CUBA AFF

1AC

1AC Inherency
First, the embargo is the single greatest barrier to Cuban
economic development
Gordon 12 (Joy, The U.S. Embargo against Cuba and the Diplomatic Challenges
to Extraterritoriality, THE FLETCHER FORUM OF WORLD AFFAIRS, VOL.36:1 WINTER
2012, AK)
The embargo not only deprives Cuba of access to U.S. markets and goods, but
interferes in its trade with third countries; prohibits U.S. dollar transactions, even
with banks and trade partners in third countries; prohibits most travel to Cuba by
U.S. citizens; interferes in Cuba's internet access and roaming agreements for cell
phones; denies Cuba access to global financial institutions; prohibits the sale of
equipment to Cuban research scientists by U.S. companies or their foreign
subsidiaries; prevents Cubans from visiting family members in the United States;
and often blocks scientific and cultural exchanges. Other embargoes, such as the Security
Council sanctions imposed on Iraq in the 1990s, have caused greater humanitarian harm than the U.S. embargo

the U.S. measures against Cuba are far more extensive,

affecting every aspect of commerce, travel, economic development, and even
humanitarian contributions. Overall, Cuba estimate the total damages from the U.S.
embargo to be in excess of $100 billion.'
against Cuba. Yet, in some regards

And, now is key Cuba has been gradually moving toward

policies more favorable to the US
Haven 1/26/13 (Paul Haven, Associated Press bureau chief in Havana, Kerry,

Hagel On Cuba: Cabinet Nominees Could Help Ease Relations, Lift Trade Embargo,
Huff Post World, 1/26/13, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/26/kerry-hagelcuba-us-trade-embargo_n_2559023.html, AD: 7/12/13, AK)
"I think having a secretary of state and secretary of defense who understand and are willing to speak publicly that
isolation is counterproductive is a very good start," said Tomas Bilbao, executive director of the nonpartisan Cuba
Study Group, which advocates using engagement to spur democratic change. "I'm optimistic about the
opportunity." Carlos Alzugaray, an ex-Cuban ambassador to the European Union and the author of several studies
about Cuba-US relations, said that if both men are confirmed, no Cabinet since the Carter administration would
have such high-level voices in favor of rapprochement. At the same time, the composition of Cuban-Americans in

Florida is evolving, with younger voters less emotionally attached to the issue than their
parents and grandparents. Exit polls showed 49 percent of Cuban-Americans in the state voted
for Obama, roughly the same percentage as four years ago, an indication the group no longer
plays the make-or-break role it once did in presidential politics . The atmosphere is changing
in Cuba as well. Alzugaray noted that the island has taken many steps that would normally be welcomed
by Washington such as freeing dozens of political prisoners, opening the economy to
limited capitalism, hosting peace talks for war-torn Colombia and eliminating most
restrictions on travel for its own citizens. "Cuba is changing, and it is changing in the
direction that the United States says Cuba must change," Alzugaray told The
Associated Press in an interview in his Havana apartment

1AC Leadership Advantage

ADVANTAGE ___ : LEADERSHIP
US credibility in the Caribbean has been steadily declining
now is the key moment to take strong action to maintain
regional leadership and a benevolent global image
Duddy & Mora 13 (Patrick Duddy served as U.S. ambassador to Venezuela from
2007 until 2010 and is currently visiting senior lecturer at Duke University. Frank O.
Mora is incoming director of the Latin American and Caribbean Center, Florida
International University, 05.01.2013 Latin America: Is U.S. influence waning?
5/1/13 http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/05/01/3375160/latin-america-is-usinfluence.html, AD 7/11/13, AK)
Is U.S. influence in Latin America on the wane? It depends how you look at it. As President Obama
travels to Mexico and Costa Rica, its likely the pundits will once again underscore what some perceive to be
the eroding influence of the United States in the Western Hemisphere. Some will point to the
decline in foreign aid or the absence of an overarching policy with an inspiring moniker like
Alliance for Progress or Enterprise Area of the Americas as evidence that t he United States is failing to
embrace the opportunities of a region that is more important to this country than
ever. The reality is a lot more complicated. Forty-two percent of all U.S. exports flow to the Western Hemisphere.
In many ways, U.S. engagement in the Americas is more pervasive than ever, even if more diffused. That is in part
because the peoples of the Western Hemisphere are not waiting for governments to choreograph their interactions.

the complex, multidimensional ties between

the United States and the rest of the hemisphere. In fact, it may be that we need to change
the way we think and talk about the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean .
A more-nuanced assessment inevitably will highlight

We also need to resist the temptation to embrace overly reductive yardsticks for judging our standing in the
hemisphere. As Moises Naim notes in his recent book, The End of Power, there has been an important change in

increasingly mobile set of

actors that are dramatically shaping the nature and scope of global relationships. In
Latin America, many of the most substantive and dynamic forms of engagement are occurring in a web of
cross-national relationships involving small and large companies, people-to-people
contact through student exchanges and social media, travel and migration.
power distribution in the world away from states toward an expanding and

Removing the embargo is a show of leadership that makes soft

power credible
Gerz-Escandon 8 (Jennifer Gerz-Escandon, independent scholar and former
professor of political science based in Atlanta, End the US-Cuba embargo: Its a
win-win, Christian Science Monitor, October 9, 2008,
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2008/1009/p09s02-coop.html, AD:
6/30/13, AK)
For its part, by ending the embargo, the US simultaneously gains security through stability in
Cuba. More important, by investing in the future prototype for emerging markets a 42,803-square-mile green energy and
technology lab called Cuba America gains a dedicated partner in the search for energy independence. Finally, a key
component of renewing relations is ending illicit emigration . At issue is the 1966 Cuban
Adjustment Act, amended in 1995. It encourages disaffected Cubans to risk their lives for the reward of an expedited path to US
citizenship upon reaching American soil. They also receive immediate access to a work permit and the ability to acquire residency in
one year. A 2002 article from The Miami Herald reported that 1 in 20 Cubans being smuggled to the shores of the United States dies

Retiring the "wet-foot, dry-foot" policy

and normalizing immigration laws could stop the Cuban brain drain, end charges of a US
immigration double standard, and save hundreds of millions of dollars for the US taxpayers who must fund
in the attempt. Meanwhile, smugglers collect up to $10,000 a person.

four different agencies to implement this policy. Supporters of the embargo say it serves as an important symbolic protest of Cuba's

deplorable human rights record and its lack of political, civil, and economic freedoms. Yet constructive engagement with the reformready regime of Mr. Castro utilizing a framework based on mutual economic interests similar to US-China relations could give
observers more cause for optimism. Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao's willingness to speak openly with Newsweek/CNN journalist Fareed
Zakaria last month about democratization is evidence of progress. While phasing out the Cuban embargo
won't render a quick solution to fractured US-Cuba relations or end the evaporation of esteem the US is suffering throughout Latin

would mark a significant achievement of hemispheric leadership on a

divisive issue. By ending the embargo, the US may learn that under the right circumstances, the soft power of diplomacy
America, it

proves more effective in reshaping America's perception in Latin America than the hard power of economic isolation ever did.

Soft power is key to solve global issues including disease,

climate change, and terrorism
Nye 8 Joseph Nye, former Assistant Secretary of Defense, former Dean of
Harvards John F. Kennedy School of Government, Recovering American
Leadership, Survival, March 2008
Still, the United States should guard against taking its soft-power resources for
granted, as modern challenges to its leadership and security are of a different sort than they used to be. The

contemporary information revolution and its attendant brand of globalisation are transforming and shrinking the
world. At the beginning of this new century, these two forces combined to increase American power. But with time,
technology will spread to other countries and peoples, and Americas relative pre-eminence will diminish. For
example, at the beginning of this century, the American twentieth of the global population represented more than
half of the worlds Internet users. Today that share has already declined. At some point in the future, the Asian
cyber-community and economy will loom larger than their American counterparts. Even more important, the
information revolution is creating virtual communities and networks that cut across national borders. Transnational
corporations and non-governmental actors (terrorists included) will play larger roles in world affairs. Many of these
organisations will have soft power of their own as they attract citizens into mixed coalitions that cut across national
boundaries. It is worth noting that a coalition based on nongovernmental organisations created a land-mine treaty
over the opposition of the strongest bureaucracy in the worlds strongest country. And a surprise attack by a
transnational, non-governmental organisation killed more Americans in September 2001 than the government of

The events of 11 September were a symptom of the

deeper changes occurring in the world. Technology has been diffusing power away
from governments and empowering individuals and groups to play roles in world
politics, including wreaking massive destruction, that were once reserved to
governments. Privatisation has been increasing, and terrorism is the privatisation of war. Globalisation is
Japan did in its surprise attack in 1941.

shrinking the distance between peoples, and events in faraway places like Afghanistan can have great impact on

The problem for American leadership in the twenty-first century is that

there are ever more things outside the control of states, even the most powerful
one. Although the United States does well on the traditional measures of power resources, every year there is
American lives.

more going on in the world that those resources cannot address. Under the influence of the information revolution
and globalisation, world politics is changing in a way that means Americans cannot achieve all their international

international financial stability is vital to the prosperity of

Americans, but the United States needs the cooperation of others to attain it.
Likewise, global climate change will affect Americans quality of life, but the United
States cannot manage the problem by itself. Last year China, which adds two new
coal-fired generating plants each week, may have overtaken the United States as
the largest emitter of greenhouse gases. And in a world where borders are
becoming more porous than ever to everything from drugs to infectious diseases to
terrorism, Washington must work with others and mobilise international coalitions to
address these new security threats.
goals alone. For example,

Disease causes extinction

Yu 9 Victoria Yu, Human Extinction: The Uncertainty of Our Fate, Dartmouth
Undergraduate Journal of Science, 5/22/2009, http://dujs.dartmouth.edu/spring2009/human-extinction-the-uncertainty-of-our-fate
A pandemic will kill off all humans. In the past, humans have indeed fallen victim to viruses. Perhaps

the best-known case was the bubonic plague that killed up to one third of the European population in the mid-14th
century (7). While vaccines have been developed for the plague and some other infectious diseases,

new viral

strains are constantly emerging a process that maintains the possibility of a

pandemic-facilitated human extinction. Some surveyed students mentioned AIDS as a potential
pandemic-causing virus. It is true that scientists have been unable thus far to find a sustainable cure for AIDS,
mainly due to HIVs rapid and constant evolution. Specifically, two factors account for the viruss abnormally high
mutation rate: 1. HIVs use of reverse transcriptase, which does not have a proof-reading mechanism, and 2. the
lack of an error-correction mechanism in HIV DNA polymerase (8). Luckily, though, there are certain characteristics
of HIV that make it a poor candidate for a large-scale global infection: HIV can lie dormant in the human body for
years without manifesting itself, and AIDS itself does not kill directly, but rather through the weakening of the

for more easily transmitted viruses such as influenza, the

evolution of new strains could prove far more consequential. The simultaneous
occurrence of antigenic drift (point mutations that lead to new strains) and antigenic
shift (the inter-species transfer of disease) in the influenza virus could produce a
new version of influenza for which scientists may not immediately find a cure. Since
influenza can spread quickly, this lag time could potentially lead to a global influenza
pandemic, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (9). The most recent scare of
this variety came in 1918 when bird flu managed to kill over 50 million people around
immune system. However,

the world in what is sometimes referred to as the Spanish flu pandemic. Perhaps even more frightening is the fact

only 25 mutations were required to convert the original viral strain which
could only infect birds into a human-viable strain (10).
that

Warming causes extinction

Sify 10 citing Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, professor at University of Queensland and

Director of the Global Change Institute, and John Bruno, associate professor of
Marine Science at UNC, Could unbridled climate changes lead to human
extinction? Sify News, 6/19/10, http://www.sify.com/news/could-unbridled-climatechanges-lead-to-human-extinction-news-international-kgtrOhdaahc.html
The findings of the comprehensive report: 'The impact of climate change on the world's marine
ecosystems' emerged from a synthesis of recent research on the world's oceans,
carried out by two of the world's leading marine scientists. One of the authors of the report is
Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, professor at The University of Queensland and the director of its Global Change Institute

'We may see sudden, unexpected changes that have serious ramifications for
the overall well-being of humans, including the capacity of the planet to support
people. This is further evidence that we are well on the way to the next great
extinction event,' says Hoegh-Guldberg. 'The findings have enormous implications for
mankind, particularly if the trend continues. The earth's ocean, which produces half
of the oxygen we breathe and absorbs 30 per cent of human-generated carbon
dioxide, is equivalent to its heart and lungs. This study shows worrying signs of illhealth. It's as if the earth has been smoking two packs of cigarettes a day !,' he added.
'We are entering a period in which the ocean services upon which humanity
depends are undergoing massive change and in some cases beginning to fail' , he
added. The 'fundamental and comprehensive' changes to marine life identified in the
report include rapidly warming and acidifying oceans, changes in water circulation
and expansion of dead zones within the ocean depths. These are driving major
changes in marine ecosystems: less abundant coral reefs, sea grasses and
mangroves (important fish nurseries); fewer, smaller fish; a breakdown in food
chains; changes in the distribution of marine life; and more frequent diseases and
pests among marine organisms. Study co-author John F Bruno, associate professor in marine science at
The University of North Carolina, says greenhouse gas emissions are modifying many physical
and geochemical aspects of the planet's oceans, in ways 'unprecedented in nearly a
million years'. 'This is causing fundamental and comprehensive changes to the way
marine ecosystems function,' Bruno warned, according to a GCI release. These findings were
published in Science.
(GCI).

Nuclear terrorism risks global nuclear exchange

Ayson 10 Robert Ayson, Professor of Strategic Studies and Director of the Centre
for Strategic Studies: New Zealand at the Victoria University of Wellington, After a
Terrorist Nuclear Attack: Envisaging Catalytic Effects, Studies in Conflict &
Terrorism, Volume 33, Issue 7, July 2010, informaworld

A terrorist nuclear attack, and even the use of nuclear weapons in response by the country attacked in the first
place, would not necessarily represent the worst of the nuclear worlds imaginable. Indeed, there are reasons to
wonder whether nuclear terrorism should ever be regarded as belonging in the category of truly existential threats.
A contrast can be drawn here with the global catastrophe that would come from a massive nuclear exchange
between two or more of the sovereign states that possess these weapons in significant numbers. Even the worst
terrorism that the twenty-first century might bring would fade into insignificance alongside considerations of what a
general nuclear war would have wrought in the Cold War period. And it must be admitted that as long as the

major nuclear weapons states have hundreds and even thousands of nuclear
weapons at their disposal, there is always the possibility of a truly awful nuclear exchange taking place
precipitated entirely by state possessors themselves. But these two nuclear worldsa non-state actor nuclear
attack and a catastrophic interstate nuclear exchangeare not necessarily separable. It is just possible that some

nuclear terrorism, could precipitate a chain of

events leading to a massive exchange of nuclear weapons between two or more of
the states that possess them. In this context, todays and tomorrows terrorist groups might assume the
sort of terrorist attack, and especially an act of

place allotted during the early Cold War years to new state possessors of small nuclear arsenals who were seen as
raising the risks of a catalytic nuclear war between the superpowers started by third parties. These risks were
considered in the late 1950s and early 1960s as concerns grew about nuclear proliferation, the so-called n+1
problem. t may require a considerable amount of imagination to depict an especially plausible situation where an
act of nuclear terrorism could lead to such a massive inter-state nuclear war. For example, in the event of a terrorist
nuclear attack on the United States, it might well be wondered just how Russia and/or China could plausibly be
brought into the picture, not least because they seem unlikely to be fingered as the most obvious state sponsors or
encouragers of terrorist groups. They would seem far too responsible to be involved in supporting that sort of
terrorist behavior that could just as easily threaten them as well. Some possibilities, however remote, do suggest
themselves. For example, how might the United States react if it was thought or discovered that the fissile material
used in the act of nuclear terrorism had come from Russian stocks,40 and if for some reason Moscow denied any
responsibility for nuclear laxity? The correct attribution of that nuclear material to a particular country might not be
a case of science fiction given the observation by Michael May et al. that while the debris resulting from a nuclear
explosion would be spread over a wide area in tiny fragments, its radioactivity makes it detectable, identifiable and
collectable, and a wealth of information can be obtained from its analysis: the efficiency of the explosion, the
materials used and, most important some indication of where the nuclear material came from.41 Alternatively,

if the act of nuclear terrorism came as a complete surprise, and American officials refused to
believe that a terrorist group was fully responsible (or responsible at all) suspicion would shift
immediately to state possessors. Ruling out Western ally countries like the United Kingdom and France,
and probably Israel and India as well, authorities in Washington would be left with a very short list consisting of
North Korea, perhaps Iran if its program continues, and possibly Pakistan. But at what stage
would Russia and China be definitely ruled out in this high stakes game of nuclear
Cluedo? In particular, if the act of nuclear terrorism occurred against a backdrop of
existing tension in Washingtons relations with Russia and/or China, and at a time
when threats had already been traded between these major powers, would officials
and political leaders not be tempted to assume the worst? Of course, the chances of this
occurring would only seem to increase if the United States was already involved in some sort of limited armed
conflict with Russia and/or China, or if they were confronting each other from a distance in a proxy war, as unlikely

The reverse might well apply too: should a

nuclear terrorist attack occur in Russia or China during a period of heightened tension or even
as these developments may seem at the present time.

limited conflict with the United States, could Moscow and Beijing resist the pressures that might rise domestically to

Washingtons early
response to a terrorist nuclear attack on its own soil might also raise the possibility of an unwanted
(and nuclear aided) confrontation with Russia and/or China. For example, in the noise and
confusion during the immediate aftermath of the terrorist nuclear attack, the U.S.
president might be expected to place the countrys armed forces, including its
nuclear arsenal, on a higher stage of alert. In such a tense environment, when
careful planning runs up against the friction of reality, it is just possible that Moscow
consider the United States as a possible perpetrator or encourager of the attack?

and/or China might mistakenly read this as a sign of U.S. intentions to use force (and
possibly nuclear force) against them. In that situation, the temptations to preempt such actions might
grow, although it must be admitted that any preemption would probably still meet with a
devastating response.

