You are on page 1of 208

1AC – Solvency

Plan: The United States federal government should offer to sign a science and technology agreement with Cuba. Its topical and solves – science and technology agreements create a bilateral framework for economic engagement State Department (“Science and Technology Cooperation”,
http://www.state.gov/e/oes/stc/) Thirty U.S. S&T Agreements worldwide establish bilateral frameworks to facilitate the exchange of scientific results, provide for protection and allocation of i ntellectual p roperty r ights and benefit sharing, facilitate access for researchers, address taxation issues, and respond to the complex set of issues associated with economic development, domestic security and regional stability. S&T cooperation supports
the

establishment of science-based industries , encourages investment
the

in national science infrastructure , education and promotes international trade and dialogue on

application of scientific standards , protection

issues of direct import to global security, such as

of the environment and management of natural resources . S&T collaboration assists USG agencies to establish partnerships with counterpart institutions abroad. These relationships enable
them to fulfill their individual responsibilities by providing all parties with access to new resources, materials, information, and research. High priority areas include such areas as agricultural and industrial biotechnology research (including research on microorganisms, plant and animal genetic materials, both aquatic and terrestrial), health sciences, marine research, natural products chemistry, environment and energy research.

The Plan is key to effective US-Cuba engagement – Cuba would say yes and science cooperation solves a laundry list of impacts Lempinen 12 – AAAS reporter, AAAS is The AAAS Center for Science Diplomacy is guided by the over-arching goal of using
science to build bridges between countries and to promote scientific cooperation as an essential element of foreign policy. Since its establishment in 2008, the Center has been particularly interested in identifying opportunities for science diplomacy to serve as a catalyst between societies where official relationships might be limited and to strengthen civil society interactions through partnerships in science and technology. In 2012, the Center launched a new open-access, quarterly publication, Science & Diplomacy, as a forum for policy discourse at the nexus of scientific cooperation and foreign policy. (Edward, “Oceans, Weather, Health—U.S. Researchers Explore Potential Collaboration with Cuban Colleagues”, May 1, 2012, http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2012/0501cuba.shtml HW) They are next-door neighbors, sharing all the amenities and challenges of the neighborhood—oceans

teeming with life, the risk of tropical diseases, a changing climate that may be giving rise to bigger and more frequent hurricanes. And yet, because the neighbors are barely on speaking terms, they cannot share the opportunities and the responsibilities that come with solving the challenges. Today, however, scientists in both Cuba and the United States are exploring whether a thaw in relations between the two nations could allow for a range of new or expanded joint research projects that could bring benefits to both nations and others in the Caribbean Basin.
Recent visits and consultations facilitated by AAAS and the Academia de Ciencias de Cuba (Academy of Sciences of Cuba) underscored that both

sides see potential for substantive science collaboration. “The recent visits showed that the Cuban mindset is really ready to reach out,” said Peter Agre, a Nobel laureate in chemistry and

a former president of AAAS, who returned in March from his third visit to the nation. “The scientists would have no trouble working together... The Cubans are understandably proud of their science, and they see us very positively. I would anticipate if we could normalize relations and do science as a starting point, then really good things could happen.” “The possibility of open scientific exchange between researchers in Cuba and the U.S. can only bring increased benefits for both scientific communities, and of course, for the people in their respective countries,” said Sergio Jorge Pastrana, foreign secretary of the Academia de Ciencias de Cuba.
“The kind of scientific development that took place in Cuba for the last half-century has produced original results that have been internationally recognized as being in the frontiers of knowledge in several fields. Science,

along with technology and innovation, has produced outcomes that are important for societies not only in Cuba and the United States, but in neighboring countries of the Caribbean, and for sustainable development everywhere.” Vaughan C. Turekian, director of the AAAS Center for Science Diplomacy, said that researchers from both nations have focused on science, not on the politics that have divided the two nations
for a half-century. “Especially on the environmental side, there is not an issue that we discussed that doesn’t have direct implications and impact both on Cuba and the United States,” said Turekian, who also serves as AAAS’s chief international off icer. “Given the proximity, when you’re talking about atmospheric or marine science, if it travels to Cuba, it travels to the Southeast coast of United States, too. If it spawns off the coast of Cuba, it is caught or affected by currents that go into the United States.” The AAAS Center for Science Diplomacy organized an initial three-day visit to Cuba in November 2009, with Agre, then the AAAS president, and seven other U.S. science leaders. AAAS helped to facilitate a second visit last December, with 18 independent scientists traveling to the island for informal talks centered on marine science, atmospheric science, environmental change, conserving biodiversity at large scales, sustainable fisheries, and capacity-building. Agre, who heads the Johns Hopkins Malaria Research Institute, returned to Cuba in March to speak at Biotechnology Havana 2012, an international congress that focused on medical applications of biotech. Since the early 1960s, just after the Cuban revolution, the two neighbors have been locked in a Caribbean cold war; though they are just 90 miles apart, the relationship has been characterized by economic and cultural barriers, sometimes sharp political conflict, and broad dimensions of mistrust. Advocates

