markets and augmented their earnings. Cuban Americans have increasingly joined this discussion, as a younger generation of exiles values contact with the island and some first-generation exiles begin to question the effectiveness of the trade embargo. The Elin Gonzlez crisis fueled doubts about the embargo when the young boys plight captured American attention and weakened the pro-embargo hard-line position in public and congressional opinion. The wide array of U.S. sanctions has failed to

promote change in Cuba and has allowed Castro to reinforce his arguments that the United States promotes economic deprivation in Cuba and seeks to abridge Cuban sovereignty. It is time for the United States to to economic engagement. Whether or not the embargo is lifted completely, a policy that respects the

turn

rights of Americans to trade with, invest in, and travel to Cuba would more effectively serve U.S. interests in post-Soviet Cuba: defending human rights, helping the Cuban people, and connecting with the generation of Cubans that will govern that country in the early 21st century.

Embargo fails- Ron Paul proves Sharockman 11 Aaron Sharockman, Times Staff Writer (U.S. Rep. Ron Paul: Cuba embargo propped up Castro, Tampa Bay Times, April 21 2011, http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/national/us-rep-ron-paul-cuba-embargo-propped-up-castro/1165236, Accessed: 7/4/13, EH)
TALLAHASSEE U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, the quixotic Republican from Texas, doesn't know anything about Gov. Rick Scott, can't remember much about U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, or name one of the Republicans challenging Nelson in 2012. But he'll talk your ear off about eliminating the Federal Reserve, ending the embargo with Cuba, or the United States' insistence on meddling in foreign conflicts. Paul, who ran for president in 2008 and is considering running again, brought his atypical brand of politics to Tallahassee on Thursday as part of a book tour. His policies have earned him a nationwide following uniting people in unlikely voting blocs hard-core conservatives who believe federal government spending has buzz-sawed out of control, and libertarians who want to legalize marijuana and repeal the Patriot Act. Speaking with reporters for 25 minutes Thursday, Paul, 75, drove home the difference between himself and most Republicans who are considering a challenge to President Barack Obama.

Talking about the Cuban embargo, Paul said the U.S. policy has failed. "If we wouldn't have had this embargo for 40 years, (Fidel) Castro would have been gone a long time ago," he said.
When told his position might offend people in Florida who fled Castro's regime, Paul answered: "They have their opinion and I have mine, because I look at mine through history. History shows you're more likely to get rid of a dictator if you undermine his support by trading with him." On intervening on the side of Israel against Iran, Paul said: "Israel has over 300 nuclear weapons. If we just leave them alone they'd just take care of themselves." And on legalizing drugs: "I don't think the federal government should be involved. They tried federally to prohibit the use of alcohol, and it was a total disaster. The war on drugs is a total disaster. We should just get rid of the federal war on drugs, it does a lot more harm than the drugs themselves." The only question Paul hedged on was whether he was running in 2012.

Embargo fails isolates the US and paints Cuba as the victim Vanden Heuvel 7/2--- Katrina Vanden Heuvel is editor and publisher of the Nation magazine, vanden
Heuvel writes a weekly column for the Washington Post (The U.S. should end the Cuban embargo, July 2, 2013, Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/katrina-vanden-heuvel-us-should-endcuban-embargo/2013/07/02/8ab3a8de-e278-11e2-a11e-c2ea876a8f30_story.html?wpisrc=emailtoafriend, accessed July 4, 2013, MY)
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 U.S. 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. A former minister of the economy spoke of how Cuba is committed to fostering private coops and businesses, and is beginning a push to make more state enterprises make their own way. This month, 100 state-run produce markets and 26 other establishments are scheduled to become private cooperatives. The government says many more establishments will follow, beginning in 2014, as an alternative to small and medium-size state businesses in retail and food services, transportation, light manufacturing and construction, among other sectors. Despite

the

embargo, Jos Mart International Airport displays the new vitality. Hundreds of Cuban Americans fly into see relatives, bringing everything from flat-screen TVs to consumer basics. Since President Obama lifted restrictions on family visits in 2009, remittances and material support from Cuban Americans play a growing role in the microeconomy of the island. Whereas in the 1990s, Havana was willing to permit only limited private enterprise as an emergency measure, government officials now speculate openly about aiming toward 50 percent of Cubas GDP in private hands within five years. Of course, an expanding small business sector wont resolve some central issues facing the island:
access to large-scale credit and investment and the need to boost exports and address anemic productivity, not to mention the demands of an aging population. In Havana, there is more talk about Brazils investment in renovating Mariel Harbor than about Edward Snowden. Brazilian conglomerate Odebrecht had to resist threats by Floridas state government to cut off any state contracts if it invested in Cuba.

This enormous deep-water port is designed to handle trade with the United States and beyond in a post-embargo world, if the embargo is ever ended. The US should lift the embargo, Cuban suffering and French support Bel 5/31 --- Jean-Pierre Bel is the President of the French Senate (President of the French Senate: 'The
United States Ought to Lift Its Economic Sanctions Against Cuba', May 31, 2013, Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/salim-lamrani/president-of-the-french-s_b_3365482.html, accessed July 3, 2013, MY)
SL: The United States has imposed economic sanctions on Cuba for over half a century. They affect adversely the most vulnerable groups in this society. The vast majority of the international community - 186 countries in 2012 - is in favor of lifting them immediately. Has the time not come for Washington to normalize relations with Cuba? JPB: Far be it from me to meddle in the relations between two sovereign countries, but if I must give my opinion, I would say that the time is now, more than ever, to regain a sense of the realities involved. Only 170 kilometers separate these two nations that, throughout the course of history, have always regarded each other face to face. Now

it is time for these two peoples to begin to walk side by side, the one next to the other. It would be in everyone's interest if they were to set aside their differences and view the future collectively, through a peaceful lens. It is time to end the economic sanctions that have been in force for fifty years and that cause so much suffering to the Cuban people. The embargo is just a relic of the Cold War Sanchez 12 --- Yoani Sanchez, contributor to the Huffington Post, graduate of the University of
Havana, Time magazine listed her as one of the world's 100 most influential people in 2008 (The Embargo: Both Sides Are Still Living Out the Cold War, November 14, 2012, Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/yoani-sanchez/the-embargo-both-sides-ar_b_2130520.html, accessed July 4, 2013, MY)

Year after year the issue of the U.S. embargo against Cuba is presented in the United Nations. Year after year, the majority of countries votes against this fossil of the Cold War. But even though the
existence of such economic sanctions has been condemned 21 times, they remain in force. On both sides of the Florida Straits there are too many interests who want to perpetuate the situation, even though the political discourse says otherwise. On

one side are the many who believe that financially strangling the Cuban government will produce democratic change in Cuba. These are the people who hold the view of the "pressure cooker" on which they just have to put greater and greater pressure until it
explodes. For these defenders of the embargo, if daily life on the island becomes ever more miserable due to lack of material goods, Cubans will finally throw themselves into the streets to overthrow the current system. This

theory has demonstrated its failure over five decades. What has actually happened is that when the economy hits bottom, people prefer to escape from the Island, legally or
illegally -- in some cases to literally throw themselves into the sea -- rather than confront the powers-that-be. The others who dream of continuing the embargo are all those ideologues of the Cuban government who have run out of arguments to explain the dysfunction of this system. They are those who need, as in a child's fairy tale, a big bad wolf to blame for everything.

They say it is because of the "blockade" that we can't enjoy the Internet, that we can't freely associate with others who share our ideas, that we can't even travel freely. They try to justify everything based on the existence of this mistaken policy of Washington. Trapped in the middle of these two positions are eleven million Cubans, caught between
the absurd restrictions of some and the implausible justifications of others.