Soft powers key to conflict prevention global integration

checks escalation to all-out war which threatens civilization
itself
Chatterjee 13 Siddharth Chatterjee, Chief Diplomat and Head of Strategic
Partnerships at the IFRC HQ, The Spoils of War, Huffington Post, 7/12/2013,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/siddharth-chatterjee/the-spoils-ofwar_b_3586601.html
The moral imperative during World War II has been replaced by the quest to gain
control of resources and influence. Increasingly, countries declaring war have done
so for political reasons. In the absence of moral reasoning, soldiers and society find it even more difficult to

embrace the idea of putting young lives at risk in war. And then there is the massive financial cost. A 2013 Harvard
study notes that the combined cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars could end up costing the U.S. between 4 and 6
trillion dollars including the medical care of veterans, leading to an enormous negative impact on the global
economy. No doubt war is hell -- but for reasons far beyond what we traditionally thought. War not only tears apart
the people that partake in it, emotionally as well as physically, but also their families, communities, societies and
even their countries. It is extremely expensive, not only in money, but also in human capital and potential. These
costs are simply too great to bear. Now more than ever,

the time is ripe to explore the paradigm-

shifting potential of 'soft power', brilliantly articulated by Professor Joseph Nye, one of the world's
leading thinkers and intellectuals. Nye describes soft power as "the ability to get what you
want through attraction rather than through coercion ." He sees strong relations with
allies, economic assistance programs, and vital cultural exchanges as examples of
soft power. By using this soft power, it may be possible to stop internal conflicts in fragile
states before they even begin. Soft power will allow countries to influence the world
and achieve their goals through non-violent means. Even with overwhelming might, we are
seeing wars aren't won any longer. Mahatma Gandhi said "victory attained by violence is
tantamount to a defeat, for it is momentary." If the world cannot find a way out of war,
then we may well be defeated as a civilization.

1AC Democracy Advantage

ADVANTAGE ___ : DEMOCRACY
The status quo of the embargo has cemented the authority of
the Cuban dictatorship this perpetuates human rights abuses
Guardian 9 (Cubas embargo must go, theguardian, November 24 2009,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/nov/23/embargo-cubahuman-rights, AD 7/11/13, AK)

This month Europe celebrated the twentieth anniversary of the collapse of the iron curtain. Tribute was paid the role

the
Cuban government continues to ruthlessly suppress any sign of dissent - and the US
administration's misguided embargo merely strengthens the dictatorship's hand. Now Human
Rights Watch (HRW), the New York-based NGO, has called for the US to scrap its failed policy
in favour of "more effective forms of pressure". HRW's new report, New Castro, Same Cuba,
the US played in helping to speed the demise of totalitarian regimes. But just 90 miles off the coast of Florida,

proves that Raul Castro shares his brother's extreme distaste for opposition. Since taking the reins of power from

Raul has deepened the repression of his opponents , particularly

through the vigorous use of a provision in the criminal code which allows people to
be jailed if it is suspected that they might commit a crime in the future . The catch-all prehis ailing sibling in 2006,

criminal state of "dangerousness" is defined as any behaviour that contradicts socialist norms. HRW's report states

people have been jailed for "dangerousness", including handing out copies of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, staging rallies, and attempting to form independent
trade unions. HRW has called for the embargo to be scrapped and replaced by a multi-lateral
that more than 40

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

When
North Korea and Burma ruthlessly extinguish any dissent they are rightly castigated
as pariah states. When Cuba does the same, the world looks away. The co-called Cuban
patronising view allows the dictatorship to manipulate the policies of foreign governments in its favour.

exiles in Miami and New Jersey need to drop their noisy support for the US policy of regime change - it serves only

Anyone who cares about human rights should

encourage their governments to take up HRW's call for a new unified approach to
Cuba's human rights failures. The Cuban government will change its ways only if it
is forced to. Cuba ratified the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
to shore up the government they despise.

Punishment in 1995. It has been allowed to flout that convention with impunity.

Lifting embargo causes a domino effect that normalizes

relations and causes democratic transitioning
Arzeno 12 (Mario A. Arzeno, M.B.A. of military art and science strategy, University
of Miami. She is also a member of the Inter American Defense board, THE U.S.
EMBARGO ON CUBA: A TIME FOR CHANGE? 9/18/12, Page 51)
free trade and open markets do promote open
economies and societies with greater freedom for their people, with better
opportunities and less poverty. Less poverty equals stability . Charles William Maynes, President of
Critics argue free markets do not promote democracy. However,

the Eurasia Foundation and a leading political scientist in the United States calls this idea of free markets
promoting democracy Liberal Internationalism. He argues open markets lead to the
formation of a middle class; the middle class then brings pressure on nondemocratic governments to open the political process; once that opening occurs,
democracy develops. With Cubas proximity to the United States, democracy is inevitable. It will be a slow process. Nevertheless, it will happen, as it has in
countless other countries like the Dominican Republic, Chile, Argentina, El Salvador and the other thirty-one out of thirtytwo countries in the Latin American region. The first step before
any real change happens in Cuba must be engagement within our own borders with the Cuban American National Foundation (CANF). The CANF is without question the center of gravity
for this issue. The CANF is single handedly preventing progress in the Cuba policy. Clausewitz defines a center of gravity as the hub of all power and movement, on which everything
else depends. That is the point against which all our energies should be directed. The United States should focus its energy on encouraging the CANF to reform its uncompromising

Several actions, or decisive points, must occur for the CANF to compromise and ultimately create change in Cuba; beginning
with the review of the Torricelli Bill and the Helms-Burton Act, followed by the
opening of economic trade, and the lifting of restrictions on the travel ban and the
sale of food and medicine. The CANF will not allow any of this to happen without the unconditional removal of Castro and anyone associated with the
Castro family. This is an unrealistic goal that the embargo alone cannot accomplish. The CANF, as the source of all power in this issue, should be part of
the solution by seeking ways to promote change in the Cuba policy, instead of seeking ways to prevent change in a failed policy. The CANFs power
and influence is becoming less relevant each day with the shift in public opinion that is
even transcending cultural lines to Cuban Americans in Miami who believe the embargo is a failed policy . Since 1993, the Florida
stance against Castro.

International University in Miami has polled Cuban Americans on their position with regard to the Cuba Policy. In 1993, forty two percent of Cuban Americans believed better relations

poll in 2002 indicates that number has grown to sixty-two percent who believe
better relations are needed. However, the CANFs influence is still significant enough to prevent better relations and progress. The U.S.
strategic goal for Cuba should be a peaceful transition to a post embargo
environment by gradually lifting the embargo with the implementation of the full spectrum of the Diplomatic Instruments of Power
illustrated below. Fidel Castro should be inconsequential to the transition: Diplomatic. Open dialogue with the government of Cuba .
with Cuba were needed. The most recent

Fidel Castro says he wants to open negotiations with the U.S. The U.S. should capitalize on this new stance of openness and use it to its advantage. The U.S. has open dialogue with

This idea will also open doors to establish relationships with the progressive Cuban leadership
willing to consider change. The Bush Administration should also consider supporting the Cuba Working Groups 9-Point Plan as a tool to initiate reform. Information. Reform
TV and Radio Marti by taking it out of the Cuban American National Foundations
span of influence. Place it under the control of a non-partisan government organization that can develop a robust and meaningful information campaign targeted
China; Cuba should be no different.

towards the Cuban people and reform. Conduct an information campaign within our own borders to educate the American public on the costs and benefits of helping the Cuban people.

Militarily engage Cuba by including it in one of the Unified Commands . Develop long term
. Incrementally
lift the embargo beginning with the lifting of the travel ban and the restrictions on
the sale of food and medicine, followed by reforming the Torricelli Bill and the
Helms-Burton Act.
Military.

bilateral cooperation with the Cuban military and incorporate their armed forces in multilateral cooperation throughout the Caribbean region. Economic

Democracy stabilizes the globe and prevents multiple

scenarios for war
Griswold 07 (Daniel Griswold is director of the Cato Institute's Center for
Trade Policy Studies, Trade, Democracy and Peace: The Virtuous Cycle,
April 20, 2007, http://www.cato.org/publications/speeches/trade-democracypeace-virtuous-cycle, AD 7/11/13, AK)
The good news does not stop there. Buried beneath the daily stories about suicide bombings and insurgency

The world has somehow become a more

peaceful place. A little-noticed headline on an Associated Press story a while back reported,
War declining worldwide, studies say. In 2006, a survey by the Stockholm
International Peace Research Institute found that the number of armed conflicts
around the world has been in decline for the past half-century. Since the early 1990s,
movements is an underappreciated but encouraging fact:

ongoing conflicts have dropped from 33 to 17, with all of them now civil conflicts within countries. The Institutes
latest report found that 2005 marked the second year in a row that no two nations were at war with one another.
What a remarkable and wonderful fact. The death toll from war has also been falling. According to
the Associated Press report, The number killed in battle has fallen to its lowest point in the post-World War II
period, dipping below 20,000 a year by one measure. Peacemaking missions, meanwhile, are growing in number.
Current estimates of people killed by war are down sharply from annual tolls ranging from 40,000 to 100,000 in the
1990s, and from a peak of 700,000 in 1951 during the Korean War. Many

causes lie behind the good

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

democracies tend not to pick fights with each other . Thanks in

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

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

the

least free states are about 14 times as conflict prone

as the most free. By the way, Dr.

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

democracy and peace tend to

reinforce each other in a grand and virtuous cycle. As trade and development encourage more
Trade The global trends weve witnessed in the spread of trade,

representative government, those governments provide more predictability and incremental reform, creating a

as the spread of trade and democracy foster

peace, the decline of war creates a more hospitable environment for trade and economic
growth and political stability.
better climate for trade and investment to flourish. And

1AC Economy Advantage

ADVANTAGE ___ : ECONOMY
Scenario 1 is the US
The US economy is extremely fragile total collapse is
inevitable absent policy action
Delong 7/1 J. BRADFORD DELONG, Professor of Economics at the University of
California, Berkeley, a Research Associate at the National Bureau of Economic
Research, and a Visiting Fellow at the Kauffman Foundation, The Second Great
Depression, Foreign Affairs, July/August 2013 (publication date 7/1/2013)
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/139464/j-bradford-delong/the-second-greatdepression?page=show
Despite its many virtues, however, the book paints an overly optimistic portrait of the state of the U.S. economy.
More than four years after Lehman Brothers went under, Blinder writes, policy makers are still nursing a frail

the U.S. economy is worse than frail, and there are few
signs that it is being nursed back to health. Most economists claim at least one silver lining in
economy back to health. But

the economic downturn: that it was not as bad as the Great Depression. Up until recently, I agreed; I even took to

Compare the ongoing crisis

to the Great Depression, and there is hardly anything lesser about it. The
European economy today stands in a worse position compared to 2007 than it did in
1935 compared to 1929, when the Great Depression began. And it looks as if the U.S. economy,
when all is said and done, will have faced certainly one lost decade, and perhaps even two.
calling the episode the Lesser Depression. I now suspect that I was wrong.

The U.S. economy has enjoyed a recovery only in the sense that conditions have not gotten worse. Blinder notes
that the unemployment rate jumped to ten percent at the height of the crisis and is now hovering around eight
percent, nearly halfway back to economic health. But this assessment is misleading. In the middle of the last
decade, the percentage of American adults who were employed was roughly 63 percent. That figure dropped to

From the perspective of employment, the U.S.

economy is not recovering but flatlining. Look at the GDP figures: in the 12 years between the
about 59 percent in 2009. It remains there today.

beginning of the Great Depression and the United States entry into World War II, the U.S. economy saw its
production drop by an amount equal to 180 percent of the output of one average pre-crisis year. If one assumes, as
the Congressional Budget Office does, that U.S. production will return to its pre-2008 form by 2017, the economy

it is unlikely
that the economic downturn will be over by 2017 : no war or major innovation appears
to be looming on the horizon that could propel the country into an economic boom
the way World War II did at the end of the Great Depression . If the downturn drags on into a
will have suffered a shortfall equivalent to only 60 percent of one average pre-crisis year. But

second lost decade, the United States will incur further losses equal to the output of a full average pre-crisis year,
bringing the total cost of the crisis to 160 percent of an average pre-crisis year and nearly equal to that of the Great
Depression. Of course, the present downturn has caused far less human misery than the Great Depression did. But
that is because of political factors, not economic ones. The great network of social insurance programs established
by President Franklin Roosevelts New Deal, President Harry Trumans Fair Deal, President John F. Kennedys New
Frontier, and President Lyndon Johnsons Great Society, and defended by President Bill Clinton, sharply limits the

Only ambitious political action of

the kind that created those programs can insure the country against suffering an equal economic
calamity down the line. Yet the U.S. political system is dysfunctional . Congress will not support
amount of poverty a downturn can cause. And what of the future?

the kind of financial regulation the country sorely needs. Blinder concludes his narrative with a number of smart
forward-looking recommendations, but his books biggest weakness is its lack of a road map out of the present

Without a more dramatic set of actions, the

United States is likely to suffer another major economic crisis in the years ahead.
impasse that takes into account the political climate.

The plan opens up new markets with huge demand for US

agricultural exports thats critical to US economic
sustainability
Pulliam 12 JOHN R. PULLIAM, Farmers want Cuban embargo lifted, Galesburg
Register-Mail, 7/8/2012, http://www.galesburg.com/news/x1271220402/Farmerswant-Cuban-embargo-lifted#axzz2Y1R3Us3L

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

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,
Cuban people, said

they have to pay for it in cash, he said. While products such as coffee, rum and cigars are produced in Cuba and in

restrictions hurt
farmers in the U.S., who cannot readily sell their crops to the potential market , as well
demand in the U.S., They cant sell those things back to us, Strom said. He said those

as the average Cuban, rather than government officials in the Communist country. Food shortage Theyre on the
brink of a food shortage in Cuba, Strom said. Serven said each Cuban has a food coupon book. They can go to
market and buy their needs at subsidized costs, he said. Serven said Cubans used to be able to use coupons to
buy household goods, as well, but those are no longer available. Restoring

normal trade relations

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

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. He said there could be a market for U.S. dairy products. They were talking about a
shortage of milk, especially for children, Serven said. Labor-intensive farming He said if the embargo was
lifted, Cuba also would likely buy equipment for farming and want people to help
show them how to use it. While the group from Illinois expected to get to visit dairy and livestock farms,
real effects. For instance,

Strom said travel restrictions limited trips to back yard gardens in Havana. Those on the trip also visited the Alamar

Theres a lot of restrictions as to where you can and

cant go, he said. Strom said oxen are used to plow the back yard gardens in the Latin American country,
which also has little access to fertilizer or pesticides. He said about 160 people work 140 acres in
Urban Garden, just outside of Havana.

the gardens.

Economic decline causes global wars

Royal 10 director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of
Defense (Jedediah, Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal, and Political
Perspectives, pg 213-215)
Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of
external conflict. Political science literature has contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of

economic decline and the security and defence behaviour of interdependent stales. Research in this vein has been
considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable contributions follow. First, on the systemic level.

rhythms
in the global economy are associated with the rise and fall of a pre-eminent power
and the often bloody transition from one pre-eminent leader to the next . As such,
exogenous shocks such as economic crises could usher in a redistribution of relative
Pollins (20081 advances Modclski and Thompson's (1996) work on leadership cycle theory, finding that

power (see also Gilpin. 19SJ) that leads to uncertainty about power balances, increasing
the risk of miscalculation (Fcaron. 1995). Alternatively, even a relatively certain
redistribution of power could lead to a permissive environment for conflict as a
rising power may seek to challenge a declining power (Werner. 1999). Separately. Pollins (1996)
also shows that global economic cycles combined with parallel leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict
among major, medium and small powers, although he suggests that the causes and connections between global
economic conditions and security conditions remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic level. Copeland's (1996. 2000)
theory of trade expectations suggests that 'future expectation of trade' is a significant variable in understanding
economic conditions and security behaviour of states. He argues that interdependent states are likely to gain pacific

if the
expectations of future trade decline, particularly for difficult to replace items such
as energy resources, the likelihood for conflict increases, as states will be inclined to
use force to gain access to those resources . Crises could potentially be the trigger for decreased
benefits from trade so long as they have an optimistic view of future trade relations. However,

trade expectations either on its own or because it triggers protectionist moves by interdependent states.4 Third,

others have considered the link between economic decline and external armed
conflict at a national level. Mom berg and Hess (2002) find a strong correlation between
internal conflict and external conflict, particularly during periods of economic
downturn. They write. The linkage, between internal and external conflict and
prosperity are strong and mutually reinforcing . Economic conflict lends to spawn
internal conflict, which in turn returns the favour . Moreover, the presence of a recession
tends to amplify the extent to which international and external conflicts selfreinforce each other (Hlomhen? & Hess. 2(102. p. X9> Economic decline has also been linked
with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blombcrg. Hess. & Wee ra pan a, 2004). which
has the capacity to spill across borders and lead to external tensions . Furthermore,
crises generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government. "Diversionary theory"
suggests that, when facing unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting
governments have increased incentives to fabricate external military conflicts to
create a 'rally around the flag' effect. Wang (1996), DcRoucn (1995), and Blombcrg. Hess, and Thacker
(2006) find supporting evidence showing that economic decline and use of force arc at least indirecti) correlated.
Gelpi (1997). Miller (1999). and Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that Ihe tendency towards diversionary
tactics arc greater for democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are
generally more susceptible to being removed from office due to lack of domestic support. DeRouen (2000) has
provided evidence showing that periods of weak economic performance in the United States, and thus weak

economic
scholarship positively correlates economic integration with an increase in the
frequency of economic crises, whereas political science scholarship links economic
decline with external conflict al systemic, dyadic and national levels.' This implied connection between
Presidential popularity, are statistically linked lo an increase in the use of force. In summary, rcccni

integration, crises and armed conflict has not featured prominently in the economic-security debate and deserves
more attention.