see science diplomacy as a way to do important research with value for all sides, and to build constructive engagement in a non-political environment. History dating back well over 100 years suggests that Cuba and the United States are “natural scientific partners,”
Pastrana said in an April email interview. “As both science communities were establishing their own scientific institutions during the 19th century, many scientists and scholars from both countries started links of exchange, discussion and cooperation,” he said. “The relations of Cuban scientific research centers, as well as of many scientists and scholars, with the Smithsonian Institution, universities like Harvard, Columbia or Yale, go way back and, in many ways, have been important for both sides for a very long time. “Some of those links have never disappeared, and have continued over particularly difficult moments, overcoming political hurdles, to produce important publications, collections, and scientific results that are of benefit to the peoples in both countries.” The recent engagements have allowed AAAS and other scientists to further develop their ties with Pastrana and Fidel Ángel Castro Díaz-Balart— Fidel Castro’s oldest son—a nuclear physicist and leader in his nation’s science policy community. The December trip also included a special side event: Agre and Alan Robock, a Rutgers atmospheric scientist, were invited to a three-hour meeting with former Cuban leader Fidel Castro, Castro’s wife, and his sons Fidel and Antonio, an orthopedic surgeon. “The meeting with Fidel was really interesting,” Agre said. “It was about the past. He spoke about his family, growing up... He described the Revolution, the Bay of Pigs, the missile crisis. It was a much different perspective than I expected. “I mostly listened. If I meet him again—and I don’t know if I will—he asked me to bring him my research papers. But the fact that he and I sat in the same room—he didn’t see me as an enemy. I’m a scientist, born the same year as his son.” But the

central focus of the Cuban meetings was science, and informal scientist-to-scientist consultations and discussions. They focused on common interests and on the
prospects—and challenges—of working together. “There’s a definite pride in the work they do there, and the research they do,” said Joanne Carney, director of the AAAS Office of Government Relations. “When we talk about collaboration, they really want honest collaboration and partnership, as opposed to funding or resources. They

definitely are interested in pursuing areas of mutual interest.” Malaria and the Caribbean Both Turekian and Agre cited malaria as one area where the U.S. scientists might learn much from Cuba. And that might tie in to an interest shared by both countries in
working to support health and human development in the impoverished Caribbean nation of Haiti. “Malaria is endemic in Haiti,” Agre said. “It was endemic in Cuba, but one of the objectives of the revolution was to eliminate malaria—and they achieved that. How did they do it? That’s something I would like to pursue.... In Cuba, vaccinations and prevention are a high priority.” Unchecked malaria or other diseases in Haiti can be a destabilizing factor even for neighboring nations, Turekian said. “It leads to a lot of people moving back and forth, and it reduces Haiti’s internal strength and stability,” he explained. “So Cuba and the United States could have mutual interests in working on this.” So too with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), added Agre. Because of hurricanes, earthquakes, crime and other human disasters, PTSD is widespread in Haiti. “The Cubans have an interest in that, and we have an interest in that,” he said. “We could work on it together.” Atmospheric