Cubans are ready for change, even Castro agrees Sweig 6/19 --- Julia E. Sweig is the Nelson and David Rockefeller Senior Fellow for Latin America
Studies and Director for Latin America Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations and specializes in Latin America and U.S.-Latin America foreign policy (Developments in Cuba, June 19, 2013, http://www.cfr.org/cuba/developments-cuba/p30961, accessed July 3, 2013, MY)
In 2010 I participated in

a conversation with Fidel Castro, when, in reply to a question about whether Cuba was still 'exporting' inadvertently caused an international media firestorm by replying"the Cuban model doesn't even work for us anymore." A statement of the obvious for most Cubans, and an affirmation that real change was afoot. Here are some still undigested takeaways from conversations with dozens of Cubans in and out of government about how they see that change. 1-) The death of Hugo Chavez and uncertainty in Venezuela reinforces a pre-existing rationale and time frame for Cuba to deepen trade, investment, and diplomatic ties with a variety of partners. Brazil is a prime example. Add the rest of Latin America, China, Russia, Angola, the EU and eventually the United States to that strategy. 2-) Remittances and material support from Cubans in the diaspora play a growing role in the micro-economy of the island, and help launch small family businesses. But Cubans trying to prosper in the private sector are still waiting for expanded access to bank credit and for wholesale markets to open, and for tax rates to stabilize. That may sound like a bland statement, but it suggests that major social change is afoot. 3-) The major macroeconomic step, eliminating the dual currency, will be painful and necessary. The state can't afford to subsidize everything for
its 'model' to Latin America, he everyone and no longer does so. But substantially cutting subsidies and devaluing the currency at the same time would amount to more shock therapy than the society can take at this stage.

Embargo a form of Genocide 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 lar gest grassroots human 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) 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 so-called 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, 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
after years of dithering, was finally forced to concede in a report actually critical of Cuba that, yes, the US embargo 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 InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights has also reiterated its position regarding the impact of such sanctions on the human rig hts of the Cuban people and, therefore, 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).

Lifting Embargo key to U.S. small businesses.


Hanson-Batten-Ealey 13
Daniel Hanson is an economics researcher at the American Enterprise Institute. Dayne Batten is affiliated with the University of North Carolina Department of Public Policy. Harrison Ealey is a financial analyst. (Its Time for the U.S. to End its Senseless Embargo of Cuba, Forbes, January 1, 2013, http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/01/16/its-time-for-the-u-s-to-end-its-senseless-embargo-of-cuba/, Accessed: July 3, 2013, SD) 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.

Lifting embargo improves American and Cuban economies and US foreign relations Storozynski 13 Nicholas Storozynski, senior at Phillips Exeter Academy (Dear President Obama: End the
Cuba Embargo, Huffington, Vol. 10, No. 1, January 15, 2013, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nicholasstorozynski/dear-president-obama-end-_b_2434954.html, Accessed: 06/27/2013, sh) After traveling on an educational tour to Havana last summer and following the political situation between Cuba and the United States, I've become aware that the embargo of Cuba is pointless. It has done little to hurt Fidel Castro who, according to Forbes, has a greater net worth than the Queen of England. Instead, it has hurt several

generations of innocent Cuban people who remain poor and continues to limit the freedom of Americans who want to visit or do business with Cuba.
Officially, the embargo was put in place in 1960 during the Cold War to pressure the Cuban government to bring about democratic reforms. The United States doesn't have an embargo against communist China, Saudi Arabia or other countries that are on the Freedom House list of "World's Most Repressive Societies." The world has changed dramatically since the fall of the USSR, and Cuba no longer poses a threat to the United States. There is no reason for Cuba to be on the U.S. government's list of "state sponsors of terrorism." In the past, Castro was a threat to the U.S. because he was trying to export communism and revolution to Latin America and Africa. But these days, Castro can't even feed his own people without ration cards, much less export terrorism. Last year, retired U.S. Army Brigadier Gen. John Adams went on an extensive research trip to Cuba and wrote in The Hill that "it is simply illogical and counterproductive to keep Cuba on the list. There is little, if any, evidence that Cuba provides support for terrorism, and the evidence further shows that they haven't for more than 20 years."

Additionally, the

embargo hurts US businesses willing to sell their products to Cuba. It doesn't make sense during an economic slowdown to limit the customers that a business can sell to because of outdated politics. Duke Professor Phyllis Pomerantz recently wrote in the The Globe and Mail, "It's
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 Havana's old cars, Americans should be selling them new ones." Cuba is a country with thousands of miles of arable land, but because communism has taken away people's incentive to work, the nation has to import most of its food. Removing the embargo would likely speed up the transition to a capitalist economy in Cuba. Since Fidel's brother has taken the helm, Raul has been allowing people to open small businesses and introducing elements of a free market economy. But many Cubans don't

have access to goods they need because the Cuban government cannot produce and distribute these goods effectively. A New York Times article in November stated that allowing American companies to trade with the Cuban people wouldn't only benefit American companies, but also Cuban citizens. In the piece, a
Cuban mechanic 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." This would strengthen the developing private sector in Cuba. The Cuban government plans to remove more than one million government jobs. The people currently holding these jobs would be able to find jobs in the private sector, spurred on by the American capital that would flow in. Removing the embargo would also

lead the Cuban people to demand better treatment from their government. Cubans would see that American tourists have a higher quality of life, and they'll want the same for themselves.
Currently, the Castro brothers blame the poor conditions in Cuba on the embargo. Without this excuse, Cubans will find that their government is simply unable to take care of them, and demand a change. Not only has the embargo been entirely ineffective in achieving its goals, but also it has hurt U.S. policy with other nations in the world. In November, the United Nations asked the U.S. to remove the embargo, with 188 countries out of 193 in the General Assembly supporting the movement. In fact, the United Nations has made this same request to the U.S. each year for the past 21 years. I hope that when the UN asks for the 22nd time, President Obama will give them a different answer.

Obama easing embargo now. Snow 10 Anita Snow, Veteran international journalist, editor and news manager with two decades of
experience in Latin America. (Cuba Embargo: UN Vote Urges US to Lift Embargo, The Christian Science Monitor, October 26, 2010, http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Latest-News-Wires/2010/1026/Cuba-embargo-UNvote-urges-US-to-lift-embargo, Accessed: 6/28/13, sh) "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.

Godard noted that the U.S. has taken steps to engage Cuba since Obama took office, lifting restrictions on family visits and remittances to the island, resuming bilateral talks on migration and starting discussions to re-establish direct mail service between the two countries
But the U.S. has made clear it is not prepared to lift the embargo entirely until the communist-run nation makes more far-reaching political and economic changes. "A new era in U.S.-Cuban relations cannot be fully realized," said Godard, "until the Cuban people enjoy the internationally recognized political and economic freedoms that this body has done so much to defend in other countries around the world."

Embargo fails hasnt pushed Castro out of power Ruiz 12 Albor Ruiz, Albor Ruiz has been a columnist for the New York Daily News since 1997 where he was
hired in 1993, becoming the first Latino member of its Editorial Board. Ruiz was also the Editor-in-Chief of El Daily News, the first bilingual newspaper in the country, and Chief Editorial Writer and columnist at New York's El Diario-La Prensa. Albor Ruiz will participate in a round table on Latino media. (U.S. Economic Embargo of Cuba

Marks its Half-Century of Failed Foreign Policy [NY Daily News, February 8, 2012, http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/u-s-economic-embargo-cuba-marks-half-century-failed-foreign-policyarticle-1.1018614, Accessed: 6/28/13, sh) More than 400,000 Cuban-Americans took advantage last year of President Obamas new regulations to visit to the island. Yesterday, believe it or not, marked the 50th anniversary of the U.S. economic embargo of Cuba. Lets not wish it a happy birthday. The centerpiece of what passes for a U.S. -Cuba policy, a stale left-over from the Cold War era, has not been a success story. In five decades, the embargo has hurt the Cuban people, damaged U.S. interests and families, and failed to accomplish its goals, according to the think tank Washington Office on Latin America. Aimed at toppling the Communist government and its then president, Fidel Castro, the embargo roundly condemned year after year by the United Nations was imposed by President Kennedy in 1962, after the humiliating defeat the year before of he CIA-backed Bay of Pigs invasion . Yet half century later, the revolution is still in power although now it is Fidels younger brother

Ral who is the president. The embargos only success has been in making daily life more difficult for the people of Cuba.
At a time in which Cuba has embarked on a profound process of economic and political transformation there is a question begging for an answer:How much longer until this obsolete policy hits the road? El bloqueo [the blockade\], as it is called in Cuba, not only has been the longest and harshest

embargo by one nation against another in modern history, but quite possibly it is the longest standing foreign policy failure the world has known. Cubans loyal to Castro want to improve US-Cuban relations Kitroeff 13 Natalie Kitroeff, she is a research associate at the Council on Foreign Relations who works in the
Latin America program. (Cuban Blogger Who Reveres Castro Pushes for Reform, The New York Times, June 11, 2013, http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/cuban-blogger-who-reveres-castro-pushes-for-reform/, Accessed: 7/2/13, sh)

Daz is a leader of a group of Cubans who are opening a new avenue for criticism in a country that, for the last 50 years, has offered its citizens only two options: with us or against us. Ms. Daz insists that there is a third way. Cuba has a lot to change, Ms. Daz said during a visit to New York last week, but I dont think you need to destroy the system to create something new.
Ms. Thats a convenient view, because that system is paying her salary. A professor of journalism at the University of Havana, a public institution, Ms.