The impact is nuclear exchange

Merlini 11 Cesare Merlini, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Italian

Institute of International Affairs, of which he had been the president for many years,
and a Non-resident Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, A Post-Secular
World? Survival: Global Politics and Strategy, Volume 53, Issue 2, 2011,
DOI:10.1080/00396338.2011.571015
Two neatly opposed scenarios for the future of the world order illustrate the range of possibilities, albeit at the risk

One or
more of the acute tensions apparent today evolves into an open and traditional
conflict between states, perhaps even involving the use of nuclear weapons . The crisis
might be triggered by a collapse of the global economic and financial system, the
vulnerability of which we have just experienced, and the prospect of a second Great
Depression, with consequences for peace and democracy similar to those of the first. Whatever the trigger, the
unlimited exercise of national sovereignty, exclusive self-interest and rejection of outside
of oversimplification. The first scenario entails the premature crumbling of the post-Westphalian system.

interference would likely be amplified, emptying , perhaps entirely, the half-full glass of
multilateralism, including the UN and the European Union. Many of the more likely conflicts,
such as between Israel and Iran or India and Pakistan, have potential religious dimensions. Short of war,
tensions such as those related to immigration might become unbearable. Familiar issues of creed
and identity could be exacerbated. One way or another, the secular rational approach would be
sidestepped by a return to theocratic absolutes, competing or converging with secular absolutes such as unbridled
nationalism.

Scenario 2 is Cuba
The Cuban economy is stalling now despite repeated attempts
at reform
Tamayo 7/1 Juan O. Tamayo, Cuban economy stalls despite government
reforms, Idaho Statesman, 7/1/2013,
http://www.idahostatesman.com/2013/07/01/2639714/cuban-economy-stallsdespite-government.html
Cuba said Monday that its economy will grow by no more than 3 percent this year , about
the same as in 2012 but far short of the 3.6 percent goal and another indication that President
Raul Castro's reforms are generating little new economic activity. Castro, nevertheless,

seemed pleased with the reports on his reforms submitted Friday to a meeting of the Council of Ministers and
detailed in a story Monday in Granma, the official newspaper of the ruling Communist Party. "We continue
advancing and the results can be seen. We are moving at a faster pace than can be imagined by those who criticize
our supposed slow pace and ignore the difficulties that we face," he was quoted as saying at the meeting. Since
succeeding older brother Fidel in 2008, Castro has allowed more private enterprise and cut state payrolls and

many economists have dismissed his reforms as too slow and too
weak to rescue Cuba's Soviet-style economy. Minister of the Economy and Planning Adel
subsidies. But

Yzquierdo said at the Cabinet meeting that he expects gross domestic product to grow 2.5 to 3 percent. The

Yzquierdo blamed the shortcomings on several factors,

including last year's Hurricane Sandy, which caused an estimated $2 billion in damage, and what
Granma called "the deficiencies that are part and parcel of the Cuban economy."
country's GDP grew 3 percent last year.

Continued economic malaise risks Cuban internal instability

and civil war
Campos 7/8 Pedro Campos, Cubas Burning Economic Contradictions, Havana
Times, 7/8/2013, http://www.havanatimes.org/?p=96009
A new kind of class confrontation The new social composition of classes that the updating
process is creating presents at one extreme the unanticipated bureaucratic
political and military class that believes itself to be the legitimate owner of the
countrys entire economy. At the other extreme is the dispossessed and badly
paid class of salaried workers that the state exploits. The new small and medium
capitalists who exploit their own salaried workers represent a kind of nouveau riche
class, benefitted by the updating measures but still held down by the States
strictures. The salaried workers exploited by these newly wealthy live better than the State salaried workers and
as such prefer private capitalism. Then there are the true self-employed workers who dont exploit outside labor
from the intellectuals and artists with large incomes right down to the elderly peanut sellers all of them burdened
by abusive state taxes. The state throws the new capitalists and their salaried workers into the same sack as the
authentic self-employed, all under the label of cuentapropistas [self-employed]. And finally there are the
cooperative members, formally organized or not, who work together and divide the profits; they are also smothered
by state regulations. Apart from all these, there is a class thats not present in Cuba but which continues to push its
agenda: the true wealthy capitalist class with large businesses, settled fundamentally in Miami. This class, exiled
from power, has always aspired to return and today continues to plot its comeback on the heels of large
international capital. The bureaucratic bourgeoisie now finds itself confronting all of these other classes and
national groupings because it lives off of them exploiting all of them directly through salaried work or via abusive
taxes and monopoly control of the economy, trade, finances and the dual monetary system. They are the class that
is impeding the development of all the others, be it the wealthy classes or the germinating socialist class. Only

the productive forces in Cuba, be it for the development

are facing a common obstacle: the centralized
state system and its bureaucracy determined to maintain itself in power indefinitely .
themselves to blame Theres no doubt about it:

of private capitalism or to socialize the economy,

I dont intend to sharpen contradictions that require peaceful and democratic solutions, but objectively the

the bureaucratic
bourgeoisie created by State socialism as a kind of class that stands in opposition to social and economic
advance in Cuba in any direction other than its own strengthening as a hegemonic group. In this way, they have
positioned themselves against the entire Cuban people , against all of their classes and current
social groupings. According to Carlos Marx, when the productive forces are held back by the relations
of production in this case the salaried State workers revolutions appear. Later, let them not
tendency of the class composition of Cuban society and an analysis of its interests presents

blame the imperialists, the counterrevolutionary forces, the Miami mafia, the new technologies, nor much less
the peaceful democratic and socialist left who have done everything possible to help find the road that they have
blocked. Instead they should seek the causes from within, in their own self-interest, limitations and befuddlement.

Cuban instability spills over into multiple hotspots and leads to

global conflict
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, AD 7/11/13, AK)
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 fleeing 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 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.
the U.S. may pass through Cuba,

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
realistically at the Cuban issue. Castro will rule until he dies. The only issue is what happens then?

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. I n 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?

1AC Plan
PLAN:
The United States federal government should end its economic
embargo on Cuba.

1AC Solvency
SOLVENCY:
Lifting the embargo solves multiple economic problems in
Cuba and is the key first step in normalizing relations
Trani 6/23 (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/guestcolumnists/end-the-embargo-on-cuba/article_ba3e522f-8861-5f3c-bee9000dffff8ce7.html, AD 7/10/13, AK)

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

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
States and Cuba. But 22 years later, normal relations are still not in the cards. In fact,

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

there are many significant

problems that tend to hurt the Cuban people most at risk in economic terms. The visit
some points of progress in overall Cuban-American relations. At the same time,

of a cruise ship to a Cuban port results in that ship being unable, no matter which flag registry the ship has, to dock

This policy really hurts the Cuban tourist economy, which

could greatly improve employment and job creation across Cuba. If Cuban materials are
in the United States for six months.

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

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
lifted and relations to be renewed between Cuba and the United States.

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.

SOLVENCY

Cuba Says Yes

Cuba says yes Castro rhetoric proves
Harding & Rojas-Ruiz 12 (Andrew Harding and Jorge Rojas-Ruiz, research

associates on the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, An Economic Analysis of the

Cuban Embargo, Council on the Hemispheric Affairs, 8/24/12, Proquest, AD
7/10/13, AK)
Cuba has plenty of potential for economic development and trade, but nothing
will be realized unless United States repeals the embargo. Recent moves by
Cuba's Raul Castro indicate that the government is willing and able to sit
down with the U.S. and discuss differences in order to achieve consensus.
In recent remarks, Castro emphasized that the discourse must be "a conversation between
equals," and that "any day they [the United States] want, the table is set," signaling
an important step towards more conciliatory interactions. The U.S. should act upon Senator Richard
Clearly,

Lugar' s February 2009 report from the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations and implement his recommended policy changes by "seizing
the initiative... [which] would relinquish a conditional posture that has made any policy changes contingent on Havana, not
Washington."

Cuba says yes theyre open to US cooperation related to the

embargo
Washington Post 6/21/13 (Cuba, US take cautious steps toward
rapprochement, but long, complicated path lies ahead, Washington Post, 6/21/13,
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-06-21/world/40105268_1_u-s-diplomatscuba-s-cubans, AD: 7/10/13, AK)
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 a visit that
came right before the announcements of resumptions in the two sets of bilateral talks
Under the radar,

that had been suspended for more than two years. 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 national security adviser
on Latin America during the Carter administration. These are tiny, incremental gains, and the prospects of going

Kerry has taken over as U.S.

secretary of state after being an outspoken critic of Washingtons 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 islands 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 Cubas cash-starved economy. Under
backwards are equally high. Among the things that have changed, John

the table, Cuban-Americans are also helping relatives on the island start private businesses and refurbish homes
bought under Castros limited free-market reforms. Several prominent Cuban dissidents have been allowed to travel
recently due to Castros changes. The trips have been applauded by Washington, and also may have lessened
Havanas worries about the threat posed by dissidents. Likewise,

a U.S. federal judges 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
Havanas 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 Washingtons 51-year-old economic embargo. And then there is Gross, the 64-year-old Maryland native
who was arrested in 2009 and is serving a 15-year jail sentence for bringing communications equipment to the
island illegally. His case has scuttled efforts at engagement in the past, and could do so again, U.S. officials say
privately. Cuba has indicated it wants to trade Gross for four Cuban agents serving long jail terms in the United
States, something Washington has said it wont consider. Ted Henken, a professor of Latin American studies at
Baruch College in New York who helped organize a recent U.S. tour by Cuban dissident blogger Yoani Sanchez, said
the Obama administration is too concerned with upsetting Cuban-American politicians and has missed opportunities
to engage with Cuba at a crucial time in its history. 2 of 2 I think that a lot more would have to happen for this to
amount to momentum leading to any kind of major diplomatic breakthrough, he said. Obama

should be

bolder and more audacious. Even these limited moves have sparked fierce criticism by those long

opposed to engagement. Cuban-American congressman Mario Diaz Balart, a Florida Republican, called the recent
overtures disturbing. Rather than attempting to legitimize the Cuban peoples oppressors, the administration
should demand that the regime stop harboring fugitives from U.S. justice, release all political prisoners and
American humanitarian aid worker Alan Gross, end the brutal, escalating repression against the Cuban people, and
respect basic human rights, he said. Another Cuban-American politician from Florida, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen,

Obama
would face less political fallout at home if he chose engagement because younger
Cuban-Americans seem more open to improved ties than those who fled
immediately after the 1959 revolution. Of 10 Cuban-Americans interview by The Associated Press on
scolded Obama for seeking dialogue with the dictatorship. Despite that rhetoric, many experts think

Thursday at the popular Miami restaurant Versailles, a de facto headquarters of the exile community, only two said
they were opposed to the U.S. holding migration talks. Several said they hoped for much more movement. Jose
Gonzalez, 55, a shipping industry supervisor who was born in Cuba and came to the U.S. at age 12, said he now
favors an end to the embargo and the resumption of formal diplomatic ties. There was a reason that existed but it
doesnt anymore, he said. Santiago Portal, a 65-year-old engineer who moved to the U.S. 45 years ago, said more
dialogue would be good. The more exchange of all types the closer Cuba will be to democracy, he said. Those
opinions dovetail with a 2011 poll by Florida International University of 648 randomly selected Cuban-Americans in

58 percent favored re-establishing diplomatic relations with

Cuba. That was a considerable increase from a survey in 1993, when 80 percent of
people polled said they did not support trade or diplomatic relations with Cuba. In
general, there is an open attitude, certainly toward re-establishing diplomatic
relations, said Jorge Duany, director of the Cuban Research Institute at Florida
International University. Short of perhaps lifting the embargo ... there seems to be increasing support for
Miami-Dade County that said

some sort of understanding with the Cuban government.

HEGEMONY / SOFT POWER

Removing Embargo Solves Hegemony

Repeal creates immediate and substantial benefits for the USs
image key to solve hegemony
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/holmesMi
chael.pdf?sequence=1, AD 7/10/13, AK)
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
From an image stand point

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

Repealing the Helms-Burton Law will

certainly stimulate foreign investment in Cuba as well . Many foreign countries were leery of
taking steps to ensure that sovereignty is actually respected.

investing in Cuba out of fear of being sued or losing property under the provisions established by the Helms-Burton

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.
Act.12

The embargo stands in the way of major regional hegemony

plan would cement US leadership in the Caribbean for the long
term
Griswold 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 7/10/13, AK)
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

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
farmers markets, to carpenters, repairmen, tutors, food venders, and other entrepreneurs. Second,

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

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
banning the use of private commercial credit. Finally,

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
his oppressive regime. It

decades does the U.S. government need to bang its head against a wall before it changes a failed policy?

Embargo Bad Soft Power

The embargo undermines US influence and soft power
Hansing 11 (Katrin, Associate Professor of Black and Hispanic Studies at Baruch
College, 10 Reasons to Oppose the Embargo, Center for Democracy in the
Americas, October 21 2011, http://www.democracyinamericas.org/blog-post/10reasons-to-oppose-the-embargo/, AD: 7/11/13, AK)

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

The embargo undermines U.S.

foreign policy interests Failure of the U.S. to finally snuff out the last vestiges of the
Cold War in the U.S.-Cuba embargo signals impotence in American strategic vision
and capability. Those who support the embargo undermine the empowerment of Cuban citizens, harming them economically
policyon why the U.S. should end the embargo. We hope you read them all.

and robbing them of choices that could evolve through greater engagement exactly what we have seen in transitioning Communist

The world is dismayed and rejects yet again Americas

nonsensical embargo, which ultimately makes the U.S. look strategically muddled
and petty rather than a leader committed to improving the global order. Steve Clemons,
countries like Vietnam and China.

Washington Editor-at-Large, The Atlantic Senior Fellow & Founder, American Strategy Program New America Foundation The
embargo hurts U.S. national security interests The

U.S. embargo against Cuba is a Cold War relic that hurts

America and Cuba by preventing normal trade and travel between our two countries. From the perspective of
U.S. national security, not only does the embargo prevent our cooperation with
Cuba on common security issues such as crime and terrorism, it hurts U.S. standing
throughout the world by highlighting our aggression against a neighboring country
that poses no threat. The United States demeans itself by this futile and hypocritical
policy. It is long past time to repeal the U.S. embargo against Cuba.

Embargo Bad Leadership

Removing the embargo cements US leadership and legitimacy
globally
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/holmesMi
chael.pdf?sequence=1, AD: 7/11/13, AK)
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
From an image stand point

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

Repealing the Helms-Burton Law will

certainly stimulate foreign investment in Cuba as well . Many foreign countries were leery of
taking steps to ensure that sovereignty is actually respected.

investing in Cuba out of fear of being sued or losing property under the provisions established by the Helms-Burton

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.
Act.12

Embargo Bad Scapegoating

The embargo leads to further human rights abuses in Cuba
theyll inevitably use it as a scapegoat
Bandow 12 (Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a former
special assistant to 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, AD 7/11/13,
AK)
The U.S. government has waged economic war against the Castro regime for half a
century. The policy may have been worth a try during the Cold War, but the
embargo has failed to liberate the Cuban people. It is time to end sanctions against Havana. Decades ago

the Castro brothers lead a revolt against a nasty authoritarian, Fulgencio Batista. After coming to power in 1959,
they created a police state, targeted U.S. commerce, nationalized American assets, and allied with the Soviet Union.
Although Cuba was but a small island nation, the Cold War magnified its perceived importance. Washington reduced
Cuban sugar import quotas in July 1960. Subsequently U.S. exports were limited, diplomatic ties were severed,
travel was restricted, Cuban imports were banned, Havanas American assets were frozen, and almost all travel to
Cuba was banned. Washington also pressed its allies to impose sanctions. These various measures had no evident
effect, other than to intensify Cubas reliance on the Soviet Union. Yet the collapse of the latter nation had no
impact on U.S. policy. In 1992, Congress banned American subsidiaries from doing business in Cuba and in 1996, it
penalized foreign firms that trafficked in expropriated U.S. property. Executives from such companies even were
banned from traveling to America. On occasion Washington relaxed one aspect or another of the embargo, but in
general continued to tighten restrictions, even over Cuban Americans. Enforcement is not easy, but Uncle Sam tries
his best. For instance, according to the Government Accountability Office, Customs and Border Protection increased
its secondary inspection of passengers arriving from Cuba to reflect an increased risk of embargo violations after
the 2004 rule changes, which, among other things, eliminated the allowance for travelers to import a small amount

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
of Cuban products for personal consumption.

Obama loosened regulations on Cuban Americans, as well as telecommunications between the United States and
Cuba. However, the law sharply constrains the presidents discretion. Moreover, UN Ambassador Susan Rice said

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

the end of the Cold War left

Cuba strategically irrelevant. It is a poor country with little ability to harm the U nited
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

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
enforcing around 20 such programs, mostly to little effect.

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 .

Soft Power Good Terrorism

Soft power is key to engendering public support and global
cooperation to solve terrorism
Joseph S. Nye, former Assistant Secretary of Defense, former Dean of Harvards
John F. Kennedy School of Government, Soft Power and American Foreign Policy,
Political Science Quarterly, 22 June 2004, accessed 9/1/09
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-2364796/Soft-power-and-Americanforeign.html

Some hard-line skeptics might say that whatever the merits of soft power, it has little role to play in the current war
on terrorism. Osama bin Laden and his followers are repelled, not attracted by American culture, values, and
policies. Military power was essential in defeating the Taliban government in Afghanistan, and soft power will never
convert fanatics. Charles Krauthammer, for example, argued soon after the war in Afghanistan that our swift
military victory proved that "the new unilateralism" worked. That is true up to a point, but the skeptics mistake half

Look again at Afghanistan. Precision bombing and Special

Forces defeated the Taliban government, but U.S. forces in Afghanistan wrapped up
less than a quarter of al Qaeda, a transnational network with cells in sixty countries. The United
States cannot bomb al Qaeda cells in Hamburg, Kuala Lumpur, or Detroit. Success
against them depends on close civilian cooperation, whether sharing intelligence,
coordinating police work across borders, or tracing global financial flows . America's
partners cooperate partly out of self-interest, but the inherent attractiveness of U.S. policies can
and does influence the degree of cooperation. Equally important, the current struggle
against Islamist terrorism is not a clash of civilizations but a contest whose outcome
is closely tied to a civil war between moderates and extremists within Islamic
civilization. The United States and other advanced democracies will win only if moderate
Muslims win, and the ability to attract the moderates is critical to victory. We need
to adopt policies that appeal to moderates and to use public diplomacy more
effectively to explain our common interests . We need a better strategy for wielding our soft power.
the answer for the whole solution.