Science Atmospheric research is another area where Cuba and the United States share tangible common interests. Hurricanes and
other storms go over Cuba en route to the United States. Clues gained from atmospheric conditions over the Caribbean can give insights—and perhaps early warning—about tornados in Oklahoma and Arkansas, or storms in Chicago and New York. It is an area of

particular interest for Turekian, an atmospheric geochemist. “There

is no doubt that real atmospheric science involving Cuba—measurements, understanding of atmospheric conditions—is important not only for better understanding of transport of African dust, but also for getting a handle on how atmospheric conditions and dynamics affect the Gulf of Mexico and the southeastern United States,” he said.
“Given that tornadoes are driven by really complicated dynamics that involve large amounts of warm air coming up through the Gulf and interacting with cold fronts, any data we can gain can mean lives saved.... But you can’t

hope to understand things like storms as they affect the Southeast Coast of the United States without having better joint cooperation between scientists in the U.S. and Cuba, and without research, instruments, and
calibration to measure dynamics that affect us both.” Still, both Turekian and Robock suggested that official mistrust and the trade embargo combine to make such collaboration on climate research difficult, if not impossible. Robock, in an interview, outlined efforts by the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder to install global positioning system devices in the central Cuban city of Camaguey. The GPS devices receive signals from satellites; microwave signals are affected by transmission through the atmosphere, and depending on the density of the atmosphere, that allows for insights on weather and climate change. There are nearly 100 such devices in the Caribbean, Robock explained, but Cuba, though one of the largest land masses in the Caribbean, hosts none of them. “Basic weather data are already shared by all the countries of the world,” he said. “But taking specific measurements there with the GPS would be useful to Cubans and to the larger community. It gives you better information about the state of the atmosphere—temperature, humidity, soil moisture. That’s what you need to start a weather forecast model.” But the Cuban military is wary of the GPS devices, and the nation has not approved the installation. At the same time, the

U.S. embargo of Cuba makes it impossible for Cuban scientists to come to the United States for even a week-long course in how to use a computer climate model. “Scientists from both countries want to work together,” Robock said. “We’ll do the best we can... but there are significant limitations.”
hurricanes and other conditions that affect the Caribbean and the southeastern United States. To do that, we “From the scientific standpoint,” Turekian added, “this is about the ability to go to a place to make measurements so that we can better understand

need relationships and protocols so that Americans and the Cubans together can benefit from measurements in Cuba.” Marine Science Coral reefs in much of the Caribbean have sustained significant damage from
human activity—over-fishing, climate change, oil spills, and other pollution. But off of Cuba’s coasts, says marine scientist Nancy Knowlton, the reefs have been less exposed to development, and they’re in better health. Knowlton is the Sant Chair for Marine Science at Smithsonian Institution and senior scientist emeritus at Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute. She’s worked in fields of marine biodiversity and ecology; coral reefs are her specialty. Save for a cruise that stopped in Guantanamo, she’d never been to Cuba, but on her visit in December, she was deeply impressed with opportunities for research in the Cuban reefs and by the marine science already underway there. “There are amazing habitats, much less impacted by people than most places in Caribbean, in terms of over-fishing and that sort of thing,” she said. “And there’s a large community of marine biologists there, many with shared interest in biodiversity and conservation.” For Knowlton, the Cuban reefs are like “a window in time,” allowing researchers a view of what healthy reefs looked like in an era past. “They give you a baseline as to what a healthy fish community should look like,” she explained. And that gives greater insight into other Caribbean reefs where damage is more pronounced. “So there are a lot of things to learn from Cuban marine scientists,” she said. “And there are a lot of reasons for Cubans to come here, or for Cubans to come and work at the Smithsonian. There’s

a huge potential for interchange because there are so many shared interests.” Small Steps, Significant Potential Those shared interests appear to extend across many fields.
Carney, whose parents were born in Cuba, met in December with Cuban counterparts who study and help shape government science and technology policy. “From my own perspective in talking to their scientists, I was struck by some of the similarities between our communities,” Carney said. The Cubans “face challenges in policy decisions regarding research priorities, and how to balance between basic research and applied research. They provide universal health care, and so life science research is a bit more targeted, a bit more applied. But looking forward, you want to balance the applied portion with the basic research. “It’s interesting that we’re both faced with similar issues, even though our systems are different.” Scientists

from both countries are aware, of course, of the considerable obstacles that stand in the way of full collaboration. Visas and the U.S. embargo are obvious problems. But where scientists in a wealthy nation like the United States take digital and Internet resources for granted, bandwidth in Cuba can be so limited that it’s difficult or impossible to exchange data. Given those constraints, the immediate prospects for full, constructive engagement between science communities are slender at best. And yet Robock, Carney,
and others said the visits have made clear that working with Cuban scientists is easier than it might appear. “Any academic can go to Cuba and spend money without restriction,” Robock explained. “You need a license from the U.S. Treasury Department to spend money, but as a researcher, you are subject to the existing general license. So many more Americans could go to Cuba and start doing science with them—but they don’t know that they can.” One of the ideas to emerge from the discussions, Carney said, was a Web resource page that would provide such practical information to both scientific communities. These may be small steps, but they have a significant value in helping to build the foundation for collaboration among researchers in Cuba and the United States.