Daz is an employee of the state. That has not stopped her from writing publicly and with disarming directness about the challenges of daily life in Cuba on her blog, La Polmica Digital, for the last five years. She is young, progressive and fiercely loyal to the Cuban government. But she says she is also determined to reform a socialist system that no longer works as well as it used to for the common man.
The delicacy of that relationship is not lost on Ms. Daz. Ive been scared that maybe Id write something that would be interpreted the wrong way, she said, and that I would be punished, or lose my job. She has managed to set herself apart in an increasingly cluttered Cuban blogosphere, earning respect for her thorough reporting and simple, moving prose. Last year she traveled abroad for a meeting of global bloggers in Nairobi, and last month she arrived in the United States for the annual Latin American Studies Association conference in Washington. So far, Ms. Daz said, she hasnt heard a peep from the authorities about her writing. Indeed, the government has been surprisingly tolerant of Ms. Daz and her colleagues loosely affiliated under the moniker Bloggers Cuba a fact that some experts attribute to the groups willingness to self-censor. Ted Henken, an expert on social media in Cuba, called these younger bloggers silent dissidents, adding, Their big problem is that theyre constantly biting their tongue.

Cubas more famous and far more radical critic, Yoani Snchez, shares that view. When Ms. Daz abruptly took a leave from her blog last August, Ms. Snchez speculated that she had been forced off the keyboard by a government that had lost patience with her. Ms. Snchez, taking a jab at Ms. Dazs ties to the government, called her the official Cuban blogger and wrote that Elaine Daz has transgressed the limits of criticism permissible for an employee of the state. Ms. Daz insists that she stopped writing only to focus more intently on her teaching, and she has since resumed the blog. But Ms. Daz does acknowledge that there are taboo subjects, like the state of education or health care, that she is hesitant to discuss casually. If I go to a dirty hospital, Im not going to write about it, she said, because I have a commitment to the system. Universal health care and free education are seen as the revolutions most significant success stories, which makes it imperative to keep them intact, even as they quickly become well-worn myths. In fact, for government loyalists like Ms. Daz, it seems that, as you get closer to the core of the communist narrative holding Cuba together, the space for genuine debate shrinks. Rattling off a series of topics that she would be careful about touching, Ms. Daz paused before the kicker: Fidel Castro, for example, is sacred to us, she said in an almost reverent tone. At least in the world that I move around in, theres a respect and historical gratitude toward him. Hes a figure that, when you launch into criticism, its very difficult, she added. That approach may be more cautious than the tack taken by Ms. Snchez and more extreme elements of the opposition, but that doesnt mean it should be discounted. Its as important or more important when people who consider themselves believers express criticism because they cant be as easily disqualified as people on the out and out, in the opposition, said Mr. Henken, the expert on Cubas Internet. Yoani is the acerbic agnostic, whereas Elaine is the critical believer, he added. Even the United States government is taking notice. Last month, Conrad Tribble, the deputy chief of the United States Interests Section in Havana, Washingtons diplomatic outpost in Cuba, made an unannounced visit to a public meeting of what The Associated Press called Cubas pro -government Twitteratti. A brief video clip of the encounter posted on Crnicas de Cuba, the journalist Jorge Lega oa Alonsos blog, showed Mr. Tribble, sporting a fuchsia Hawaiian shirt, saying he had come to talk with the group about things that the United States and Cuba share baseball, music, et cetera and on issues in dispute. His presence was an olive branch in a diplomatic relationship where engagement on both sides has consisted mainly of covert operations and official bluster. It was also a sign of the growing influence of this corps of young bloggers, whom the State Department wants to cultivate a relationship with, despite their pro-Castro bent. Ms. Daz, who could not make the meeting but has interacted with Mr. Tribble on Twitter this year, said she appreciated the gesture. He didnt go there to make a speech or convince anyone, or try to impose anything, she said. Hes welcome. Any steps toward a closer engagement between the United States and Cuba, even if theyre small, are good. Ms. Daz would know. In the two weeks she has spent in the United States, she said, there have

been moments that have changed my life, and have nearly made me cry.
She recalled arriving at the Miami airport and being handed a cellphone by a stranger who saw that she was lost. Or a man in New York City who walked her to her hosts house when she was lost in a sea of apar tment buildings in Washington Heights. I had the impression that in the United States, no one cares what you have to say, no one will

talk to you, everyone is absorbed in their own world, she said, adding that the image of a very individualistic culture, its not what Ive found.
When she returns to Cuba in a week, Ms. Daz said she would write about the experience on her blog. For now, shes enjoying her stay in enemy territory.

Plan solves 9 point plan (Beware of Extra-T portions!) Arzeno 3 Mario Arzeno, Major in the United States Military, MBA from The University of Florida in Military Art and Science, (The US Embargo on Cuba: Time for a Change?, A thesis presented to the Faculty of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College in partial

fulfillment of the requirements for the degree, 2003, http://www.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA416135, Accessed 7/03/13, AW) Congressman Flake is best known for introducing legislation to lift t he travel ban to Cuba and Congressman Rangel is best known for introducing legislation to lift the embargo in its entirety. Together with the Cuba Working Group, they have developed a 9-Point Plan for reform in Cuba, released in May 2002, which is outlined below. Point 1. Repeal the Travel Ban. The travel ban is a result of the embargo and was codified into law in 2000, effectively removing the Presidents authority to remove the ban without congressional approval. The travel ban is highly criticized because no other travel ban exists for Americans in the world. Americans are allowed to travel to other and more repressive countries like Iraq and North Korea if they choose to. Freedom to travel is a basic right of Americans. Allowing American s to freely travel to Cuba will expose the Cuban people to our ideas, values, and culture, resulting in a major source of American influence. The federal travel licensing process should be lifted to allow this free flow of ideas, as well as ending all penalties associated with Americans traveling to Cuba without a license. 30 Repealing the travel ban will remove barriers to increased agricultural, educational, professional and medical benefits associated to free markets. It will generate revenues that will go directly to private restaurants, taxis, artisans and home rentals that are owned and operated by the average Cuban citizen. It will increase U.S. exports by creating an increased demand of U.S. products introduced into the island as a secondary effect to lifting the ban. It will end the restrictions that limits Cuban exiles from traveling to the island only once a year and most importantly create opportunity for us to detect terrorist or drug cartel activities that may influence our borders. Point 2. Allow normal, unsubsidized exports of agricultural and medical products. To include private financing of agricultural and medical exports. U.S. law allows the sale of food and medicine to Cuba on a cash basis and under complicated restrictions and procedures that discourage American companies from engaging in the sale of food and medicine to Cuba. Allowing a normal exchange permits private American companies to decide, according to their own criteria, whether to assume the risk of financing products to Cuba. Point 2 also recommends ending the requirement for charity organizations and private companies to monitor the use of donated products to Cuba. Lastly, point 2 recommends ending the provisions of the Torricelli Bill that bans any ships visiting Cuba from entering a U.S. port with 180 days after departing Cuba. Point 3. End restrictions on remittances. Cuban Americans are only allowed to send $100 per month per household. The restriction is criticized as a U.S. government intrusion for imposing a monetary limit to Cuban exiles sending money to their family members. Remittances make a significant impact on the quality of life and economy of Cuba and have the additional benefit of freeing Cubans from government support. 31 Ironically, thi s is another example of a failed policy in that this is the least observed and enforced law of the embargo. Remittances bring in an estimated $800 million into the Cuban economy, all coming from Cuban exiles in Miami who demanded the restriction in order to prevent Castro from using the dollars to fuel the economy. Point 4. Sunset the Helms-Burton Act. The Helms-Burton Act is controversial for the many reasons outlined in chapter two. The fundamental purpose of the Helms- Burton Act is the unconditional and instantaneous removal of Castro and the compensation of property. Helms-Burton should be reviewed and modified before we can hope to achieve freedom and prosperity for the Cuban people. The Cuba Working Group encourages the review of the act as one of the first steps towards change. Point 5. Repeal Section 211. Section 211 of the Fiscal 1999 Omnibus