We will have to learn better how to combine hard and soft power if we wish to meet the new challenges.

Soft power is the only way to beat terrorism cooperation and

public engagement is key
Sharif Shuja, International Studies Program at Victoria University and Honorary
Research Associate with the Global Terrorism Research Unit at Monash University,
Why America cannot ignore soft power, Contemporary Review, Spring 2008,
accessed 9/1/09
It is argued that both hard and soft power are important in US foreign policy and in the fight against terrorism. The
suppression of terrorism, and the achievement of a variety of other objectives
including efforts to promote democracy overseas, require the willing assistance of
other nations and peoples. There are places where the US cannot go in search of
terrorist leaders. It needs broad cooperation for intelligence gathering and the
restriction of terrorist finances. The hard power of military and economic strength is, of course,
essential, but the use of 'carrot and stick' alone cannot achieve these objectives. America's
neglect of soft power is undermining its ability to persuade and influence others.

Soft Power Good Prolif

Soft power is key to effective nonproliferation policy solves
North Korea and Iran
Mark Fitzpatrick, IISS senior fellow for non-proliferation, Survival Vol 48 No 1,
Spring 2006, p. 77
North Koreas duplicity and Irans belligerence made it easier for Washington to
justify a posture of relative passivity to date, letting the Europeans address Iran and
hoping for China to wield its influence with North Korea . Washington has been torn between
impulses toward regime change and a strategy of deterrence and reassurance.40 The Bush administrations
laudable Proliferation Security Initiative and its successes in closing down the A.Q. Khan network are directed not at
rolling back the proliferation threat posed by North Korea and Iran but at containing them, to prevent onward

The administrations policy on Iran has focused almost exclusively on

bringing the case to the UN Security Council, as though that were an end in itself.
The United States has coalesced world opinion on its non-proliferation goals for Iran
and North Korea, but has not succeeded in enunciating a realistic strategy for
achieving those goals. If Iran reassesses its belligerent behaviour and becomes amenable to
negotiations and it appears US engagement is the missing ingredient that would
persuade Iran to forego fissile material production capabilities, then there is more
likelihood the Bush administration will do so. 41 Washington should be willing to
engage with its European allies on a strategy of when and how to bring the full
weight of Americas potential carrots into the negotiation process with Iran. Meanwhile,
proliferation.

the Europeans will need to be willing to deploy the full weight of the potential sticks they and the United States
have at their disposal that may be necessary to persuade Iran to accept a long-term arrangement to foreclose a

a willingness to employ a full range of incentives will be

a necessary condition if the Korean Peninsula is ever to be nuclear weapons free.
Bringing greater consistency to US policies will be a useful ingredient
nuclear-weapons capability. Similarly,

Engagement and leadership are key to stemming prolif

Kurt M. Campbell, CSIS, and Michael OHanlon, Senior Fellow in Foreign Policy
at the Brookings Institute, Hard Power: The New Politics of National Security, 2006,
p. 213-4
Proliferation can only be stopped if countries that worry about their own security
have some alternative way of protecting themselves against plausible threats. Only
America has the global system of credible military alliancesand deployable
military powerto help other countries protect themselves in key unsettled regions such as
East Asia and the Middle East. Historically, its security umbrella made it far easier for
friends and allies such as Germany, South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan not to pursue
their own nuclear deterrents, and the same logic generally applies in todays world
for many states. The importance of maintaining strong and credible American alliances as an anchor for the
global security order is a major reason why future candidates for office will have to work to keep America engaged

There may be a temptation to retreat into a more isolationist approach to the

world, given the difficulties of the Iraq operation in particular, to say nothing of Americas twin
budget and trade deficits. But for reasons of preventing nuclear proliferation, among many
others, it is important that candidates resist this impulse .
abroad.

SP GoodHegemony
Soft power key to corral and maintain support for US primacy
amongst the rise of the rest
Nye 13 Joseph S. Nye Jr., professor at Harvards Kennedy School of Government,
American power in the 21st century will be defined by the rise of the rest,
Washington Post, 6/28/2013, http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-0628/opinions/40255646_1_american-power-u-s-economy-united-states
The U.S. culture of openness and innovation will keep this country central in an
information age in which networks supplement, if not fully replace, hierarchical
power. The United States is well positioned to benefit from such networks and
alliances if our leaders follow smart strategies. In structural terms, it matters that the two
entities with per-capita income and sophisticated economies similar to that of the
United States Europe and Japan are both allied with the United States. In terms of
balances-of-power resources, that makes a large difference for the net position of American
power, but only if U.S. leaders maintain the alliances and institutional cooperation. In
addition, in a more positive sum view of power with, rather than over, other countries,
Europe and Japan provide the largest pools of resources for dealing with common
transnational problems. On the question of absolute rather than relative American decline, the United
States faces serious domestic problems in debt, secondary education and political gridlock. But these issues are
only part of the picture. Of the many possible futures, stronger cases can be made for the positive over the
negative. Among the negative futures, the most plausible is one in which the United States overreacts to terrorist
attacks by turning inward and closing itself off to the strength it obtains from openness. But barring such mistaken
strategies, there are, over a longer term, solutions to the major problems that preoccupy us. Of course, for political
or other reasons, such solutions may remain forever out of reach. But it is important to distinguish between
situations that have no solutions and those that, at least in principle, can be solved. Decline is a misleading
metaphor and, fortunately, President Obama has rejected the suggested strategy of managing decline. As a
leader in research and development, higher education and entrepreneurial activity, the United States is not in
absolute decline, as happened in ancient Rome. In relative terms, there is a reasonable probability that the United

We do not live in a
post-American world, but neither do we live any longer in the American era of
the late 20th century. In terms of primacy, the United States will be first but not
sole. No one has a crystal ball, but the National Intelligence Council (which I once chaired) may
be correct in its 2012 projection that although the unipolar moment is over, the
United States probably will remain first among equals among the other great
powers in 2030 because of the multifaceted nature of its power and legacies of its leadership. The power
resources of many states and non-state actors will rise in the coming years. U.S.
presidents will face an increasing number of issues in which obtaining our preferred
outcomes will require power with others as much as power over others. Our leaders
capacity to maintain alliances and create networks will be an important dimension
of our hard and soft power. Simply put, the problem of American power in the 21st century is
not one of a poorly specified decline or being eclipsed by China but, rather, the rise of the rest. The
paradox of American power is that even the largest country will not be able to
achieve the outcomes it wants without the help of others.
States is likely to remain more powerful than any single state in the coming decades.

! Disease
High probability of disease spreadresistances are dropping
globally
Gallagher 13 James Gallagher, Antibiotic 'apocalypse' warning, BBC,
1/24/2013, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-21178718
The rise in drug resistant infections is comparable to the threat of global warming,
according to the chief medical officer for England. Prof Dame Sally Davies said bacteria
were becoming resistant to current drugs and there were few antibiotics to replace
them. She told a committee of MPs that going for a routine operation could become deadly due to the threat of
infection. Experts said it was a global problem and needed much more attention. Antibiotics have
been one of the greatest success stories in medicine. However, bacteria are a rapidly adapting foe
which find new ways to evade drugs. MRSA rapidly became one of the most feared words in hospitals
wards and there are growing reports of resistance in strains of E. coli, tuberculosis and
gonorrhoea. Prof Davies said: "It is clear that we might not ever see global warming, the apocalyptic
scenario is that when I need a new hip in 20 years I'll die from a routine infection
because we've run out of antibiotics." She said there was only one useful antibiotic left to treat

gonorrhoea. Possible solutions will be included in her annual report to be published in March. "It is very serious, and
it's very serious because we are not using our antibiotics effectively in countries. " There

is a broken
market model for making new antibiotics, so it's an empty pipeline, so as they
become resistant, these bugs, which they would naturally but we're breeding them
in because of the way antibiotics are used, there will not be new antibiotics to
come." Empty arsenal The World Health Organization has warned the world is heading
for a "post-antibiotic era" unless action is taken. It paints a future in which "many
common infections will no longer have a cure and, once again, kill unabated". Prof
Hugh Pennington, a microbiologist from the University of Aberdeen, said drug resistance was "a very, very serious
problem". "We do need to pay much more attention to it. We need resources for surveillance, resources to cope with
the problem and to get public information across. But he said it was not a problem entirely of the UK's making.
"People are going abroad for operations, going abroad for, let's say, sex tourism and bringing home gonorrhoea
which is a big problem in terms of antibiotic resistance - and then there's tuberculosis in many parts of the world.

"We
have to be aware that we aren't going to have new wonder drugs coming along
because there just aren't any."
Prof Pennington said the drugs companies had run out of options too as all the easy drugs had been made.

! Warming Real
Warming is real and acceleratingaction now key to mitigate
impacts
Romm 13 Joe Romm, Bombshell: Recent Warming Is Amazing And Atypical And
Poised To Destroy Stable Climate That Enabled Civilization, Climate Progress,
3/8/2013, http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/03/08/1691411/bombshell-recentwarming-is-amazing-and-atypical-and-poised-to-destroy-stable-climate-that-madecivilization-possible/

A stable climate enabled the development of modern civilization, global agriculture, and a world that could sustain

the most comprehensive Reconstruction of Regional and Global

Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years ever done reveals just how stable the
climate has been and just how destabilizing manmade carbon pollution has been
and will continue to be unless we dramatically reverse emissions trends.
Researchers at Oregon State University (OSU) and Harvard University published their
findings today in the journal Science. Their funder, the National Science Foundation, explains in a news
release: With data from 73 ice and sediment core monitoring sites around the world,
scientists have reconstructed Earths temperature history back to the end of the last
Ice Age. The analysis reveals that the planet today is warmer than its been during 70 to 80
percent of the last 11,300 years. during the last 5,000 years, the Earth on average cooled about 1.3
degrees Fahrenheituntil the last 100 years, when it warmed about 1.3 degrees F. In short, thanks primarily
to carbon pollution, the temperature is changing 50 times faster than it did during
the time modern civilization and agriculture developed , a time when humans figured out where
the climate conditions and rivers and sea levels were most suited for living and farming. We are headed
for 7 to 11F warming this century on our current emissions path increasing the
rate of change 5-fold yet again. By the second half of this century we will have
some 9 billion people, a large fraction of whom will be living in places that simply
cant sustain them either because it is too hot and/or dry, the land is no longer
arable, their glacially fed rivers have dried up, or the seas have risen too much. We
could keep that warming close to 4F and avoid the worst consequences but
only with immediate action.
a vast population. Now,

! Terrorism
Terrorist threat is high no strategic defeat Al-Qaeda attacks
will only get worse
Riedel 13 (Bruce, Senior Fellow for Middle East Policy at Brookings, professor of
South Asian Studies at Johns Hopkins, and senior advisor on Mid East Policy to the
last four US presidents. New Al-Qaeda Generation May Be Deadliest One
Brookings 1/24/13 http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2013/01/24-alqaeda-riedel?
rssid=riedelb&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed
%3A+BrookingsRSS%2Fexperts%2Friedelb+%28Brookings+Experts++Bruce+Riedel%29&utm_content=Google+Reader) will
The dramatic attack in Algeria this month on a natural gas facility underscores the
emergence of a new generation of al-Qaeda across the Arab world, "al-Qaeda 3.0" or the
movement's third generation. Despite Osama of bin Laden's death, al-Qaeda has exploited the
Arab Awakening to create is largest safe havens and operational bases in more than
a decade across the Arab world. This may prove to be the most deadly al-Qaeda yet .
And at the center of the new al-Qaeda remains the old al-Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri still hiding in Pakistan and still
providing strategic direction to the global jihad. The first generation of al-Qaeda was the original band in
Afghanistan created by bin Laden in the 1990s. The second emerged after 9/11 when the group re-emerged in
Pakistan, Iraq and then across the Muslim world. Now a third iteration can be discerned in the wake of bin Ladens

The fastest growing new al-Qaeda is in

Syria. Using the cover name Jabhat al-Nusrah, al-Qaeda has become perhaps the most lethal element of the
killing by U.S. Special Forces and the Arab Awakening.

opposition to Bashar al-Assads brutal dictatorship. For al-Qaeda, Assad and the Alawis are a perfect target since
many Sunnis believe Alawis to be a deviationist sect of Islam that should be suppressed. While al-Qaeda is only a

Every week it
gets stronger and better armed. Now jihadist websites are reporting every day that new al-Qaeda
part of the opposition in Syria, it brings unique skills in bomb making and suicide operations.

"martyrs" from Saudi Arabia, Palestine and Egypt have died in the fighting in Damascus and Aleppo. Reliable reports
from journalists speak of bands of jihadists operating in Syria with a loose affiliation to al-Qaeda and composed of
Muslim fanatics from as far away as Pakistan, Bangladesh and elsewhere. The Syrian al-Qaeda franchise has sought
to learn from the mistakes of the earlier al-Qaeda generations. It avoids open association with the brand name and
seeks to work with other Sunni groups. It is well armed, uses bases in Iraq for support and supply, and benefits from
weapons supplied by Qatar and Saudi Arabia to the opposition. Its leader uses the nom de guerre Abu Mohammad
al Golani, a reference to the Israeli-occupied Syrian Golan Heights The longer the civil war in Syria goes on, the
more al-Qaeda will benefit from the chaos and the sectarian polarization. It will also benefit from the spillover of
violence from Syria into Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq and Jordan that is now inevitable. Like the rest of the world ,

alQaeda was surprised by the revolutions that toppled dictators in Tunisia, Egypt,
Libya and Yemen. Its ideology of violence and jihad was initially challenged by the largely nonviolent
revolutionary movements that swept across North Africa and the Middle East. But al Qaeda is an adaptive
organization and it has exploited the chaos and turmoil of revolutionary change to
create operational bases and new strongholds. In North Africa, al-Qaeda in the
Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) originally an Algerian franchise of the global terror organization has
successfully aligned itself with a local extremist group in Mali named Ansar Dine, or
Defenders of the Faith, and together they have effectively taken control of the northern two-thirds of Mali. When

AQIM is also at
work in Libya, especially around Benghazi. A faction of al-Qaeda led by Mokhtar Belmokhtar staged the
they tried to march on the capital, Bamako, France finally intervened with jets and troops.

Algerian attack from Libya. Belmokhtar is a first-generation al-Qaeda leader who has survived. He began his career
in Afghanistan with the legendary jihadist thinker Abdullah Azzam in the late 1980s. He is an avowed admirer of the
Jordanian founder of al-Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab al Zarqawi, who took Iraq to the edge of civil war in 2006. In
Egypt, another third-generation al-Qaeda jihadist stronghold is in the desert of the Sinai Peninsula. Long a
depressed and angry backwater in Egypt, after the revolution that toppled President Hosni Mubarak, disaffected
Bedouin tribes in the Sinai cooperated with released jihadist prisoners to begin attacks on security installations

and the Egypt-Israel gas pipeline. The jihadists in the Sinai have pledged their allegiance to Zawahiri and Zawahiri
has repeatedly endorsed their attacks on Israeli targets. In Yemen, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP)

exploited the fall of Ali Abdullah Salehs dictatorship to take over remote parts of the
south and east of the country. It lost control of several towns to government counterattacks last summer
but it struck back with deadly attacks on security targets in Sanaa, Aden and other major cities. Increasingly drones

AQAP in the deserts of Yemen, most famously killing its American-born operative Anwar al Awlaki,
is resilient. Iraqs al-Qaeda franchise is the essence of resilience. The 2007
surge was supposed to destroy al-Qaedas franchise , the Islamic state of Iraq, but it didnt.
Despite enormous pressure and the repeated decapitation of its senior leadership,
the group has survived and recovered. It appeals to the Sunni Arab minority which feels oppressed by
the Shiite-dominated government. Al-Qaeda in Iraq has rebuilt its sanctuaries in some Sunni regions and its
leader, Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, has promised more attacks in Iraq and in the United States. The
are attacking
but group

third generation of al-Qaeda's success in capitalizing on revolutionary change in the Arab world comes despite a

Al-Qaeda 3.0 remains an extreme movement that appeals

only to a small minority, but terrorism is not a popularity contest. Al-Qaeda today is
stronger at the operational level in the Arab world than it has been in years. Back in
Pakistan, the old al-Qaeda leadership, what jihadists call al Qaeda al Um or "mother al-Qaeda" is
rebuilding. Since President Barack Obama came to office in 2009, there have been almost 300 lethal drone
lack of broad popular support.

strikes in Pakistan flown from bases in Afghanistan, most of which targeted al-Qaeda operatives. Along with the raid

But it is not dead,

nor alone. Al-Qaedas allies in Pakistan, such as Lashkar-e Tayyiba the group that attacked Mumbai in
2008 and the Afghan and Pakistani Taliban, are under little or no pressure and are helping the
mother ship recover. Zawahiri regularly issues statements ordering the faithful to go to Syria or Mali to fight.
on Abbottabad that killed bin Laden in 2011, the offensive has put it on the defensive.

His orders are obeyed as there is no challenger to his authority. AQ 3.0 is a complex and decentralized enemy that
requires strategies tailored to each franchise. There is no one answer to each challenge.

"strategic defeat of al-Qaeda in sight.

There is no

A2: Counterplans Only Econ Engagement Solves

Only engaging in economic activity with Cuba will lead to
democratization in Cuba.
Dodd (NO DATE) (Christopher J. Dodd, Former US Senator from Connecticut,
Should the U.S End its Cuba Embargo?
http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/article/should-us-end-its-cuba-embargo, AD:
7/10/13, AK)
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,
The United States is the only nation that still has a trade embargo against Cuba.