Appropriations Act prevents the U.S. from accepting payment for trademark licenses that were used in connection with a business or asset in Cuba that was confiscated by the Castro regime, unless the original owner of the trademark consents. Section 211 was introduced for the benefit of the Bahamas based Bacardi Corporation. Its controversy lies in that the U.S. is failing to recognize the Cuban Havana Club rum brand name in the United States, in violation of U.S. and international trademark laws. Havana Club is internationally recognized as a Cuban rum, produced in Cuba as part of a joint venture with a French liquor company with a U.S. registered trademark since 1976. However, based on Section 211, the original 1976 U.S. trademark is not being honored due to the newly introduced confiscated property definition of the law. Instead, the U.S. would recognize the Bahamas based Bacardi 32 Corporation if they acquired the Havana Club brand name from its original owners and sold it in the United States as a Bacardi brand of rum. The original owners of the Havana Club brand name abandoned the product following Castros coup and it remained unused years after the takeover. Therefore, legal experts argue, the original trademark owners do not have a claim and the Cuban-French joint venture have the right to claim the trademark on a first claim basis. As opposed to the Bacardi family who continued to make their rum in the Bahamas and Puerto Rico, keeping their brand recognition and property rights for Bacardi Rum intact. Nevertheless, recognizing Havana Club as a Bacardi product and not as a Cuban product is a violation of international trademark laws, as the rest of the world recognizes Havana Club as a Cuban product. The Inter-American Convention on Trademarks ruled the U.S. is breaching obligations to honor Cuban trademarks and the World Trade Organization (WTO) judged it to be in violation of Americas obligation to protect intellectual property rights. This is tantamount to Cuba producing an American product like Coke or Pepsi and selling it as a Cuban product. Repealing Section 211 is important because it secures some 5,000 U.S. trademarks already registered in Cuba to protect their brand names or positioned for the day the embargo is lifted. Legal experts argue as long as Section 211 is in effect, Cuba has the legal right not to recognize U.S. trademarks registered in Cuba as a result of the legal impropriety the U.S. is exercising by invoking Section 211 in not honoring Cuban trademarks. Point 6. Redirect Funding for TV/Radio Marti. TV and Radio Marti are part of an aggressive information campaign strategy targeted with providing Cubans with news 33 and information they would not otherwise get through the controlled media of the Cuban government. At an estimated cost of $12 million per year and a total of $400 million since its inception in 1985, it is another

example of a failed strategy . The TV broadcast does not reach its intended audience.
Primarily because the Cuban Government jams the signal and secondly because it is transmitted between the hours of 0330 and 0800 when it is unlikely that anyone will be up watching. The early morning broadcast is due to international law that prevents the U.S. from interfering with Cuban broadcast transmissions during prime time hours. Radio Martis listening audience has declined to an estimated five percent of the population because of the radio stations recent shift from news and information to Fidel Castro bashing. The Cuban people already know first hand that Castro is a tyrant and are not interested in tuning in to hear that on the radio. When the radio station was focused on independent news, its listening audience was estimated at seventy five percent of the population. Allegations of mismanagement are also hurting the TV/Radio station, which is causing it to lose credibility and effectiveness in achieving its information campaign goals. The Cuba Working Group recommends a comprehensive review of the TV/Radio station, including audits and independent

assessments of audience reaction and program quality. The TV broadcast appears to be ineffective due to the jamming, but the radio station maybe salvageable with the right programming. If the radio station cannot be saved, the funding should go towards other programs to help the Cuban people achieve reform. 34 Point 7. Scholarships. In place of TV/Radio Marti, the funding could be used towards educational programs like Fulbright scholarships that promote communication and exchange. Fulbright scholarship programs proved to be effective in Vietnam, but require commitment and scrutiny to ensure the Cuban Government has no role in selecting the participants. Point 8. Expand Security Cooperation. The Cuba Working Group is proposing to expand the M of the DIME (Diplomatic, Information, Military, and Economic) in the instruments of power, through engagement and cooperation with the Cuban military. Cuba and the United States already have limited cooperation in the areas of migration and drug trafficking, but it is not centralized and sporadic at best. Incorporating Cuba into one of the Unified Commands expands this idea, whether it is incorporated into SOUTHCOM, JFCOM or NORTHCOMs Area of Responsibility (AOR) does not matter for achieving this objective. Including Cuba in one of the Unified Commands will ensure it gets unbiased attention and focused peacetime engagement with resources and oversight. The focus of the peacetime engagement should be migration, drug interdiction, terrorism, and contingency planning for humanitarian relief efforts in the wake of natural disasters like hurricanes and tropical storms. Security cooperation has an invaluable benefit in establishing and strengthening strategic partnerships in order to prepare us to meet future crises. Point 9. Certified Property Claims. One of the most controversial issues of the embargo and one of the primary reasons the embargo was imposed in 1959--the expropriation of property. Political and economic relations will get better in Cuba some 35 day. It is inevitable. The world demands it. Yet there is no plan to handle the settlement of claims for an estimated $1.2 billion in expropriated property. The U.S. has reached settlements with Vietnam, China, and the Eastern European countries. However, it has no plan for our biggest expropriation issue in our own hemisphere in Cuba. An independent bipartisan commission should be established to study the issue in order to develop feasible courses of action to negotiate with Cuba. Answer Politics even the 113th congress recognizes the harms of the embargo 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 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 appe ar 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 .

Obama cant solve the travel ban Congress key Arzeno 3 Mario Arzeno, Major in the United States Military, MBA from The University of
Florida in Military Art and Science, (The US Embargo on Cuba: Time for a Change?, A thesis presented to the Faculty of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree, 2003, http://www.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA416135, Accessed 7/03/13, AW) Repeal the Travel Ban. The travel ban is a result of the embargo and was codified into law in 2000, effectively removing the Presidents authority to remove the ban without congressional
approval

Congress key XO is insufficient 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) Although the Obama administration took the largely symbolic step of extending the embargo f or another year under the Trading with the Enemy Act last year, the President did relax some longstanding restrictions by taking action to make it easier for Cuban - Americans to visit and send remittances to family members in Cuba. The administration also recently hinted at plans to reduce travel restrictions for academic, cultural, and religious groups later this year. 12 While the executive branch can continue to chip away at these longstanding restrictions, the law requires that Congress will ultimately nee d to pass legislation to repeal the embargo. nder existing law, established by the Helms - Burton Act, the embargo cannot be lifted until the Cuban people democratically elect a new government and the transition government is in place. While President Obama could take an initial step by refusing to issue the annual extension of Cubas national emergency status under the Trading with the Enemy Act, 13 lifting the embargo will ultimately

require that Congress pass and the President sign into law legislation t o repeal both the Torricelli Act and the Helms - Burton Act . Passing HR 4645
would be a positive first step, but Congress will need to take further action to see that the embargo is lifted in its entirety. Solves US economy and sustains growth ag sector 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) Trade levels between Cuba and the U.S. could reach $5 billion annually by removing the trade embargo, resulting in a boost to American agribusinesses while also helping to alleviate hunger among Cubans.

Politics

Politics link turns


Plan is popular trade association lobby Rodman 01 Kenneth A. Rodman, Professor of Government at Colby College, (Volume 9:
Article 10: Sanctions beyond Borders: Multinational Corporations and U.S. Economic Statecraft, Book published by Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc, August 2001 (Publish Date), http://www.dundee.ac.uk/cepmlp/journal/html/vol9/article9-8.html, Accessed 7/02/13, AW) As a result, corporate trade associations became more aggressive in using the political system to set limits on the exercise of sanctions. This was evident during the Polish crisis, when the American business community lobbied heavily against the pipeline sanctions and the House of Representatives came within three votes of overturning them. Shortly thereafter, they succeeded in persuading Congress to amend the Export Administration Act to make it more difficult for the president to abrogate contracts, even during a declared embargo. Therefore, the hegemonic decline model predicts increased interest group and

congressional limits on unilateral and extraterritorial sanctions.