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

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.
resources that could be used to secure our nation against terrorism. It's time for a fundamental change in our Cuba policy.

A2: Embargo Bad Intl Blowback

International community supports the plan no risk of blowback
Havana Times 12 (Cuba Embargo Blasted Again at UN 188-3, Havana Times,
November 13 2012, http://www.havanatimes.org/?p=82054, AD: 7/10/13, AK)
The UN General Assembly on Tuesday renewed a demand that the United States lift the
voted 188-3 to adopt an annual resolution, for
the 21st consecutive year, calling for UN members to consider the US embargo
against Cuba as illegal and respect international law that reaffirms freedom of trade
and navigation. Last years vote was 186-2. The United States, Israel and Palau voted against the
HAVANA TIMES (dpa)

economic embargo imposed on Cuba since the 1960s. The 193-nation assembly

resolution, while the Marshall Islands and Micronesia abstained. Washington has rejected the repeated UN demands to end the

The resolution, like in

previous ones, asked all states that have been implementing the US embargo to
take the necessary steps to repeal or invalidate them as soon as possible in
accordance with their legal regime. The economic embargo against Cuba was strengthened by US President
embargo. But it has also improved ties with Havana and allowed US citizens to travel to Cuba.

John F Kennedy in February 1962 following the failure of US-backed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba. The US embargo was further
boosted in 1996 by the Helms-Burton Act with the US Congress demanding compliance by all companies with regard to trade and
navigation with Cuba.

DEMOCRACY / HUMAN RIGHTS

Removing Embargo Solves Democracy

Lifting the embargo creates immediate international economic
ties and leads to democracy in Cuba
Bandow 12 (Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a former
special assistant to 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, AD 7/11/13,
AK)
The administration should move now, before congressmen are focused on the next election. President Obama
should propose legislation to drop (or at least significantly loosen) the embargo. He also could use his authority to
relax sanctions by, for instance, granting more licenses to visit the island. Ending the embargo would have obvious
economic benefits for both Cubans and Americans. The U.S. International Trade
Commission estimates American losses alone from the embargo as much as $1.2
billion annually. Expanding economic opportunities also might increase pressure
within Cuba for further economic reform. So far the regime has taken small steps, but rejected significant change.
Moreover, thrusting more Americans into Cuban society could help undermine the
ruling system. Despite Fidel Castros decline, Cuban politics remains largely static. A few human rights activists have been released, while Raul
Castro has used party purges to entrench loyal elites. Lifting the embargo would be no panacea. Other countries invest in and trade with Cuba to no
obvious political impact. And the lack of widespread economic reform makes it easier for the regime rather than the people to collect the benefits of trade,

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

Heritage Foundations John Sweeney complained nearly two decades ago that the United States must not abandon the Cuban people by relaxing or lifting
the trade embargo against the communist regime. But the dead hand of half a century of failed policy is the worst breach of faith with the Cuban people.

As Griswold argued,
commercial engagement is the best way to encourage more open societies
abroad. Of course, there are no guarantees. But lifting the embargo would have a greater likelihood of success than continuing a policy which has
failed. Some day the Cuban people will be free. Allowing more contact with Americans
likely would make that day come sooner.
Lifting sanctions would be a victory not for Fidel Castro, but for the power of free people to spread liberty.

! Embargo War
Continuation of current Cuba policy risks war, further human
rights abuses and a backslide from democratic progress
Amash 12 (Brandon Amash, writer at the Prospect Journal, (EVALUATING THE
CUBAN EMBARGO, 7/23/12, http://prospectjournal.org/2012/07/23/evaluating-thecuban-embargo/, AD: 7/12/13, AK)
The current policy may drag the United States into a military conflict with Cuba.
Military conflict may be inevitable in the future if the embargos explicit goal creating an
insurrection in Cuba to overthrow the government is achieved, and the United States may not
be ready to step in. As Ratliff and Fontaine detail, Americans are not prepared to commit the military resources
3.3:

[] (Fontaine 57), especially after unpopular wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Much like Americas current situation

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.
with isolated rogue states such as Iran and North Korea,

! Democracy
Democracy checks multiple scenarios for extinction
Diamond 95 Larry Diamond, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, December
1995, Promoting Democracy in the 1990s,
http://wwics.si.edu/subsites/ccpdc/pubs/di/1.htm

OTHER THREATS This hardly exhausts the lists of threats to our security and well-being in the coming years and
decades. In the former Yugoslavia nationalist aggression tears at the stability of Europe and could easily spread.
The flow of illegal drugs intensifies through increasingly powerful international crime syndicates that have made
common cause with authoritarian regimes and have utterly corrupted the institutions of tenuous, democratic ones.

Nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons continue to proliferate. The very source
of life on Earth, the global ecosystem, appears increasingly endangered. Most of
these new and unconventional threats to security are associated with or aggravated
by the weakness or absence of democracy, with its provisions for legality,
accountability, popular sovereignty, and openness. LESSONS OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY The
experience of this century offers important lessons. Countries that govern themselves in a truly
democratic fashion do not go to war with one another . They do not aggress against their
neighbors to aggrandize themselves or glorify their leaders. Democratic governments do not
ethnically "cleanse" their own populations , and they are much less likely to face ethnic insurgency.
Democracies do not sponsor terrorism against one another. They do not build weapons of mass
destruction to use on or to threaten one another. Democratic countries form more reliable, open, and
enduring trading partnerships. In the long run they offer better and more stable climates for investment. They
are more environmentally responsible because they must answer to their own
citizens, who organize to protest the destruction of their environments. They are better bets to honor
international treaties since they value legal obligations and because their openness makes it much more difficult to
breach agreements in secret. Precisely because, within their own borders, they respect competition, civil liberties,
property rights, and the rule of law, democracies are the only reliable foundation on which a new world order of
international security and prosperity can be built.

AT: Hard-Line Good

Current policy is inconsistent only a risk positive incentives
spur better behavior
Bustillo 13 Mitchell Bustillo, Time to Strengthen the Cuban Embargo,
International Policy Digest, 5/9/2013,
http://www.internationalpolicydigest.org/2013/05/09/time-to-strengthen-the-cubanembargo/
When thinking of U.S.-Cuba relations, the trade embargo, or el bloqueo, is first and foremost on peoples minds. In

Obama eased the travel ban, allowing Cuban-Americans to travel

freely to Cuba, and again in 2011, allowing students and religious missionaries to travel
to Cuba, as recently demonstrated by American pop culture figures, Beyonc and her husband
Jay-Z. Despite a history of hostile transgressions, the U.S. is inconsistent with its
implementation of the embargo, which sends mixed signals to Havana and
displays our weak foreign policy regarding Cuba.
2009, President Barack

ECONOMY

UQ US Economy Down
US economy is slacking now and government wont address it
Delong 7/1 J. BRADFORD DELONG, Professor of Economics at the University of

California, Berkeley, a Research Associate at the National Bureau of Economic

Research, and a Visiting Fellow at the Kauffman Foundation, The Second Great
Depression, Foreign Affairs, July/August 2013 (publication date 7/1/2013)
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/139464/j-bradford-delong/the-second-greatdepression?page=show
Some will argue that I am assuming the pose of Dr. Gloom. They are likely to be wrong. For one, the U.S. bond

Since 1975, the yield on 30-year Treasury bonds has

averaged 2.2 percentage points higher than that of short-term Treasury bills. Given
that the current 30-year Treasury bond yields 3.2 percent per year, the typical
financial market participant anticipates that short-term Treasury bill rates will pay
out interest at an average of barely more than one percent per year over the next
generation. The Federal Reserve keeps the short-term Treasury bill rate at that low level
only when the economy is depressed -- when capacity is slack, labor is idle, and
the principal risk is deflation rather than inflation . Since World War II, whenever the yield on the
market agrees with my assessment.

short-term Treasury bill has been two percent or lower, the U.S. unemployment rate has averaged eight percent.

the bond market crystal ball sees: a sluggish and depressed

economy for perhaps the entire next generation.
That is the future

IL US k2 Global Economy
US key to global economy
Caploe 9 David Caploe, CEO of the Singapore-incorporated American Centre for

Applied Liberal Arts and Humanities in Asia, Focus Still on America to Lead Global
Recovery April 2009, online
While superficially sensible, this view is deeply problematic. To begin with, it ignores the fact that the global
economy has in fact been 'America-centred' for more than 60 years. Countries - China,
Japan, Canada, Brazil, Korea, Mexico and so on - either sell to the US or they sell to countries that
sell to the US. To put it simply, Mr Obama doesn't seem to understand that there is no other engine
for the world economy - and hasn't been for the last six decades. If the US does not
drive global economic growth, growth is not going to happen . Thus, US policies to deal
with the current crisis are critical not just domestically, but also to the entire world .
This system has generally been advantageous for all concerned. America gained certain historically unprecedented
benefits, but the system also enabled participating countries - first in Western Europe and Japan, and later, many in

this deep inter-connection

between the US and the rest of the world also explains how the collapse of a
relatively small sector of the US economy - 'sub-prime' housing, logarithmically
exponentialised by Wall Street's ingenious chicanery - has cascaded into the worst global economic
crisis since the Great Depression. To put it simply, Mr Obama doesn't seem to understand that there is
the Third World - to achieve undreamt-of prosperity. At the same time,

no other engine for the world economy - and hasn't been for the last six decades. If the US does not drive global
economic growth, growth is not going to happen. Thus, US policies to deal with the current crisis are critical not just
domestically, but also to the entire world. Consequently, it is a matter of global concern that the Obama
administration seems to be following Japan's 'model' from the 1990s: allowing major banks to avoid declaring
massive losses openly and transparently, and so perpetuating 'zombie' banks - technically alive but in reality dead.
As analysts like Nobel laureates Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman have pointed out, the administration's
unwillingness to confront US banks is the main reason why they are continuing their increasingly inexplicable credit
freeze, thus ravaging the American and global economies. Team Obama seems reluctant to acknowledge the extent
to which its policies at home are failing not just there but around the world as well. Which raises the question: If the
US can't or won't or doesn't want to be the global economic engine, which country will? The obvious answer is

China's economic health is more tied to

America's than practically any other country in the world. Indeed, the reason China
has so many dollars to invest everywhere - whether in US Treasury bonds or in
Africa - is precisely that it has structured its own economy to complement
America's. The only way China can serve as the engine of the global economy is if
the US starts pulling it first. Second, the US-centred system began at a time when its
domestic demand far outstripped that of the rest of the world. The fundamental source of its
China. But that is unrealistic for three reasons. First,

economic power is its ability to act as the global consumer of last resort. China, however, is a poor country, with low
per capita income, even though it will soon pass Japan as the world's second largest economy. There are real

given its structure as an export-oriented

economy, it is doubtful if even a successful Chinese stimulus plan can pull the rest
of the world along unless and until China can start selling again to the US on a
massive scale. Finally, the key 'system' issue for China - or for the European Union - in thinking about
possibilities for growth in China's domestic demand. But

becoming the engine of the world economy - is monetary: What are the implications of having your domestic
currency become the global reserve currency? This is an extremely complex issue that the US has struggled with,
not always successfully, from 1959 to the present. Without going into detail, it can safely be said that though
having the US dollar as the world's medium of exchange has given the US some tremendous advantages, it has also
created huge problems, both for America and the global economic system. The Chinese leadership is certainly
familiar with this history. It will try to avoid the yuan becoming an international medium of exchange until it feels
much more confident in its ability to handle the manifold currency problems that the US has grappled with for

the US will remain the engine of global economic recovery for the
foreseeable future, even though other countries must certainly help. This crisis
began in the US - and it is going to have to be solved there too .
decades. Given all this,

AT: Economy Resilient

Their resiliency warrants dont assume the current political
climate which steadfastly refuses to take action to save the
economy
Delong 7/1 J. BRADFORD DELONG, Professor of Economics at the University of

California, Berkeley, a Research Associate at the National Bureau of Economic

Research, and a Visiting Fellow at the Kauffman Foundation, The Second Great
Depression, Foreign Affairs, July/August 2013 (publication date 7/1/2013)
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/139464/j-bradford-delong/the-second-greatdepression?page=show
Meanwhile, barring a wholesale revolution in the thinking (or personnel) of the U.S.
Federal Reserve and the U.S. Congress, so-called activist policies, such as multitrillion-dollar
asset purchases or sustained large-scale investments in infrastructure, are not
going to be put in place to rescue the economy . Policymakers are too concerned
about rising U.S. government debt. Their worries, of course, are misplaced right now, as
Blinder well understands. He shares the consensus of reality-based economists that debt accumulation -- whether
through the Federal Reserves buying government bonds or through the U.S. Treasurys issuing them -- is not the
U.S. economys most serious problem as long as interest rates remain low. The deficit hawks seem to have
forgotten the basic principle of macroeconomic management: that the governments job is to ensure that there are
sufficient quantities of liquid assets, safe assets, and financial savings vehicles. Over the past several years, this
principle has gone out the window. A majority of the voting members of the Federal Open Market Committee, which
oversees the Federal Reserves buying and selling of government bonds, believe that the Fed has already extended
its aggressive expansionary policies beyond the bounds of prudence. Blinder rightly disagrees: The Feds hawks
seem more worried about the inflation we might get than about the high unemployment we still have. Im rooting

Americas budget mess is starting to

look Kafkaesque, Blinder writes, because the outline of a solution is so clear: we need modest fiscal
for the doves. Worse still is the attitude of the U.S. Congress.

stimulus today coupled with massive deficit reduction for the future. Republicans must accept that tax rates will be
higher a decade from now, he argues, and Democrats must accept lower government spending than is currently
projected. A deficit-reduction package, perhaps in the mold of the Simpson-Bowles plan (a proposal by Erskine
Bowles and Alan Simpson, co-chairs of the presidents deficit commission, that combines spending cuts and tax
increases), should be adopted in the future, Blinder argues, but not yet. Blinder is preaching the right message, but

Congress is taking its cues from Steve

Martins Saturday Night Live character Theodoric of York, Medieval Barber: no
matter what the ailment, all the patient needs is another good bleeding. In this
case, the tool of bloodletting is rigorous austerity, which only puts further downward
pressure on employment and production.
he is preaching it to an audience of ravens and vultures.

Econ isnt resilient anymore

Rampell 11 CATHERINE RAMPELL, Second Recession in U.S. Could Be Worse
Than First, New York Times, 8/7/2011,
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/08/business/a-second-recession-could-be-muchworse-than-the-first.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
If the economy falls back into recession, as many economists are now warning, the
bloodletting could be a lot more painful than the last time around. Given the tumult of the
Great Recession, this may be hard to believe. But the economy is much weaker than it was at the
outset of the last recession in December 2007, with most major measures of economic
health including jobs, incomes, output and industrial production worse today
than they were back then. And growth has been so weak that almost no ground has
been recouped, even though a recovery technically started in June 2009. It would be disastrous if
we entered into a recession at this stage, given that we havent yet made up for the
last recession, said Conrad DeQuadros, senior economist at RDQ Economics. When the last downturn hit,

the credit bubble left Americans with lots of fat to cut, but a new one would force
families to cut from the bone. Making things worse, policy makers used most of the
economic tools at their disposal to combat the last recession, and have few options
available. Anxiety and uncertainty have increased in the last few days after the decision by Standard & Poors to
downgrade the countrys credit rating and as Europe continues its desperate attempt to stem its debt crisis.
President Obama acknowledged the challenge in his Saturday radio and Internet address, saying the countrys
urgent mission now was to expand the economy and create jobs. And Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner said
in an interview on CNBC on Sunday that the United States had a lot of work to do because of its long-term and
unsustainable fiscal position. But he added, I have enormous confidence in the basic regenerative capacity of the

In the four years since the

recession began, the civilian working-age population has grown by about 3 percent.
If the economy were healthy, the number of jobs would have grown at least the
same amount. Instead, the number of jobs has shrunk. Today the economy has 5 percent fewer jobs or 6.8
American economy and the American people. Still, the numbers are daunting.

million than it had before the last recession began. The unemployment rate was 5 percent then, compared with

Even those Americans who are working are generally working less; the
typical private sector worker has a shorter workweek today than four years ago.
Employers shed all the extra work shifts and weak or extraneous employees that
they could during the last recession. As shown by unusually strong productivity
gains, companies are now squeezing as much work as they can from their newly
lean and mean work forces. Should a recession return, it is not clear how many
additional workers businesses could lay off and still manage to function. With fewer
jobs and fewer hours logged, there is less income for households to spend, creating
a huge obstacle for a consumer-driven economy. Adjusted for inflation, personal income is down 4
9.1 percent today.

percent, not counting payments from the government for things like unemployment benefits. Income levels are low,
and moving in the wrong direction: private wage and salary income actually fell in June, the last month for which

Consumer spending, along with housing, usually drives a recovery.

But with incomes so weak, spending is only barely where it was when the recession
began. If the economy were healthy, total consumer spending would be higher because of population growth.
data was available.

And with construction nearly nonexistent and home prices down 24 percent since December 2007, the country does
not have a buffer in housing to fall back on. Of all the major economic indicators, industrial production as tracked
by the Federal Reserve is by far the worst off. The Feds index of this activity is nearly 8 percent below its level in
December 2007. Likewise, and perhaps most worrisome, is the track record for the countrys overall output.
According to newly revised data from the Commerce Department, the economy is smaller today than it was when
the recession began, despite (or rather, because of) the feeble growth in the last couple of years. If the economy
were healthy, it would be much bigger than it was four years ago. Economists refer to the difference between where
the economy is and where it could be if it met its full potential as the output gap. Menzie Chinn, an economics
professor at the University of Wisconsin, has estimated that the economy was about 7 percent smaller than its

Unlike during the first downturn, there would be few

policy remedies available if the economy were to revert back into recession. Interest
rates cannot be pushed down further they are already at zero. The Fed has
already flooded the financial markets with money by buying billions in mortgage
securities and Treasury bonds, and economists do not even agree on whether those
purchases substantially helped the economy. So the Fed may not see much upside to
going through another politically controversial round of buying. There are only so many
potential at the beginning of this year.

times the Fed can pull this same rabbit out of its hat, said Torsten Slok, the chief international economist at
Deutsche Bank. Congress had some room financially and politically to engage in fiscal stimulus during the last

at the end of 2007, the federal debt was 64.4 percent of the economy.
Today, it is estimated at around 100 percent of gross domestic product, a share not
seen since the aftermath of World War II, and there is little chance of lawmakers
reaching consensus on additional stimulus that would increase the debt. There is
no approachable precedent, at least in the postwar era, for what happens when an
economy with 9 percent unemployment falls back into recession, said Nigel Gault, chief
recession. But

United States economist at IHS Global Insight. The one precedent you might consider is 1937, when there was also
a premature withdrawal of fiscal stimulus, and the economy fell into another recession more painful than the first.

Removing Embargo Solves US Exports

Cuba trade opens a huge opportunity for US ag exports
Smith 12 Ron Smith, Cuba trade holds promise for U.S. agricultural exports,

Texas A&M economist says, Southwest Farm Press, 12/6/2012,

http://southwestfarmpress.com/markets/cuba-trade-holds-promise-us-agriculturalexports-texas-am-economist-says
Cuba relies on imports for 75 percent of its food, creating a huge potential
market for U.S. farmers and ranchers, says Parr Rosson, head, Texas A&M Agricultural
Economics Department and AgriLife Extension economist. U.S. producers have been able to take
advantage of some of that demand with the passage of a 2000 law allowing limited trade with Cuba, in spite of a
trade, travel and economic embargo that has been in place since 1962. Rosson, speaking at the Texas Plant
Protection Associations annual conference today in Bryan, Texas, said ag exports to Cuba could reach $450 million
for 2012, short of the more than $700 million exported to Cuba in 2008, when numerous hurricanes hammered the

key U.S. ag exports to Cuba

include corn, poultry, soy and soy products, feeds, pork and wheat. Potential exists
for increased export of higher quality cuts of beef, which currently are limited to use
in the Cuban tourist industry. Since 2000, U.S ag suppliers fill some of those needs. The Trade Sanctions
island nation and increased the need for imported food. Rosson said

Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000, created exceptions, Rosson said. The act permits exports of food,

the embargo remains in place for most trade .

U.S. banking with Cuba is prohibited as
is tourism and spending money in Cuba. Reforms do allow exporters to travel to Cuba. The
United States is stringent about the embargo, Rosson said. And that embargo is likely to remain in
medicines and some chemicals into Cuba although

Also banned are imports from Cuba, including Cuban cigars.

place, he added, as long as a Castro is in power.

Cuban exports are key to US agriculture

Williams 2 Alexander Williams III, Graduate of University of Arkansas Division of
Agriculture , MORE ASSISTANCE PLEASE: LIFTING THE CUBAN EMBARGO MAY HELP
REVIVE AMERICAN FARMS, Drake Journal of Agricultural Law, vol. 7, 2002,
http://students.law.drake.edu/aglawjournal/docs/agVol07No2-Williams.pdf
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

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
businessman knows that

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

economic sanctions specifically hurt two

groups of people, the Cuban people who need our food, and United States farmers
who can produce it in abundance.116 Other Congressmen have also asked for lifting the embargo,
Furthermore, Representative Lampson believes that the

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
thirty-eight 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 billiondollar 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

Cuba is only ninety miles south of the United States .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
to Cuba

Lifting the embargo massively increases exports to Cuba

Sullivan 6/12 Mark P. Sullivan, Specialist in Latin American Affairs at CRS, Cuba:

U.S. Policy and Issues for the 113th Congress, Congressional Research Service,
6/12/2013, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R43024.pdf
The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) produced a study in 2007 analyzing the effects
of both U.S. government financing restrictions for agricultural exports to Cuba and U.S. travel
restrictions on the level of U.S. agricultural sales to Cuba .48 At the time of the study, the U.S.
share of various Cuban agricultural imports was estimated to range from 0-99% depending on the commodity. If
U.S. financing restrictions were lifted, the study estimated that the U.S. share of
Cuban agricultural, fish, and forest products imports would rise to between one-half
and two-thirds. According to the study, if travel restrictions for all U.S. citizens were lifted, the influx of
U.S. tourists would be significant in the short term and would boost demand for
imported agricultural products, particularly high-end products for the tourist sector.
If both financing and travel restrictions were lifted, the study found that the largest
gains in U.S. exports to Cuba would be for fresh fruits and vegetables, milk powder,
processed foods, wheat, and dry beans. In 2009, the USITC issued a working paper that updated the
agencys 2007 study on U.S. agricultural sales to Cuba. The update concluded that if U.S. restrictions on
financing and travel were lifted in 2008, U.S. agricultural exports to Cuba would
have increased between $216 million and $478 million and the U.S. share of Cubas
agricultural imports would have increased from 38% to between 49% and 64%. 49
Among the U.S. agricultural products that would have benefited the most were wheat, rice, beef, pork, processed
foods, and fish products. In general, some groups favor further easing restrictions on agricultural exports to Cuba.

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.

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.

Removing Embargo Solves Trade

Removing the embargo solves bilateral trade and boosts the
Cuban economy in multiple sectors puts the US in position to
be Cubas #1 trading partner
Gordon 12 (Joy, The U.S. Embargo against Cuba and the Diplomatic Challenges

to Extraterritoriality, THE FLETCHER FORUM OF WORLD AFFAIRS, VOL.36:1 WINTER

2012, AK)
while
U.S. unilateral measures have not been effective at ending the Castro regime, they
have had a far greater impact on Cuba's economy and society than would ordinarily
be expected of a unilateral trade embargo. This is partly because the United States
would be Cuba's largest and closest trading partner, and the lack of access
to U.S. markets means that Cuba is excluded from buying a broad range of
U.S. goods that cost less to buy and transport than comparable goods
produced elsewhere in the world. According to a study by the Congressional Research Service,
imports to Cuba were 30 percent higher overall as a result of the embargo. 2 For
Conventional wisdom holds that multilateral embargoes are more effective than unilateral embargoes. But

example, Braille machines produced in the United States, used for teaching blind and partially sighted children, are

Cuba's costs when it buys

Braille machines for schools are $1100 per machine, rather than $700 for the
machines produced in the United States. ' Likewise, because cytostatic serums, used to treat
certain types of malignant tumors, cannot be purchased from U.S. companies, Cuba
buys them from Europe or Asia, or through third countries, which significantly
increases their costs.4 Additionally, according to the UN Human Settlements Program, Cuba's inability
to purchase construction materials from U.S. sources adversely affects cost and
logistics to such a degree that it undermines the availability of adequate housing in
Cuba. On one occasion, this lack of access to cheap U.S. materials compromised Cuba's
"response to housing reconstruction needs resulting from destructive hurricanes in
2001 and 2002, in both cases primarily affecting the most vulnerable sectors of the
population." 5 Thus, even as a unilateral measure, the fact that the embargo denies Cuba
access to U.S. markets is itself costly and damaging to the Cuban
economy.
significantly less expensive than those produced elsewhere. Consequently,

Removing Embargo Solves Banking

Lifting the embargo brings international banking ties back to
Cuba
Gordon 12 (Joy, The U.S. Embargo against Cuba and the Diplomatic Challenges
to Extraterritoriality, THE FLETCHER FORUM OF WORLD AFFAIRS, VOL.36:1 WINTER
2012, AK)
The U.S. embargo measures interfere in Cuba's access to international banks in
several ways, even when they are not U.S. financial institutions . The United States
prohibits Cuba from engaging in any transactions in U.S. dollars , and likewise
prohibits any bank-including foreign banks- from facilitating commercial
transactions by Cuba in U.S. dollars. In recent years, particularly under the Bush administration, the
United States has enforced the banking provisions aggressively. The United States fined the

Swiss bank UBS $100 million for engaging in U.S. dollar transactions with Cuba, and also imposed smaller fines on
Italian and Spanish banks. In 2006, the United States blacklisted the Dutch bank, UNG, which had done business in
Cuba for over a decade; the following year UNG termi- nated its banking operations in Cuba.5 In 2009, the Treasury
Department imposed a fine of $5.75 million on the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group, Ltd., for financial
transactions involving Cuba and Sudan, and also fined Credit Suisse Bank almost half a billion dollars for financial
transac- tions involving Cuba and other countries subject to U.S. embargoes.16 By 2007, in spite of their own
national legislation prohibiting compli- ance with the U.S. embargo, a number of major Canadian and European
banks stopped doing business with Cuba including Barclays, the Bank of Nova Scotia, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank,

These measures impede Cuba's commerce in a number

of ways. For many transactions, there are additional costs in using currencies other than
the dollar. Because so many major international banks no longer provide banking
services to Cuba out of fear of U.S. retaliation, Cuba has had to turn to other banks ,
which charge higher rates for their services . For 1998, a State Department official
maintained that, because of U.S. measures, interest rates for financing Cuban
development projects reached 22 percent." ' In 2009, Cuba estimated that the losses related to
Royal Bank of Canada, and HSBC. 17

financing costs attributable to the embargo came to $164 million.19

A2 OFF CASE

T Economic Engagement
Economic engagement includes removing embargoes
Haass 2k Richard Haass & Meghan OSullivan, Senior Fellows in the Brookings

Institution Foreign Policy Studies Program, Honey and Vinegar: Incentives,

Sanctions, and Foreign Policy, p. 5-6
Architects of engagement strategies have a wide variety of incentives from which to choose. Economic
engagement might offer tangible incentives such as export credits, investment insurance or
promotion, access to technology, loans, and economic aid.2 Other equally useful economic incentives involve the
removal of penalties, whether they be trade embargoes, investment bans, or high tariffs that have
impeded economic relations between the United States and the target country. In addition, facilitated entry into the
global economic arena and the institutions that govern it rank among the most potent incentives in todays global
market.

PTX Plan Popular

Plan popular in congress- Lobbies, Cuban-American and
Republican support
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,
AD 7/12/13, AK)
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

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
Florida, does not want to normalize relations until the Communist regime is gone. "When they're polled,

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

many favor improving relations

with Cuba. In 2009, Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN), the top-ranking Republican 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).
Diaz-Balart, and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen are stridently anti-Castro. Still,

CUBA NEG

SOLVENCY

No US Investment
US firms wont invest in Cuba
Perales 10 Jos Ral Perales, senior program associate of the Latin American

Program at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, et al., The United
States and Cuba: Implications of an Economic Relationship, WOODROW WILSON
CENTER LATIN AMERICAN PROGRAM, August 2010,
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/LAP_Cuba_Implications.pdf
However, there are important pitfalls associated with deeper economic relations . In a
April 29, 2010, hearing on H.R. 4645, the Travel Restriction Reform and Export Enhancement Act (designed to
remove obstacles to legal sales of U.S. agricultural commodities to Cubaby eliminating the cashin-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,

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
outlined some of these drawbacks.

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.

No Impact to Embargo
You cant measure the impact of an embargo their statistics
are misleading other alternate causes have a greater effect
on instability
Garfield 99 (Richard Garfield, Richard Garfield, nurse and epidemiologist, is
professor of clinical international nursing at Columbia University, 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%20abd%20Well-Being.pdf, AD:
7/12/13, AK)
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 wellbeing 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

the intervention is national in scope and control groups

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. Much
available information comes from service statistics provided by health or social service
provider institutions. These organisations have information on services provided or people served (a
numerator) but seldom have information on the underlying populations (the denominator) from
which service users come. Such information usually cannot be used to establish valid rates
or identify changing levels of demand, need or severity. A prejudice in favour of quantitative
type of natural experiment, where
with which to make comparisons

measures often generates an excessive focus on these service statistics or incomplete population indicators when

More attention should be given to identifying key

changes occurring in peoples lives (qualitative indicators) to focus on the most effective interventions
for improving life chances and reducing mortality. To do so, special studies have to follow groups
of people over time; studies carried out at one point in time cannot identify such
trends. Where quantitative indicators are used the information is almost always presented as
a single number, for example, a death rate of 100/1000. This form of data presentation fails to
communicate the relative level of precision possible for the numbers presented. More
there are, in reality, only partial counts.

accurate would be the inclusion of a 95 per cent statistical confidence interval for example, 100/1000 +/- 10/1000.
Researchers should also describe their impressions of the imperfections in the data drawn upon and the biases
inherent in them in order to communicate the level of uncertainty associated with a numerical indicator.

LEADERSHIP ADV

AT: Soft Power

Soft power fails - cultural influence doesn't spill over to power
competition
Josef Joffe, Marc and Anita Abramowitz Fellow in International Relations at Hoover
Institution, "The Perils of Soft Power," Hoover Digest, No. 3, 2006, accessed 1/7/10
http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/4634921.html
There may be little or no relationship between America's ubiquity and its actual
influence. Hundreds of millions of people around the world wear, listen, eat, drink,
watch and dance American, but they do not identify these accouterments of their
daily lives with America. A Yankees cap is the epitome of things American, but it hardly signifies knowledge

of, let alone affection for, the team from New York or America as such. The same is true for American films, foods or
songs. Of the 250 top-grossing movies around the world, only four are foreign-made: ''The Full Monty'' (U.K.), ''Life
Is Beautiful'' (Italy) and ''Spirited Away'' and ''Howl's Moving Castle'' (Japan); the rest are American, including a

there is little, if
any, relationship between artifact and affection. If the relationship is not neutral, it
is one of repulsion rather than attraction -- the dark side of the ''soft power'' coin. The European
number of co-productions. But these American products shape images, not sympathies, and

student movement of the late 1960's took its cue from the Berkeley free-speech movement of 1964, the inspiration
for all post-1964 Western student revolts. But it quickly turned anti-American; America was reviled while it was
copied. Now shift forward to the Cannes Film Festival of 2004, where hundreds of protesters denounced America's
intervention in Iraq until the police dispersed them. The makers of the movie ''Shrek 2'' had placed large bags of
green Shrek ears along the Croisette, the main drag along the beach. As the demonstrators scattered, many of
them put on free Shrek ears. ''They were attracted,'' noted an observer in this magazine, ''by the ears' goofiness

the enormous pull of American imagery went hand in hand

with the country's, or at least its government's, condemnation.
and sheer recognizability.'' And so

No soft powertoo diffuse, causes xenophobia, opinions are

sedimented
Gray 11 Colin S. Gray, Hard Power and Soft Power: The Utility of Military Force as
an Instrument of Policy in the 21st Century, Strategic Studies Institute, April 2011,
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB1059.pdf
Moreover, no contemporary U.S. government owns all of Americas soft power a
considerable understatement. Nor do contemporary Americans and their institutions own all
of their countrys soft power. America today is the product of Americas many
yesterdays, and the worldwide target audiences for American soft power respond to
the whole of the America that they have perceived, including facts, legends, and
myths. 41 Obviously, what they understand about America may well be substantially untrue, certainly it will be
incomplete. At a minimum, foreigners must react to an American soft power that is filtered by their local cultural
interpretation. America is a future-oriented country, ever remaking itself and believing that, with the grace of God,

optimistic American futurism

both contrasts with foreigners cultural pessimismtheir golden ages may lie in the
past, not the futurewhich prevails in much of the world and is liable to mislead
Americans as to the reception our soft power story will have. 42 Many people indeed,
probably most people, in the world beyond the United States have a fairly settled view of
America, American purposes, and Americans. This locally held view derives from their whole
experience of exposure to things American as well as from the features of their own
cultural thoughtways and history that shape their interpretation of Americanauthored words and deeds, past and present. 43
history moves forward progressively toward an ever-better tomorrow. This

Multilateralism fails
Kim R. Holmes, Vice President, Foreign and Defense Policy Studies, and Director,
The Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, Smart
Multilateralism and the United Nations, Heritage, 9/21/ 2010,
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/09/smart-multilateralism-when-andwhen-not-to-rely-on-the-united-nations
The need for multilateralism is obvious. Nations share concerns about many problems and issues for which

only rarely do all governments agree on the

nature of a problem and the means to address it . At times, negotiations result in a less-thanperfect, but still acceptable, course of action. Disagreements can also lead to no action or the
use of force or other confrontational measures . One of the purposes of multilateralism is to
minimize the number and intensity of such confrontations. The process itself, however, is fraught with
political challenges that can undermine potential solutions and even lead to other
problems. For the United States, multilateralism faces its greatest challenge at the
United Nations, where U.S. diplomats seek cooperative action among member
nations on serious international problems. Therein lies the tension. The United
Nations is first and foremost a political body made up of 192 states that rarely agree
on any one issue. Even fundamental issues, such as protecting and observing
human rights, a key purpose of the U.N. that all member states pledge to uphold
when they join it, have become matters of intense debate. A key reason for this difficulty is
the fact that the voices and votes of totalitarian and authoritarian regimes have equal
weight to those of free nations at the U.N. The all-too-frequent clash of worldviews
between liberty and authoritarian socialism has stymied multilateralism more than
facilitated it, frequently leading to institutional paralysis when a unified response to
grave threats to peace and security or human rights and fundamental freedoms was
needed. U.S. secretary of state John Foster Dulles, who attended the San Francisco meetings that established the
coordinated efforts could be mutually beneficial. Yet

U.N., acknowledged this Achilles heel in 1954, when he told reporters: The United Nations was not set up to be a
reformatory. It was assumed that you would be good before you got in and not that being in would make you

the ideological fray at the U.N. has turned the terms

democracy and freedom on their heads. Autocracies that deny democratic
liberties at home are all too keen to call the Security Council undemocratic
because in their view not every region, country, or bloc is sufficiently represented .
good.[1] Fifty-five years later,

During my time at the State Department, I was told repeatedly by other diplomats at the U.N. that the very concept
of freedom is taboo because the term is too ideologically charged. In this environment, how can the United
States or any freedom-loving country advance the purposes set forth in the U.N. Charter, including encouraging
respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all,[2] when the word freedom itself is considered too
controversial?