Lifting the embargo is popular every commodity group will lobby in Congress empirically passes legislation 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) *******NOTE: MidAmerica Farmer Grower inter-viewed the Presidents and CEOs of six national commodity organizations and president of the American Farm Bureau to learn their opinions on trade with Cuba. This is the first of a series of two articles on that issue****** I f trade with Cuba were an issue that the United States commodity organizations could effect, it would be a done deal immediately. Unfortu- nately, the red tape of government has made nearly every effort of these groups seem futile. Representatives of every commodity group have expressed support for lift- ing the embargo with Cuba. All recog- nize the benefit to both U.S. producers, suppliers and exporters as well as to the people of Cuba who must pay exorbitant prices to import from distant countries while receiving commodities of lesser quality than is available 90 miles away in the United States. All these groups have traveled to Cuba to help normalize relations, some as many as 10-12 times in recent years. Most or- ganizations lobby Congress and have published position papers that firmly state their desire to lift the embargo. . All cite the need for a change . A Word From The America Soybean Associ- ation Stephen L. Censky, Chief Executive Officer with the American Soybean Association (ASA) said his organization feels the embargo has been ineffective in bringing about political change in Cuba. Instead, it has resulted in lost sales opportunities for U.S. manufacturing and agriculture. The ASA worked with other commodity groups to lobby Congress in 2000 to pass legislation that allowed for the sale of food and medicine to Cuba

Plan is popular in Florida preventing spills is popular Crdenas 12 - Jos R. Crdenas, Acting Assistant Administrator for Latin America and the Caribbean under the Bush Administration, Senior Advisor to the Bush Administration in the U.S. Department of State, the National Security Council, and the U.S. Agency for International Development, Senior Advisor at the Organization of American States and as a senior professional staff member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, (The phony Cuba embargo debate, Article for Foreign Policy: Shadow Government, 3/21/12, http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/03/21/the_phony_cuba_embargo_debate, Accessed 6/28/13, AW) In addition, there is the de rigueur clumsy caricature of pro-embargo Cuban Americans, who "might protest any decision allowing U.S. federal agencies to assist Cuba or letting U.S. companies operate in Cuban territory." TThis seems not to be aware that most Cuban Americans live in South Florida and would have a decided interest in any despoiling

of the state's environment. They would hardly be averse to any U.S. mobilization to
counter a spill. What they do justifiably object to is any exploitation of the situation for political ends.

Popular in Congress perceived as stopping China Claver-Carone 8 - Mauricio Clever-Carone, Executive Director of Cuba Democracy
Advocates, Served as Attorney-advisor for the U.S. Department of the Treasury, (How the Cuban embargo protects the environment, Article for the New York Times, 7/25/08, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/25/opinion/25iht-edcarone.1.14793496.html?_r=0, Accessed 7/03/13, AW) The energy debate in the United States introduces one more powerful argument in support of current U.S. policy toward Cuba: environmental protection. For years the Castro brothers have been courting foreign oil companies, and in recent years none have been courted more assiduously than China's Sinopec. Why Sinopec? The answer is simple: If the Chinese were to start drilling in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Cuba - so very close to the coast of Florida - it would send a "red scare" through the halls of the U.S. Congress, creating a new and otherwise improbable coalition for unilaterally lifting the current embargo. Longtime advocates of lifting trade sanctions against Cuba would join with conservative Republicans, who, though they now support the trade embargo, are strong advocates for allowing U.S. companies to drill offshore, and with liberal environmentalists who would rather have strictly regulated U.S. companies drilling than unregulated Chinese companies. In Cuba that looks like a winning trifecta for changing U.S. policy. As early as 2006, the Reuters news bureau in Cuba was reporting: "Havana is eager to see American oil companies join forces with the anti-embargo lobby led by U.S. farmers who have been selling food to Cuba for four years." In recent weeks this strategy has taken center stage in Washington with political and public opinion leaders openly discussing the irony of "the Chinese drilling 60 miles from Florida's coast," while U.S. law prevents American companies from doing the same along the outer continental shelf. The premise of the argument, however, is just not true. Chinese companies are not drilling in Cuba's offshore waters. Nor do the Chinese have any lease agreements with Cuba's state-owned oil company, Cupet, to do so. As a matter of fact, the last drilling for oil off Cuba's coast took place in 2004 and was led by the Spanish-Argentine consortium Repsol YPF. It found oil but not in any commercially viable quantity. Inactivity since suggests that Repsol YPF is not

eager to follow up with the required investment in Castro's Cupet. For almost a decade now, the Castro regime has been lauding offshore lease agreements. It has tried Norway's StatoilHydro, India's state-run Oil & Natural Gas Corporation, Malaysia's Petronas and Canada's Sherritt International. Yet, there is no current drilling activity off Cuba's coasts. The Cuban government has announced plans to drill, then followed with postponements in 2006, 2007 and this year. Clearly, foreign oil companies anticipate political changes in Cuba and are trying to position themselves accordingly. Plan popular Environmental Defense Fund lobbies Crdenas 12 - Jos R. Crdenas, Acting Assistant Administrator for Latin America and the Caribbean under the Bush Administration, Senior Advisor to the Bush Administration in the U.S. Department of State, the National Security Council, and the U.S. Agency for International Development, Senior Advisor at the Organization of American States and as a senior professional staff member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, (The phony Cuba embargo debate, Article for Foreign Policy: Shadow Government, 3/21/12, http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/03/21/the_phony_cuba_embargo_debate, Accessed 6/28/13, AW) What they do justifiably object to is any exploitation of the situation for political ends. Indeed, a particularly egregious example of the politicization of the issue has been the involvement of the Environmental Defense Fund, which has been positively sanguine about Cuban oil drilling. A powerful lobby able to mobilize hundreds of activists to oppose U.S. offshore drilling, they have been leading advocates of across-the-board U.S. cooperation with Cuba on offshore oil drilling, despite the latter's woeful inexperience and dearth of capabilities in offshore oil drilling. In this, they have been aided and abetted by assorted U.S. oil services companies who have been misrepresenting U.S. policy in a misguided attempt to create economic opportunity. Farm lobby extremely powerful pays large amounts of money and already established loopholes to Cuba sanctions Palen 11 - Marc-William Palen, writer for Foreign Policy in Focus, a think tank of more than 600 scholars, a
project of the Institute for Policy Studies. (How the Farm Lobby Distorts U.S. Foreign Policy, FPIF, 1/7/2011, http://fpif.org/how_the_farm_lobby_distorts_us_foreign_policy/, Accessed 7/10/13, AM) Thanks to the hard work of the U.S. Farm Lobby, Americas love of cheap food has stretched more than an engorged waistline. It now stretches the limits of American foreign policy. Over the past century, the Farm Lobbys influence on the U.S. government has increased alongside the consolidation and growth of U.S. agribusinesses, the principle recipients of federal farm subsidies. The redistribution of taxpayer dollars to American agribusinesses not only creates artificially cheap global prices, it also continues to undermine the development of agrarian-oriented economies throughout the world. Now it appears the Farm Lobbys efforts are hamstringing American national security, as well. The New York Times has just discovered that the Farm Lobby has been circumventing U.S. economic sanctions

against the worlds leading rogue states.


Bypassing Sanctions In other words, at the same time that war hawks in government denounce economic sanctions as ineffective, their American Farm Lobby allies, among other groups, have been quietly bypassing the regulations. After filing a Freedom of Information lawsuit and overcoming strong resistance from the Treasury Department, The New York Times has revealed that, for the past decade, the Farm Lobby has ignored economic sanctions by using a Treasury Department legal loopholea loophole the Farm Lobby helped craftin order to trade with Iran and other countries listed as state sponsors of terror.

The Treasury Department law, drawn up in 2000, included the loophole principally to help American farmers export their devalued surplus goods. Falling under the vague label of humanitarian aid, nearly 4,000 U.S. businesses have since done billions of dollars in trade with blacklisted countries.
So-called humanitarian products even include cigarettes and hot sauce. A spokesperson for the American Pop Corn Company, for instance, defended his product as humanitarian, noting that popcorn has fibers which are helpful to the digestive system. The law was defined so broadly that humanitarian aid included any item on the Department of Agricultures list, from seeds to soda, and grains to gum. U.S. exports to Iran, for instance, have skyrocketed from almost nothing to about $1.7 billion, and those to Cuba have reached about $3 billion since passage of the law . Its not just gum and soda. In one instance, reports the Times, an American company was permitted to bid on a pipeline job that would have helped Iran sell natural gas to Europe, even though the United States opposes such projects. Several other American businesses were permitted to deal with foreign companies believed to be involved in terrorism or weapons proliferation. Damaging Loopholes The Obama administration has since dismissed the report as minor. But the foreign policy community cant ignore the creation of loopholes that you can drive a Mack truck through, says Stuart Eizenstat, who was in charge of sanctions policy in the Clinton administration. You are giving countries something for nothing, and they just laugh in their teeth. I think there have been abuses. Eizenstat told the BBC in a related interview that U.S. sanctions policy was riddled with exceptions that are neither humanitarian nor related to democracy promotion, and could undermine support for international sanctions. As the Times also points out, some diplomats and foreign affairs experts worry that by allowing the sale of even small-ticket items with no military application, the United States muddies its moral and diplomatic authority, especially in countries like Iran where it is increasingly difficult to separate exceptions that help the people from those that enrich the state. The heavily redacted files obtained by the Times offer a snapshotalbeit a piecemeal oneof a system that at times appears out of sync with its own licensing policies and Americas goals abroad. In some cases, licensing rules failed to keep pace with changing diplomatic circumstances, as evinced, for example, by the continuation of outdated and loose trade restrictions with North Korea and Cuba. Specialists of U.S.-Cuban relations are already expressing their outrage, and Jewish groups are indignant over revelations concerning Iran. American sales of marinades, cake sprinkles, and salt substitutes have ended up in Iranian stores whose investors include blacklisted banks and high-ranking officials from the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps.But selling luxury food products to stores owned by IRGC officials and banks on the American blacklist is just scratching the surface of the Farm Lobbys insidious influence upon American foreign policy. And it all lead s back to the Farm Lobby and federal subsidies of American agriculture. Inordinate Influence The U.S. Farm Lobby maintains an inordinate amount of governmental influence , and it paysliterally. Despite promises to the contrary, taxpayer money keeps on feeding the Farm Lobby coffers; agricultural subsidies now average between $10 and $35 billion year. With such overt federal support and at least tacit federal approval, the Timess most recent revelation is only the newest in an ongoing list of the Farm Lobbys injurious impact on U.S. foreign relations. For many years now, poor nations throughout the globe have complained that U.S. agricultural subsidies encourage enormous crop overproduction, which in turn drives massive exportation, thereby glutting the global market and depressing prices worldwide. U.S. farmers, completing the vicious self-perpetuating protectionist cycle, turn to the U.S. government for subsidies in order to supplement these lower global prices their overproduction created. Corn subsidies, which received $41.9 billion from 1995 to 2004 alone, are particularly detrimental to the world economy and ecology, and this Decembers compromise tax deal unsurprisingly included further taxpayer subsidies to corn ethanol production. Since NAFTA was enacted in 1994, for instance, subsidized U.S. corn has been overflowing Mexican markets, destroying Mexican corn-growing, and thereby displacing Mexican farmers. USAID, meanwhile, has consistently threatened to cut off food aid to various African countries that are unwilling to accept genetically modified crops, particularly corn. Other studies show how U.S. corn subsidies are even tied to the destruction of the Amazon. Furthermore, over the past decade the World Trade Organization has castigated the United States for its ongoing and massive program of agricultural

subsidization. In recent years, the European Union, Australia, Brazil, Argentina and Canada embarrassingly took
Americas illegal corn subsidization to task, and Brazil also rec ently won a similar World Trade Organization victory over American cotton subsidies. Reining in the Lobby The next time a politician or pundit begins banging the drum for war to bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran as John McCain so melodically put itremember why it is that economic sanctions never seem to work effectively. The powerful American Farm Lobby deserves its fair share of the blame, as does the U.S. Congress, which continues to massively subsidize American agriculture and thus, indirectly at least, the Farm Lobby itself. Many of the less-than-humanitarian products being traded to Iran, for instance,

gained their exemption through the efforts of various U.S. congressmen. Empirically- Agricultural lobbying garners congressional votes Gawande & Hoekman 09 - Kishore Gawande earned his PhD in economics at the University of California, Los Angeles. His areas
of specialty are empirical political economy and trade policy in which he has published extensively. His current research interests focus on the politics of free trade areas, globalization and regime quality, and determinants of conflict. Gawande's teaching interest is in international economics and politics, emerging economies, and applied econometrics. Gawande is a professor at the Bush School and holds the Helen and Roy Ryu Chair in International Affairs. Bernard Hoekman is the Sector Director of the Trade Department (PRMTR) in the Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Vice-Presidency (PRMVP). "Why Governments Tax or Subsidize Trade: Evidence from Agriculture," Agricultural Distortions Working Paper 50300, World Bank. LOBBYING AND AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION IN THE UNITED STATES: IMPLICATIONS FOR INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION, http://www.wcfia.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/GawandeHoekmanND.pdf, Accessed: 7/10/13, MC)

Agricultural PAC spending data for the five congressional election cycles between 1991-2000 (103rd through 106th Congress) were downloaded from the Federal Election Commission the (inverse) demand elasticity, the greater the level of intervention, that is, the higher the price relative to its non -distorted price. This is a confirmation of the Grossman-Helpman intuition that it is most efficient to tax commodities with the lowest price elasticities of demand, and is the basis for Gardners conclusion that interventions in U.S. agriculture have been efficient. 12 (FEC) website (www.fec.org).10 It is useful and relevant to understand whether PAC spending in agriculture is in line with the Grossman-Helpman idea of money buying influence (as different from money buying mere access to policymakers).

Farm PACs contributed between $5.5 million and $7 million during each of the five election cycles. Among farm products, the most politically active were sugar PACs, dairy PACs and ranch PACs. Together these three PACS accounted for about 75% of total farm PAC contributions.11 Over 200 PACs were politically active during this period. Cotton, dairy and wheat had the
highest degree of PAC concentration, and represented by the equivalent of three or four equal sized PACs. Ranch, sugar, and fruits and vegetables were represented by the equivalent of eight to ten equal-sized PACs.12 PAC

money is clearly influential in agriculture. A study of the 1985 and 1990 voting during sugar legislations by Brooks, Cameron and Carter (1998) finds that in the House and Senate both votes were responsive to sugar PAC contributions. Further, the value of sugar production in their constituency also determined how congresspersons voted. Sugar lobbies also targeted candidates that were likely to advance pro-sugar policies. Lopez (2001) finds that PAC contributions actually influenced agricultural policies. Two-thirds of agricultural PAC money went to House candidates and one-third to Senate candidates. Figure 2.1 indicates the top twenty recipients in the House
of agriculture PAC contributions during the 1991-92 election cycle.13 During this cycle, 15 of the top 20 House recipients of agricultural PAC money fifteen were members of the influential House 10 For the graphs below, mapping PACs into SIC-based agriculture-related sectors was done via a concordance constructed by Beaulieu and Magee (2002). In most cases many PACs mapped into one SIC code, so SIC level contributions are simply the aggregate of the mapped PACs. For one-to-many maps, political contributions from each PAC were fractionally assigned equally to each SIC code into which the PAC mapped. To check for consistency we compared our data with the data on the opensecrets.com website. For the few sectors in which opensecrets.com reports such information our data closely matched theirs. 11 Food manufacturing PACs, forestry and nursery PACs, agriculture service PACs and agriculture distribution PACs contributed more than did farm PACs. 12 Based on Herfindahl indices computed by the author. 13 The PAC data are in three relational data files: candidate information files (CN), PAC committee information files (CM), and files containing transactions between PACs and candidates (PAS). For each election cycle, aggregate contributions by each PAC to every candidate were computed from the PAS files, and

then merged with the relevant cycles CN files. Agriculture committee and sub -committee assignments for each Congress were obtained from Congressional Quarterly (1991-1999). 13 Agricultural committee (Figure 2.1). They included the committee chair (de la Garza ) and three subcommittee chairs (Huckaby, Stenholm, Rose). Figure 2.2 bears out much the same story for the 1999-2000 election cycle, the last period in our sample. The pattern of

giving in these figures clearly indicates that agricultural PACs targeted politicians with influence over agriculture policy. The amounts are not inconsequential. Agricultural PACs delivered between 8% (Fazio) and 60% (de la Garza) of the total PAC money received by candidates in the ag PAC top 20.14 Rather than being driven by party or ideology, agricultural PAC money sought influence. A natural
experiment that the five cycles provide is the switch from Democratic to Republican majority in 1995 and thereafter. Whereas, the top-twenty recipients who were agriculture committee members comprised largely Democrats during the 1991-92 and 1993- 94 congresses, they were mainly Republicans in the three later congresses. Figures 3.1 and 3.2 display the top twenty Senate recipients of Ag PAC money for the first and last cycles in the 1990s.