AT: Warming Impact

Warming impacts overstatednew data
Taylor 11 James Taylor, senior fellow for environment policy at the Heartland

Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News, New NASA Data
Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism, Forbes, 7/27/2011,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/07/27/new-nasa-data-blow-gapinghold-in-global-warming-alarmism/
NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earths atmosphere is
allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models
have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study
indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer
models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in
atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed. Study coauthor Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science
Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASAs Aqua satellite, reports that

real-

world data from NASAs Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into
alarmist computer models. The satellite observations suggest there is much more
energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,
Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. There is a huge discrepancy between
the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans. In addition to finding
that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data
show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations
computer models predicted. The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the
global warming debate. Scientists on all sides of the global warming debate are in general agreement about how
much heat is being directly trapped by human emissions of carbon dioxide (the answer is not much). However,

the single most important issue in the global warming debate is whether carbon
dioxide emissions will indirectly trap far more heat by causing large increases in
atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds. Alarmist computer models assume human carbon dioxide

emissions indirectly cause substantial increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds (each of which are very

real-world data have long shown that carbon dioxide

emissions are not causing as much atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds as the
alarmist computer models have predicted. The new NASA Terra satellite data are consistent with
effective at trapping heat), but

long-term NOAA and NASA data indicating atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds are not increasing in the manner
predicted by alarmist computer models. The Terra satellite data also support data collected by NASAs ERBS
satellite showing far more longwave radiation (and thus, heat) escaped into space between 1985 and 1999 than
alarmist computer models had predicted. Together, the NASA ERBS and Terra satellite data show that for 25 years
and counting, carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than alarmist computer
models have predicted. In short, the central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide
emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earths atmosphere and
preventing it from escaping into space. Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in
the earths atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than
the alarmist computer models predict. When objective NASA satellite data, reported in a peer-reviewed scientific
journal, show a huge discrepancy between alarmist climate models and real-world facts, climate scientists, the
media and our elected officials would be wise to take notice. Whether or not they do so will tell us a great deal
about how honest the purveyors of global warming alarmism truly are.

Latin America is irrelevant - Chinese and Indian coal emissions

far surpass American GHG reductions
Ferris 12 David Ferris, As Coal Use Drops In U.S., China and India Burn Even
More, Forbes, 11/20/2012, http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidferris/2012/11/20/ascoal-use-drops-in-u-s-china-and-india-burn-even-more/

the International Energy Agency, which estimates that in

2035, coal remains the leading global fuel for power generation. Use worldwide
will rise by 65 percent, led by China, which in the next two decades will add as
much power generation as the United States has now, with Japan thrown in for good
measure. China is of course planning to employ other sources, like wind power, hydropower and nuclear, but the
That is the conclusion of a recent report by

sooty black rock is expected to represent as much power generation as all those others combined. For its part,

India will overtake the United States as the second-biggest user of coal by 2025 and
will be the largest net importer of coal by 2020 , the IEA says. This news confounds the narrative

about coal that has started to take hold in the U.S. The story goes that coal, nudged toward extinction by a glut of
cheap, domestic natural gas and stiffening regulations, will begin to disappear as a fuel source and cause emissions
of global-warming gases to decline. But the rest of the world, especially Asia, is going in exactly the opposite

by 2016. During that time, China will

add the equivalent of 160 new coal plants while India adds 70. The atmosphere
doesnt make a distinction between coal burned in Ohio and coal burned in
Shanghai. So while the U.S. is dethroning coal, it may not do much to slow the
carbon emissions that are steadily warming the planet. As the IEA report notes, The policy
decisions carrying the most weight for the global coal balance will be taken in
Beijing and New Delhi.
direction, projected to use an additional billion tons of coal each year

AT: Terrorism Impact

No nuclear terrordeterrence and prevention solves
Mearsheimer 10 John J. Mearsheimer, R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished

Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, Imperial by Design, The

National Interest, 12/16/2010, http://nationalinterest.org/print/article/imperial-bydesign-4576
This assessment of Americas terrorism problem was flawed on every count. It was threat inflation of the highest
order. It made no sense to declare war against groups that were not trying to harm the United States. They were not
our enemies; and going after all terrorist organizations would greatly complicate the daunting task of eliminating
those groups that did have us in their crosshairs. In addition, there was no alliance between the so-called rogue
states and al-Qaeda. In fact, Iran and Syria cooperated with Washington after 9/11 to help quash Osama bin Laden
and his cohorts. Although the Bush administration and the neoconservatives repeatedly asserted that there was a
genuine connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, they never produced evidence to back up their claim

states have strong incentives to distrust

terrorist groups, in part because they might turn on them someday, but also because countries cannot control
what terrorist organizations do, and they may do something that gets their patrons into serious trouble. This is
why there is hardly any chance that a rogue state will give a nuclear weapon to
terrorists. That regimes leaders could never be sure that they would not be blamed
and punished for a terrorist groups actions. Nor could they be certain that the
United States or Israel would not incinerate them if either country merely suspected
that they had provided terrorists with the ability to carry out a WMD attack . A nuclear
handoff, therefore, is not a serious threat. When you get down to it, there is only a remote possibility
that terrorists will get hold of an atomic bomb. The most likely way it would happen
is if there were political chaos in a nuclear-armed state , and terrorists or their friends were able
to take advantage of the ensuing confusion to snatch a loose nuclear weapon. But even then, there are
additional obstacles to overcome: some countries keep their weapons
disassembled, detonating one is not easy and it would be difficult to transport the
device without being detected. Moreover, other countries would have powerful
incentives to work with Washington to find the weapon before it could be used. The
for the simple reason that it did not exist. The fact is that

obvious implication is that we should work with other states to improve nuclear security, so as to make this slim

the ability of terrorists to strike the American homeland

has been blown out of all proportion. In the nine years since 9/11, government
officials and terrorist experts have issued countless warnings that another major
attack on American soil is probableeven imminent. But this is simply not the
case.3 The only attempts we have seen are a few failed solo attacks by individuals
with links to al-Qaeda like the shoe bomber, who attempted to blow up an American Airlines
flight from Paris to Miami in December 2001, and the underwear bomber , who tried to blow up a
Northwest Airlines flight from Amsterdam to Detroit in December 2009. So, we do have a terrorism
problem, but it is hardly an existential threat. In fact, it is a minor threat. Perhaps the scope of the
challenge is best captured by Ohio State political scientist John Muellers telling comment that the number of
Americans killed by international terrorism since the late 1960s . . . is about the
same as the number killed over the same period by lightning, or by accidentcausing deer, or by severe allergic reactions to peanuts.
possibility even more unlikely. Finally,

No nuclear terrorcant acquire or assemble

Michael 12 George Michael, associate professor of political science and
administration of justice at The University of Virginias College at Wise, PhD in public
policy from GMU, Strategic Nuclear Terrorism and the Risk of State Decapitation,
Defence Studies, Vol. 12, Issue 1, 2012, T&F

Despite the alarming prospect of nuclear terrorism, the obstacles to obtaining such capabilities are formidable.
There are several pathways that terrorists could take to acquire a nuclear device. Seizing an intact nuclear weapon

neither nuclear weapons nor nuclear technology

has proliferated to the degree that some observers once feared . Although nuclear weapons
would be the most direct method. However,

have been around for over 65 years, the so-called nuclear club stands at only nine members. 72 Terrorists could

absconding with a nuclear weapon

would be problematical because of tight security measures at installations.
Alternatively, a terrorist group could attempt to acquire a bomb through an illicit transaction, but there is no
real well-developed black market for illicit nuclear materials. Still, the deployment of tactical
attempt to purloin a weapon from a nuclear stockpile; however,

nuclear weapons around the world presents the risk of theft and diversion. 73 In 1997, the Russian General,

Lebed, alleged that 84 suitcase bombs were missing from the Russian
military arsenal, but later recanted his statements. 74 American officials generally
remain unconvinced of Lebeds story insofar as they were never mentioned in any
Soviet war plans. 75 Presumably, the financial requirements for a transaction involving
nuclear weapons would be very high, as states have spent millions and billions of
dollars to obtain their arsenals. 76 Furthermore, transferring such sums of money could
raise red flags, which would present opportunities for authorities to uncover the
plot. When pursuing nuclear transactions, terrorist groups would be vulnerable to
sting operations. 77 Even if terrorists acquired an intact nuclear weapon, the group
would still have to bypass or defeat various safeguards, such as permissive action links
(PALs), and safing, arming, fusing, and firing (SAFF) procedures. Both US and Russian nuclear
weapons are outfitted with complicated physical and electronic locking mechanisms .
78 Nuclear weapons in other countries are usually stored partially disassembled,
which would make purloining a fully functional weapon very challenging. 79
Alexander

AT: Disease Impact

Humans are resilient to disease spread - two hundred
thousand years of survival proves
Richard A. Posner, judge on the US Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit and Senior
Lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, " Catastrophe: the dozen most
significant catastrophic risks and what we can do about them," Skeptic, Winter
2005, accessed 11/24/09
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_kmske/is_3_11/ai_n29167514/?tag=content;col1
Yet the fact that Homo sapiens has managed to survive every disease to assail it in
the 200,000 years or so of its existence is a source of genuine comfort , at least if the
focus is on extinction events. There have been enormously destaictive plagues , such as the Black
Death, smallpox, and now AIDS, but none has come close to destroying the entire human
race. There is a biological reason. Natural selection favors germs of limited lethality;
they are fitter in an evolutionary sense because their genes are more likely to be
spread if the germs do not kill their hosts too quickly . The AIDS virus is an example of a lethal
virus, wholly natural, that by lying dormant yet infectious in its host for years maximizes its spread. Yet there is no

The likelihood of a natural pandemic that

would cause the extinction of the human race is probably even less today than in
the past (except in prehistoric times, when people lived in small, scattered bands, which would have limited the
spread of disease), despite wider human contacts that make it more difficult to localize an infectious disease . The
reason is improvements in medical science.
danger that AIDS will destroy the entire human race.

DEMOCRACY ADV

Hard-Line Turn
Keeping the embargo strong is key to hold the line on global
democracy now is the key tipping point
Bustillo 13 (Mitchell Bustillo, Writer for International Policy Digest, Columbia
University Graduate, Time to Strengthen the Cuban Embargo, Article for
International Policy Digest, 5/9/13,
http://www.internationalpolicydigest.org/2013/05/09/time-to-strengthen-thecuban-embargo/, Accessed 7/13/13, AK)
When thinking of U.S.-Cuba relations, the trade embargo, When thinking of U.S.-Cuba relations,

the trade

embargo, or el bloqueo, is first and foremost on peoples minds. In 2009, President Barack
Obama eased the travel ban, allowing Cuban-Americans to travel freely to Cuba, and again in 2011,
allowing students and religious missionaries to travel to Cuba, as recently demonstrated by
American pop culture figures, Beyonc and her husband Jay-Z. Despite a history of hostile transgressions, the
U.S. is inconsistent with its implementation of the embargo , which sends mixed
signals to Havana and displays our weak foreign policy regarding Cuba. Undoubtedly,
Cuba is capitalizing on this weakness by using the embargo as a scapegoat for all of its woes

without any immediate fear of reinstated restrictions. Because the goal is to promote Cuban democracy and
freedom through non-violent and non-invasive means while refraining from providing any support to the current
oppressive Cuban government, the current legislation regarding the embargo and travel ban against Cuba needs to

The need for an embargo has never been more

important or potentially effective, even considering the current human rights and
economic arguments against the embargo. Washingtons goal in its dealings with Havana is
clear: facilitate the introduction and growth of democracy while increasing personal
freedoms. There are many who argue that the best way to spread democracy is by lifting the embargo and
travel restrictions. U.S. Rep. Michael Honda argues that an influx of politically enlightened U.S.
travelers to Cuba would put Havana in a difficult place, leading to their own people calling for
change. However, this is erroneous . Due to the fractured and weakened state of the embargo, over
be modernized and strengthened.

400,000 U.S. travelers visited Cuba in 2011, making the United States the second-largest source of foreign visitors
after Canada, according to NPRs Nick Miroff. Obviously, this influx of what has been theorized to be libertyprofessing tourists has not resulted in an influx of such democratic ideals into this overwhelmingly federally
controlled country. One example is the case of Alan

arrested in Cuba in 2009

Gross, an American citizen working for USAID. He was

under the allegations of Acts against the Independence and Territorial Integrity of

He is
currently serving the fourth of his fifteen-year conviction , is in poor health, and receiving
little to no aid from the U.S., according to the Gross Family website. In light of this, it is hard to believe that
the U.S. would be able to protect a large number of tourists in a hostile nation ,
the State while distributing computers and technological equipment to Jewish communities in Cuba.

especially when they plan to profess political freedom. This view is further promoted by the Ladies in White, a
Cuban dissident group that supports the embargo. They fear ending it would only serve to strengthen the current

Allowing American travelers to

visit Cuba does not help propel the cause of Cuban democracy; it hampers it. Still there is the idea
dictatorial regime because the real blockade, they claim, is within Cuba.

that further increasing American tourism to this nearby Caribbean island will at least aid their impoverished citizens
in some manner, but this is neither a straight-forward nor easy solution. From the annual throng of American
visitors, U.S. Senator Marco Rubio declared at a 2011 Western Hemisphere Subcommittee Hearing that an
estimated, $4

billion a year flow directly to the Cuban government from remittances

and travel by Cuban Americans, which is perhaps the single largest source of
revenue to the most repressive government in the region. These remittances are sent by Americans to help
their Cuban families, not support the Cuban government. It is also a common belief that the Cuban
embargo is a leading cause of poverty among the Cuban citizens and that lifting the
embargo would go a long way toward improving the Cuban standard of living.

However, no amount of money can increase the living standards there as long as
their current regime stands. 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, states Alvaro Vargas Llosa, Senior Fellow of The Center on Global Prosperity at The Independent

unfortunate it may be, Cuba, in its current state, is a nation consisting only of a
wealthy and powerful few and an impoverished and oppressed proletariat, who possess little to no means
to escape or even improve their fate. Lifting the trade embargo will not increase the general
prosperity of the Cuban people, but it will increase the prosperity of the government . Ergo,
the poverty and dire situation of the Cuban people cannot be blamed on the United
States or the embargo. No doubt, it has been a fruitless 50 years since the embargo was enacted.
Little has changed as far as democracy and human rights are concerned. To maintain control, Cuba 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
Institute. However

European capital after the collapse of the Berlin Wall, and because Venezuela is its new patron, according to Llosa.
However,

Venezuela is now undergoing a political transition

of its own with the recent death of

Despite
being Chvezs handpicked successor, Maduro only won by a narrow margin and will
Hugo Chvez, its president for the past 14 years, and the controversial election of Nicols Maduro.

likely be forced to cut spending on social programs and foreign assistance in an effort to stabilize Venezuelas dire

now is the ideal time to take action. Without

Venezuelas support, the Cuban government will assuredly face an economic crisis.
Strengthening the embargo to limit U.S. dollars flowing into Cuba would place further pressure
on the Cuban government and has the potential to trigger an economic collapse. A change in the
Cuban political climate is within reach.
economic problems. Therefore,

Ending the embargo doesnt change deep-seated ideological

barriers to democratization only bolsters the regimes ability
to oppress its people
Corzo 9 Humberto (Bert) Corzo, Lift the Cuba Embargo? Cubanet, 4/9/2009,
http://www.cubanet.org/CNews/y09/abril09/09_O_3.html

Lifting the embargo Cuban economys bankruptcy is the sole responsibility of Castros regime. Under this system
the economy will continuous to deteriorate without any hope of improvement. The economy is closely linked to the
social development and standard of living of the Cuban people, which make very difficult the improvement of those

Cubas problems are not the result of the embargo; they

are due to the corruption and ineffectiveness of a system that is against private
property and free enterprise. These and no others are the real reasons of the
problems. Lifting the embargo and travel ban without meaningful changes in Cuba
will: 1. Guarantee the continuation of the current totalitarian structures. 2. Strengthen
state enterprises, since money will flow into businesses owned by the Cuban government. 3. Lead to
greater repression and control since Castro and the leadership will fear that U.S. influence will subvert
the revolution. 4. Delay instead of accelerate a transition to democracy on the island. The necessary
under the existing regime.

steps required to be taken by the Cuban government to lift the ban on trade and travel between the two countries
shall be: 1. Opposition parties should have the freedom to organize, assemble, and speak, with equal access to all
airwaves. Political prisoners must be released and allowed to participate. 2. Human rights organizations should be
free to visit Cuba to ensure that the conditions for free elections are being created. 3. Eliminate the tourist
apartheid, where large number of hotels, resorts, beaches and restaurants are off-limits to the average Cuban, and
the medical apartheid in some hospital that are adequately equipped and do not lack anything, and which are
After all it was the United
States and the European Union embargo, not investments, which helped end
apartheid in South Africa.

reserved for the nomenclature, the party elite and foreigners who pay in dollars.