Contributions to Senate candidates were similar in magnitude to contributions to House candidates. Since a Senate election cost approximately ten times as much as a House election on average, receipts
as a percentage of their total PAC receipts do not exceed 25% and are generally lower than 10% even for the largest agricultural PAC recipients.15 Trade, Output and Protection The USDAs Production, Su pply and Distribution database PSD Online (at http://www.fas.usda.gov/psd/complete_files/default.asp) was the source for trade and production data used to construct the inverse import-to-output ratios (z). Time series data 14 Top 20 list-makers who were not on the Agricultural committee represented districts with influential agricultural constituents (CA, OK, VA, MI). For example, Fazios district (CA, district 3) was among the 30 leading districts by market value of agricultural products (1997 Census of Agriculture). 15 In 1992 the average winning Senate candidate spent $3.9 mn. while the average House winning candidate spent $0.5 mn., approximately an 8:1 ratio,. The average Senate loser spent $2.0 mn. While the average House loser spent $0.2 mn., a 10:1 ratio. In other election cycles the ratios were similar. Further, total PAC receipts as a proportion of total campaign spending averaged approximately 20% for winning Senate candidates while they averaged approximately 50% for winning House candidates. These figures are computed from in formation on the opensecrets.org (opensecrets 2002) web site. 14 over 1985-2001 for farm products at the 4- and 5-digit Harmonized System (HS) level are available at the site.16

Obama has Cuban-American support can afford to do the plan Padgett 13 - Tim Padgett, 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. Padgett has also written for publications such as The New Republic and America, and he has been a frequent analyst on CNN, Fox and NPR, as well as Spanish-language networks such as Univision. (Why This Summer Offers Hope For Better U.S.-Cuba Relations, WLRN, latest known date was early June, when Snowden leaked NSA information, http://wlrn.org/post/why-summer-offers-hope-better-us-cuba-relations, accessed: 7/3/13, amf) 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. No link caving to anti-Cuba backlash is about election year politics not agenda politics.

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

the two countries have held talks on resuming direct mail service, and announced a sit-down on migration issues
Straits. In the past week, 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. " recent steps

July 17

. 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

These indicate a desire to move forward, said Pastor, a professor of international relations and former national security adviser on Latin America Among the things that have changed, Obama no longer has re-election concerns while dealing with the Cuban-American electorate in Florida,
on both sides to try but also a recognition on both sides of just how difficult it is to make real progress," Robert at American University during the Carter administration. "These are tiny, incremental gains, and the prospects of going backwards are equally high." 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 where there are also indications of a warming attitude to negotiating with Cuba.

No link your politics link is based on old attitudes Obama polling proves lifting the embargo is popular now. 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)

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,
And yet, despite all that recent cold-war commotion, could this finally be the summer of love on the Florida Second, although

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. Your politics link arguments are based on old analysis - new cuban american's don't support the embargo. 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)

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.

AT Case arguments

AT Gross stops normalized relations


We fiat over that the plan normalizes relations despite Gross Gross presents a unique opportunity for change in political approach McGovern 12 Representative Jim McGovern, U.S. Representative for Massachusetts's 2nd
congressional district. (McGovern: U.S. Needs Effective, Mature Policy in Cuba, Roll Call, February 21, 2012, http://www.rollcall.com/issues/57_98/jim_mcgovern_united_states_needs_effective_mature_cuba_p olicy-212553-1.html, accessed: 7/3/13, LR)
The impasse between Washington and Havana over the arrest of U.S. Agency for International Development contractor Alan Gross, cited by some as a reason to further shut down our Cuba policy options, actually presents us an opportunity to change our outdated and self-defeating approach toward the island, including shedding a range of democracy promotion programs aimed at regime change. These programs and their generous funding $200 million during the past decade were the centerpiece of the George W. Bush administrations Cuba policy and far different from the new beginning with Cuba that President Barack Obama promised just weeks after his inauguration. They are relics from the Cold War and are based more on U.S. domestic politics than on what constitutes rational and sound foreign policy. For more than five decades we have been obsessed with getting rid of the Castro brothers. Our government has tried to invade Cuba, assassinate its leader, crush its economy and support organizations and programs designed to overthrow the regime. We have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to achieve this quest. By any measure, our policies have failed miserably. If anything, our policies have been used as an excuse to justify the failures of the Cuban system and strengthen Havana hardliners opposed to change. Every time a U.S. lawmaker gets up to rattle the sabers, the Cuban people, including most of the pro-democracy activists, recoil. All the huffing and puffing U.S. lawmakers engage in may play well at fundraisers in the United States but do absolutely nothing to improve the lives of the average Cuban family, let alone help support human rights or freedoms in Cuba.

AT CPs

AT CP Delay
Changes under Raul mean now is best Hanson and Lee 1/31 Stephanie Hanson and Brianna Lee, members of the Council on Foreign
Relations, U.S.-Cuba Relations, Council on Foreign Relations, January 31, 2013, http://www.cfr.org/cuba/us-cuba-relations/p11113#p3, accessed: 7/4/13, LR)

Ral Castro has implemented a number of significant changes to the structure of the Cuban government and economy. Several changes related to agriculture, including a decision in 2008 to give individuals land for farming, were meant to spur food production on the island. He liberalized the real estate and auto markets, created space for small businesses, and cracked down on corruption. "Ral Castro, though no democrat, is clearly a more practical man than his brother," said a 2010 Economist article. "He
recognizes that time is running out for his island. The population is shrinking and ageing, the economy is hopelessly unproductive and the state can no longer pay for the paternalist social services of which Cuba was once proud." However, Ral Castro's steps toward capitalism have been "both remarkable and extremely limited," writes Damien Cave for the New York Times. "What Cuba has ended up with is handcuffed capitalism: highly regulated competitive markets for low-skilled, small family businesses." In 2012, Ral Castro made a historic change to the country's travel laws. Under the new policy, which took effect in January 2013, Cubans are eligible to apply for passports to travel abroad, rather than having to acquire a formal letter of invitation and exit visa. Furthermore, Cubans are able to stay outside of the country for twenty-four months--extended from eleven months--without losing their status as Cuban residents. The new policy makes exceptions for "citizens who have obligations with the state or are not authorized under rules designed to preserve the skilled workforce and protect official information," in which case the state exercises its own judgment. Ral Castro has signaled he is willing to engage in dialogue with Washington. At the same time...seeking normalized bilateral relations is clearly not a priority for the Cuban government, which has moved to diversify its relationships in the region.

AT CP Waivers/Treasury Department/OFAC
1. perm do the counterplan. Our plan just says we should normalize economic relations it doesnt require that overnight we completely lift every possible trade barrier. 2. The perm is legitimate because of the phrase economic engagement which is a process. The cp just specifies the process by which our plan would be done. Resnick 1 Dr. Evan Resnick, Ph.D. in Political Science from Columbia University, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Yeshiva University, Defining Engagement, Jo urnal of International Affairs, Spring, 54(2), Ebsco
A REFINED DEFINITION OF ENGAGEMENT In order to establish a more effective framework for dealing with unsavory regimes, I propose that we define engagement as the attempt to influence the political behavior of a target state through the comprehensive establishment and enhancement of contacts with that state across multiple issue-areas (i.e. diplomatic, military, economic, cultural). The following is a brief list of the specific forms that such contacts might include: DIPLOMATIC CONTACTS Extension of diplomatic recognition; normalization of diplomatic

relations Promotion of target-state membership in international institutions and regimes Summit meetings and other visits by the head of state and other senior government officials of sender state to target state and vice-versa MILITARY CONTACTS Visits of senior military officials of the sender state to the target state and vice-versa Arms transfers Military aid and cooperation Military exchange and training programs Confidence and securitybuilding measures Intelligence sharing ECONOMIC CONTACTS Trade agreements and promotion Foreign economic and humanitarian aid in the form of loans and/or grants CULTURAL CONTACTS Cultural treaties Inauguration of travel and tourism links Sport, artistic and academic exchanges (n25) Engagement is an iterated process in which the sender and target state develop a relationship of

increasing interdependence, culminating in the endpoint of "normalized relations" characterized by a high level of interactions across multiple domains.
3. Doesnt solve our ofac advantage ofac has certain people who do certain jobs. As long as we have sanctions on the books we have to have people in charge of managing those sanctions even if they arent actively enforcing them. Only the plan allows wholesale reallocation of human resources and funding to focus on enforcing other sanctions. 4. Perm do the plan and the counterplan. The permutation allows a combination of actions that avoid linking to their net benefits.

Now key to US-Cuban rapprochement Castros efforts to improve econ and support from Cuban-Americans failure to reform will cause Cuban instability. 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.

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

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
matter of policy does not support the drug trade. In fact, 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?

AT Ks

AT K Neoliberalism
Turn: Cuba worries that US will block access to medical supplies (turn to neolib k) CNN 09- (Report: U.S. sanctions put Cubans' health at risk, CNN,
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/09/01/amnesty.cuba.health/, 9/2/09, accessed: 7/3/13, ML) She also said the embargo affects the way doctors think about the future. " Doctors in Cuba always worry that an international supplier will be bought out by a U.S. company, leaving medical equipment without replacement parts and patients without continuity of medications," Reed said. Gerardo Ducos, an Amnesty researcher for the Caribbean region, told CNN that although medicines and medical supplies can be licensed for export to Cuba, the conditions governing the process make their export virtually impossible. According to the report, the U.S. exported $710 million of food and agricultural products to Cuba in 2008, but only $1.2 million of medical equipment and products. Reed said the embargo does not permit the sale of active ingredients or raw materials to the Cuban pharmaceutical industry.

AT K Gender
Cuban women lack food, delays in essential products, medicine, transportation, etc. Hidalgo 2k, Vilma H. Logos: A Journal of Catholic Thought and Culture, Volume 3, Number 4, Fall 2000, pp. 100-120 (Article)
Published by Logos: A Journal of Catholic Thought and Culture DOI: 10.1353/log.2000.0005, Is the U.S. Economic Embargo on Cuba Morally Defensible?,

HK

The crisis heightened by the blockade affects Cuban women in various and diverse forms. In the family setting, where meeting basic needs of nutrition, personal and domestic hygiene, and ade- quate rest are paramount, accomplishing household chores can become a true dilemma for women in dire economic straits. Thus, Cuban women have experienced for themselves the harsh effects of the blockade on their regular routine, reflected in the daily difficul- ties created by shortages of food, delays in receiving supplies of essential products, difficulties in obtaining articles for personal and family hygiene, limitations in acquiring clothing and footwear, short supplies of medicines, the absence of transportation, and costs in terms of time, among many others. The scarcity of fuel during the first years of the crisis directly affected the life of Cuban house- holds: for example, the
average number of hours without electrici- ty or water supplied to the domestic sector rose considerably during the period 19901995. In addition, the availability of electrical appli- ances and of replacement parts for existing machines was sharply reduced.11 It is evident

that during those years each Cuban woman became a true strategist of family survival, needing to meet not only the most basic needs for her family, but also assuring that each of its members, children and men, might continue to carry out their social roles and activities. Working just to get by, which now occupied most of her energies, also impinged on the satisfaction of her spiritual needs,
for enjoying recreation, time with family, and professional growth.

logos such as modest opportunities

Turn: embargo restricts access to specific treatments for women (turn to gender k) CNN 09- (Report: U.S. sanctions put Cubans' health at risk, CNN,
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/09/01/amnesty.cuba.health/, 9/2/09, accessed: 7/3/13, ML) She gave the example of methotrexate, used to treat breast cancer, telling CNN that an export license was denied to a firm wanting to sell the U.S.-produced active ingredient to Cuba, to be used in domestic production of the drug on the island. "Four times as many women may be treated with methotrexate if the drug could be produced domestically, so that Cuban importers were not forced to purchase the finished product on the international pharmaceutical market," she said. The report says that products patented in the U.S. are covered by the embargo. Ducos told CNN that this particularly affects HIV/AIDS treatments. " The latest medicines are usually covered by U.S. patents,

which means Cuba must wait several years for the patent to run out before they can buy generic products," he said.
In the statement, Khan added, "Although responsibility for providing adequate health care lies primarily with the Cuban authorities, governments imposing sanctions such as embargoes need to pay special attention to the impact they can have on the targeted country's population."

AT DAs
Traditional impact calculus doesn't apply - embargoes cause the underlying conditions that result in war and economic crisis and those events obscure the true impacts of embargoes 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)

The methodological challenges to establishing a valid assessment of the impact of an embargo are daunting: Embargoes spread a small increase in risk of death, illness, or social stress among a large group of
people. Small risks are difficult to measure with precision. This small change in risk may be obscured by concurrent events that contribute independently to the negative outcomes which may result from an embargo, such as war, mass migration, or economic

crisis.
The impact of trade sanctions on health and well-being is mediated by a countrys economic and social systems. However, sanctions impact considerably on the production, importation and distribution of

essential goods. There are thus multiple pathways and steps by which influence is exerted on health and well-being outcomes.
Each sanction on economic trade is a type of natural experiment, where the intervention is national in scope and control groups with which to make comparisons do not exist. Baseline information available in sanctioned countries is usually limited in coverage or quality and, with the exception of Cuba, the quality of information on health and well-being has declined under sanctions. Change in the distribution of essential goods within the family or due to political or social

mobilisation modify the impact of resource change brought on by trade sanctions. These modifying influences are difficult to isolate and often go unrecognised or unmeasured. Even a dramatic
decline in key resources does not always or immediately lead to an increase in morbidity or mortality due to the resilience of health assets as public education, healthy behaviours, trained health workers, and infrastructure, which deteriorate only gradually.

AT Brain Drain
The Cuban pop has been suffering brain drain for a while. (nu brain drain) 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)

Small-time diaspora capital may prove easier to regulate and rely on than funds from multinational corporations driven strictly by profits. Under the repatriation provisions of the island's new
migration law, some Cubans may even retire to the island with their pensions and savings after decades of working abroad. Yet opening the doors for more young citizens to leave could prove risky for a quickly aging, low-birthrate society that has been suffering from a brain drain for some time. Besides, along with remittance dollars, Cuba urgently needs both medium and large investors. Ultimately, only larger

outlays can help fix Cuba's most fundamental economic problem: its depleted productive base. Castro appears to recognize that attracting foreign investment, decentralizing the government, and further expanding the private sector are the only ways to tackle this long-term predicament.
The government is unlikely to proceed with anything but caution, however. Officials are wary of rocking the domestic political boat, and citizens and party leaders alike recoil from the prospect of more radical shock therapy. Rising public protests in China and Vietnam against inequality and rampant corruption have only reinforced the Cuban government's preference for gradualism. Striking an adequate balance will be no easy task. In late 2012, Havana legalized the creation of transportation cooperatives -- private, profit-sharing entities owned and manage by their members -- to fix bottlenecks in agricultural distribution. Meanwhile, 100 state enterprises are now running their finances completely autonomously as part of a yearlong pilot program. The government is also reportedly considering ways to offer a wider array of potential foreign partners more advantageous terms for joint ventures. But the Communist Party is working through numerous contradictions -- recognizing a place for market economics, challenging old biases against entrepreneurs, and hinting at decentralizing the budget while incongruously insisting, in the words of its official 2011 guidelines, that "central planning, and not the market, will take precedence."