No Solvency
US cant exert pressure for democratic reforms hampered by
recent White House scandals
Migranyan 7/5 Andranik Migranyan, Scandals Harm U.S. Soft Power, The
National Interest, 7/5/2013, http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/scandals-harmus-soft-power-8695
For the past few months, the United States has been rocked by a series of scandals. It all
started with the events in Benghazi, when Al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists attacked the General Consulate
there and murdered four diplomats, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya. Then there was the scandal
exposed when it was revealed that the Justice Department was monitoring the calls
of the Associated Press. The Internal Revenue Service seems to have targeted certain political
groups. Finally, there was the vast National Security Agency apparatus for monitoring
online activity revealed by Edward Snowden. Together, these events provoke a number of questions about the
path taken by contemporary Western societies, and especially the one taken by America. Large and powerful
institutions, especially those in the security sphere, have become unaccountable to the public, even to
representatives of the people themselves. Have George Orwells cautionary tales of total government control over
society been realized? At the end of the 1960s and the beginning of the 1970s, my fellow students and I read
Orwells 1984 and other dystopian stories and believed them to portray fascist Germany or the Soviet Uniontwo
totalitarian regimesbut today it has become increasingly apparent that Orwell, Huxley and other dystopian
authors had seen in their own countries (Britain and the United States) certain trends, especially as technological
capabilities grew, that would ultimately allow governments to exert total control over their societies. The potential
for this type of all-knowing regime is what Edward Snowden revealed, confirming the worst fears that the dystopias

the spying scandals have seriously

tarnished the reputation of the United States. They have circumscribed its
ability to exert soft power; the same influence that made the U.S. model very attractive to the rest of
the world. This former lustre is now diminished. The blatant everyday intrusions into
the private lives of Americans, and violations of individual rights and liberties by
runaway, unaccountable U.S. government agencies, have deprived the United
States of its authority to dictate how others must live and what others must do.
Washington can no longer lecture others when its very foundational institutions and
values are being discreditedor at a minimum, when all is not well in the state of Denmark.
are already being realized. On a practical geopolitical level,

AT: Democracy Impact

Democratic peace empirically false and fails due to backsliding
Mearsheimer 1 John J. Mearsheimer, R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service

Professor of political science at the University of Chicago and co-director of the

Program on International Security Policy, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, 2001,
pp. 367-368
As challenges to realism go, democratic peace theory is among the strongest. Still, it has serious problems
that ultimately make it unconvincing. The theorys proponents maintain that the
available evidence shows that democracies do not fight other democracies. But
other scholars who have examined the historical record dispute this claim. Perhaps
the most telling evidence against the theory is Christopher Laynes careful analysis
of four crises in which rival democracies almost went to war with each other .14
When one looks at how the decision not to fight was reached in each case, the fact
that both sides were democracies appears to have mattered little. There certainly is
no evidence that the rival democracies had benign intentions toward each other. In
fact, the outcome each time was largely determined by balance-of-power
considerations. Another reason to doubt democratic peace theory is the problem of
backsliding. No democracy can be sure that another democracy will not someday
become an authoritarian state, in which case the remaining democracy would no
longer be safe and secure.15 Prudence dictates that democracies prepare for that
eventuality, which means striving to have as much power as possible just in case a
friendly neighbor turns into the neighborhood bully. But even if one rejects these
criticisms and embraces democratic peace theory, it is still unlikely that all the great
powers in the system will become democratic and stay that way over the long term.
It would only take a non-democratic China or Russia to keep power politics in play, and both of those states are
likely to be non-democratic for at least part of the twenty-first century.16

Democratization doesnt solve war

Kupchan 11 Professor of International Affairs Georgetown University, April
11(Charles A, Enmity into Amity: How Peace Breaks Out, http://library.fes.de/pdffiles/iez/07977.pdf)
Second, contrary to conventional wisdom, democracy is not a necessary condition for stable
peace. Although liberal democracies appear to be better equipped to fashion zones of peace due to their

readiness to institutionalize strategic restraint and their more open societies an attribute that advantages societal

regime type is a poor predictor of the potential for

enemies to become friends. The Concert of Europe was divided between two
liberalizing countries (Britain and France) and three absolute monarchies (Russia, Prussia, and
Austria), but nevertheless preserved peace in Europe for almost four decades. Gen-eral Suharto was
a repressive leader at home, but after taking power in 1966 he nonetheless guided Indonesia
toward peace with Malaysia and played a leading role in the founding of ASEAN. Brazil and
Argentina embarked down the path to peace in 1979 when both countries were ruled by
military juntas. These findings indicate that non-democracies can be reliable partners in peace and make clear
that the United States, the EU, and democracies around the world should choose enemies and
friends on the basis of other states foreign policy behav-ior, not the nature of their domestic
institutions.
integration and narrative/identity change

ECONOMY ADV

UQ US Economy Up
The economy has turned around tech innovation and lower
energy and health care costs buoy recovery
Schwartz 6/10 Nelson D. Schwartz, Analysts forecast solid growth for US
economic rebound, Boston Globe, 6/10/2013,
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2013/06/15/analysts-predict-solid-growthfor-economic-rebound/QVdFATRCoX4pngCFqrwRII/story.html
But could the New Normal, as this long economic slog has been called, be growing old? That is
the surprising new view of a number of economists in academia and on Wall Street, who
are now predicting something the United States has not experienced in years: healthier, more
lasting growth. The improving outlook is one reason the stock market has risen so
sharply this year, even if street-level evidence for a turnaround , like strong job growth and
income gains, has been scant so far. A prominent convert to this emerging belief is Tyler Cowen, an economics
professor at George Mason University near Washington and author of The Great Stagnation, a 2011 bestseller,
who has gone from doomsayer to a decidedly more optimistic perspective. He is not predicting an imminent
resurgence. Like most academic economists, Cowen focuses on the next quarter-century rather than the next

new technologies like artificial intelligence and online education, increased

domestic energy production, and slowing growth in the cost of health care have
prompted Cowen to reappraise the countrys prospects. Its better than it
looked, Cowen said. Technological progress comes in batches and its just a little
more rapid than it looked two years ago. His next book, Average Is Over: Powering America Beyond
quarter. But

the Age of the Great Stagnation, is due out in September.

Ignore their doomsaying 2013 and 2014 will show strong

economic growth expert consensus
Schwartz 6/10 Nelson D. Schwartz, Analysts forecast solid growth for US
economic rebound, Boston Globe, 6/10/2013,
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2013/06/15/analysts-predict-solid-growthfor-economic-rebound/QVdFATRCoX4pngCFqrwRII/story.html
Two widely followed economic forecasters, Morgan Stanley and IHS Global Insight,
have both increased their estimates for growth in recent days. Its been a long time coming,
said Nariman Behravesh, chief economist at IHS. There is more optimism about the US and in
particular about the second half of this year and 2014. Three months ago, we wouldnt
have come to that same conclusion. Indeed, a number of forecasters are now
predicting that the expansion, which began in 2009 and has remained subpar ever since, might
prove to be far more durable than the typical five-to-six-year growth cycle , in part
because of the absence of the traditional boom, then bust pattern . In particular, Behravesh
and other economists said, the economy has shown greater resilience than expected in
the face of tax increases and spending cuts in Washington . As the impact from this
fiscal tightening eases, the overall growth rate should pick up. Behravesh now expects the
annual growth rate to rise to 2.9 percent in 2014 and 3.5 percent in 2015. If hes right, it would mark the fastest
annual growth since 2005, when the economy expanded by 3.1 percent. It is also well above the 2 percent rise in

Congressional Budget Office also

sees relatively fast growth of 3.4 percent next year, and 3.6 percent between 2015
and 2018. A few other private economists are even more bullish. Jim Glassman, senior economist at
JP Morgan Chases commercial bank, estimates the economy could expand by 4
percent in both 2014 and 2015. If that were to come to pass, it would be the strongest backto-back annual growth since the late 1990s.
output the economy has averaged over the last three years. The nonpartisan

No Solvency
Lifting the embargo doesnt solve inequality just pads the
pockets of elites
Bustillo 13 Mitchell Bustillo, Time to Strengthen the Cuban Embargo,
International Policy Digest, 5/9/2013,
http://www.internationalpolicydigest.org/2013/05/09/time-to-strengthen-the-cubanembargo/

Still there is the idea that further increasing American tourism to this nearby Caribbean island will at least aid their
impoverished citizens in some manner, but this is neither a straight-forward nor easy solution .
From the annual throng of American visitors, U.S. Senator Marco Rubio declared at a 2011 Western Hemisphere

an estimated, $4 billion a year flow directly to the Cuban

government from remittances and travel by Cuban Americans, which is perhaps the
single largest source of revenue to the most repressive government in the region.
Subcommittee Hearing that

These remittances are sent by Americans to help their Cuban families, not support the Cuban government. It is also
a common belief that the Cuban embargo is a leading cause of poverty among the Cuban citizens and that lifting

no amount of
money can increase the living standards there as long as their current regime
stands. 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 nonAmerican foreign investors, states Alvaro Vargas Llosa, Senior Fellow of The Center on Global Prosperity
at The Independent Institute. However unfortunate it may be, Cuba, in its current state, is a nation
consisting only of a wealthy and powerful few and an impoverished and oppressed
proletariat, who possess little to no means to escape or even improve their fate.
Lifting the trade embargo will not increase the general prosperity of the Cuban
people, but it will increase the prosperity of the government . Ergo, the poverty and dire
situation of the Cuban people cannot be blamed on the United States or the embargo.
the embargo would go a long way toward improving the Cuban standard of living. However,

AT: US Agriculture
Ag isnt key to the US economy their evidence is just rhetoric
and empirically denied
Hoenig 2 Thomas M. Hoenig, Intl Confed. for Ag. Credit, 9-23-2002, Agricultural
Lenders, http://www.kc.frb.org/SPCH&BIO/IntnlConfAgCredit.pdf

While continued consolidation poses a challenge, an even bigger challenge may be adjusting to a dynamic rural
economy where agricultures direct role is declining. Many of your member institutions were created when

agriculture dominated the rural economy. That is simply no longer the case throughout
much of the developed world. Other non-agricultural industries are becoming more
important in the rural economy. Agriculture can still supply new growth to the rural economy, especially
through a new generation of products, but agricultures role in the rural economy seems likely
to continue its trend to still lower levels in the years to come . Here in the United States, we
can track this trend for agriculture. Agriculture accounts for less than 2 percent of U.S.[GDP]
gross domestic product. Similarly, agricultures share of the U.S. civilian labor force has
fallen from 12 percent in 1950 to only 2 percent in 2000. The smaller role of agriculture in the
rural economy is even more striking. During the past 30 years, agricultures share of employment has
fallen from 4.9 to 3.1 percent. Agricultures share of rural income has fallen more than half, from
13 percent to 5.0 percent. In short, agriculture is now the primary source of income in only one in every 10
rural counties. Agricultures declining role in the economy is not unique to the United States, of course. The trend is
widespread throughout the developed world. By 2000, agriculture accounted for less than 5 percent of GDP in most
developed countries and less than 2 percent in Japan, the United Kingdom, and Germany. Agricultures share of the
labor force fell from a third to approximately 6 percent in Japan during the past 40 years. During the same time
period, agricultural employment fell sharply in other countries across the globe, including Germany, France,
Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom.

AT: Economy Impact

No risk or impact to economic decline
Drezner 11 Daniel W. Drezner, professor of international politics at the Fletcher

School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, Please come down off the ledge,
dear readers, Foreign Policy, 8/12/11,
http://drezner.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/08/12/please_come_down_off_the_ledge
_dear_readers
So, when we last left off this debate, things were looking grim. My concern in the last post was that the persistence
of hard times would cause governments to take actions that would lead to a collapse of the open global economy, a

Let's assume that the

global economy persists in sputtering for a while, because that's what happens after
major financial shocks. Why won't these other bad things happen? Why isn't it 1931? Let's start with the
obvious -- it's not gonna be 1931 because there's some passing familiarity with how
1931 played out. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve has devoted much of his
academic career to studying the Great Depression . I'm gonna go out on a limb therefore and
assert that if the world plunges into a another severe downturn, it's not gonna be
because central bank heads replay the same set of mistakes. The legacy of the
Great Depression has also affected public attitudes and institutions that provide
much stronger cement for the current system. In terms of [public] attitudes, compare the results of
spike in general riots and disturbances, and eerie echoes of the Great Depression.

this mid-2007 poll with this mid-2010 poll about which economic system is best. I'll just reproduce the key charts
below: The headline of the 2010 results is that there's eroding U.S. support for the global economy, but a few other

U.S. support has declined, but it's declined from a very high level. In
contrast, support for free markets has increased in other major powers, such as
Germany and China. On the whole, despite the worst global economic crisis since
the Great Depression, public attitudes have not changed all that much. While there
might be populist demands to "do something," that something is not a return to
autarky or anything so [drastic]. Another big difference is that multilateral economic
institutions are much more robust now than they were in 1931. On trade matters,
even if the Doha round is dead, the rest of the World Trade Organization's corpus of
trade-liberalizing measures are still working quite well. Even beyond the WTO, the
complaint about trade is not the deficit of free-trade agreements but the surfeit of
them. The IMF's resources have been strengthened as a result of the 2008 financial
crisis. The Basle Committee on Banking Supervision has already promulgated a plan
to strengthen capital requirements for banks. True, it's a slow, weak-assed plan, but it would be an
things stand out.

improvement over the status quo. As for the G-20, I've been pretty skeptical about that group's abilities to
collectively address serious macroeconomic problems. That is setting the bar rather high, however. One could argue
that the G-20's most useful function is reassurance. Even if there are disagreements, communication can prevent
them from growing into anything worse. Finally, a note about the possibility of riots and other general social unrest.
The working paper cited in my previous post noted the links between austerity measures and increases in
disturbances. However, that paper contains the following important paragraph on page 19: [I]n countries with
better institutions, the responsiveness of unrest to budget cuts is generally lower. Where constraints on the
executive are minimal, the coefficient on expenditure changes is strongly negative -- more spending buys a lot of
social peace. In countries with Polity-2 scores above zero, the coefficient is about half in size, and less significant.

As we limit the sample to ever more democratic countries, the size of the coefficient
declines. For full democracies with a complete range of civil rights, the coefficient is
still negative, but no longer significant. This is good news!! The world has a hell of a lot
more democratic governments now than it did in 1931. What happened in London,
in other words, might prove to be the exception more than the rule. So yes, the recent

economic news might seem grim. Unless political institutions and public attitudes buckle, however, we're unlikely to
repeat the mistakes of the 1930's. And, based on the data we've got, that's not going to happen.

No rally around the flag effect

Jervis 11 Robert Jervis, Professor in the Department of Political Science and
School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University, Force in Our
Times, Survival, Vol. 25, No. 4, 2011, pp. 403-425

Even if war is still seen as evil, the security community could be dissolved if severe conflicts of interest were to
arise. Could the more peaceful world generate new interests that would bring the members of the community into
sharp disputes? 45 A zero-sum sense of status would be one example, perhaps linked to a steep rise in nationalism.

a worsening of the current economic difficulties, which could itself

produce greater nationalism, undermine democracy and bring back old-fashioned
beggar-my-neighbor economic policies. While these dangers are real, it is hard to
believe that the conflicts could be great enough to lead the members of the
community to contemplate fighting each other. It is not so much that economic
interdependence has proceeded to the point where it could not be reversed states that were more
internally interdependent than anything seen internationally have fought bloody civil wars. Rather it is that
even if the more extreme versions of free trade and economic liberalism become
discredited, it is hard to see how without building on a preexisting high level of political conflict
leaders and mass opinion would come to believe that their countries could prosper
by impoverishing or even attacking others. Is it possible that problems will not only become severe,
but that people will entertain the thought that they have to be solved by war? While a pessimist could
note that this argument does not appear as outlandish as it did before the financial
crisis, an optimist could reply (correctly, in my view) that the very fact that we have
seen such a sharp economic down-turn without anyone suggesting that force of arms is
the solution shows that even if bad times bring about greater economic conflict, it
will not make war thinkable.
More likely would be

Global economy is resilient

Zakaria 9 Fareed Zakaria, PhD in political science from Harvard, editor of
Newsweek, serves on the board of the Council on Foreign Relations, The Secrets of
Stability, Newsweek, 12/11/2009,
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/12/11/the-secrets-of-stability.html

One year later, how much has the world really changed? Well, Wall Street is home to two fewer investment banks
(three, if you count Merrill Lynch). Some regional banks have gone bust. There was some turmoil in Moldova and
(entirely unrelated to the financial crisis) in Iran. Severe problems remain, like high unemployment in the West, and

overall,
things look nothing like they did in the 1930s. The predictions of economic and
political collapse have not materialized at all. A key measure of fear and fragility is
the ability of poor and unstable countries to borrow money on the debt markets. So
consider this: the sovereign bonds of tottering Pakistan have returned 168 percent
so far this year. All this doesn't add up to a recovery yet, but it does reflect a return
to some level of normalcy. And that rebound has been so rapid that even the shrewdest observers remain
we face new problems caused by responses to the crisissoaring debt and fears of inflation. But

puzzled. "The question I have at the back of my head is 'Is that it?' " says Charles Kaye, the co-head of Warburg

This revival did not happen

because markets managed to stabilize themselves on their own. Rather,
governments, having learned the lessons of the Great Depression, were determined
not to repeat the same mistakes once this crisis hit. By massively expanding state
support for the economythrough central banks and national treasuriesthey
buffered the worst of the damage. (Whether they made new mistakes in the process remains to be
seen.) The extensive social safety nets that have been established across the
industrialized world also cushioned the pain felt by many. Times are still tough, but
things are nowhere near as bad as in the 1930s, when governments played a tiny
role in national economies. It's true that the massive state interventions of the past year may be fueling
Pincus. "We had this huge crisis, and now we're back to business as usual?"

some new bubbles: the cheap cash and government guarantees provided to banks, companies, and consumers

rallies also demonstrate the

return of confidence, and confidence is a very powerful economic force . When John
Maynard Keynes described his own prescriptions for economic growth, he believed government action
could provide only a temporary fix until the real motor of the economy started
cranking againthe animal spirits of investors, consumers, and companies seeking
risk and profit. Beyond all this, though, I believe there's a fundamental reason why we have
not faced global collapse in the last year. It is the same reason that we weathered
the stock-market crash of 1987, the recession of 1992, the Asian crisis of 1997, the
Russian default of 1998, and the tech-bubble collapse of 2000. The current global
economic system is inherently more resilient than we think. The world today is
characterized by three major forces for stability, each reinforcing the other and each
historical in nature.
have fueled some irrational exuberance in stock and bond markets. Yet these

WW2 example is wrong

Ferguson 6 Niall Ferguson, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard
University and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, Foreign
Affairs, Vol. 85, Issue 5, September/October 2006
Nor can economic crises explain the bloodshed. What may be the most familiar causal chain in modern
historiography links the Great Depression to the rise of fascism and the outbreak of World War II. But that simple

Nazi Germany started the war in Europe only after its economy
had recovered. Not all the countries affected by the Great Depression were taken
over by fascist regimes, nor did all such regimes start wars of aggression . In fact, no
general relationship between economics and conflict is discernible for the century
as a whole. Some wars came after periods of growth, others were the causes rather than the consequences of
story leaves too much out.

economic catastrophe, and some severe economic crises were not followed by wars.