Though the formal relationship between the two nations has long been strained, the scientists

are betting on better times ahead, even if they don’t know exactly when. “While it’s been the same for
50 years, it will change—political relationships always do,” said Turekian. “Whenever that relationship changes, you want to be in place where you have the groundwork laid and relationships built so you can take advantage of areas where science cooperation can actually contribute to both countries.” In the meantime, efforts will continue, building on the collegiality that visitors to the island have shared with their hosts. “Everyone who

was there was a pretty good science diplomat,” said Knowlton. “There was no uneasiness—there was a lot of curiosity on both sides to meet people and find out what people
are doing.... Everyone was going out of their way to be gracious. That’s important—you have to be willing to listen as well as to talk. It was lovely. I’d really like to go back.” Added Agre: “Non-governmental science and AAAS have a tremendously important role to play. More

than ever, science is a way for us to break barriers between adversaries. It’s a constructive way for the world to move ahead.” Pastrana, too, sounded an ambitious note for the future. “Any
hurdle that comes in the way of international exchange in science is limiting its capacity to be of help for increasing the resilience of this world’s environments,” he said. “Only the knowledge, technologies, and products that come from scientific developments could provide the tools for societies to be able to continue human development in harmony with the only planet that sustains them so far, which has been abused for the last half-century far beyond its capacity to cope with such abuse. “Let

us be in favor of scientists and their open communication everywhere. In this way, they would be able to contribute to the sustainability of human societies on planet Earth.”

Status quo is insufficient – removing barriers to science cooperation is key Johnson 12 – CSIS, a senior fellow and director of the Americas Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies,
a Washington, D.C.-based think tank. He has more than 20 years of experience in Western Hemisphere affairs spanning policymaking, policy advocacy, and public affairs in the Department of Defense, the Washington policy community, and the State Department. From 2007 to 2009, Johnson served as deputy assistant secretary of defense for Western Hemisphere affairs, overseeing the development and execution of policies, strategies, and programs governing hemispheric defense and security ties. From 1999 to 2006, Johnson served as a senior foreign policy analyst at the Washington-based Heritage Foundation, testifying before Congress and authoring studies on U.S. policy as well as Latin American politics, trade, development, and security. His commentaries have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Miami Herald, Business Week, and Diario Las Américas. His broadcast appearances have included CNN en Español, Univisión, Telemundo, C-SPAN, and MSNBC. He is the author of Iran’s Influence in the Americas. (Stephen, “U.S.-Cuba Academic and Science-Based Exchanges”, August 2012, http://csis.org/files/publication/120821_Johnson_U.S.-CubaExchanges_Web.pdf, HW) Since the early days of official U.S. public diplomacy at the outset of the Cold War, promoting

dialogue with citizens of foreign nations has been a way to build bridges of understanding and defuse tensions. The
Fulbright Exchange Program, which dates from 1946, and more recent U.S. International Visitor Programs have exposed individuals, some who later became national leaders, to American life and its democratic values. Exchanges with friendly countries are easy and help strengthen existing ties. Exchanges

with hostile nations are sometimes nearly impossible but develop inroads that can lead to better relations. To the extent that the U.S. government can finance much of these activities, Americans consider it good public policy, even though such long-term
investments can take decades to pay off. Pursuing exchange opportunities with Cubans follows this logic, but with a twist. Current U.S. rules allow purposeful travel on the part of academics, students, medical professionals, and journalists. Over the past decade, as many as 2,500 American students a year have studied in Cuba. However, travel

for Cubans to the United States is

extremely limited. Since the revolution that replaced a petty dictator with a repressive, totalitarian government in 1959, the
population has served as a captive labor force in which all able adults were expected to work for the state. In the past two years, that situation has begun to change as a result of the shift in leadership from Fidel Castro to his brother Raúl. The twist is that Cuban authorities remain deeply suspicious of any U.S. government involvement in exchanges and still worry about letting citizens travel to countries where they may be tempted to stay. While lifting the U.S. ban on tourism to Cuba might put feet on the ground and increase chances for superficial encounters, exchanges

afford some measure of control and open the door to relationships that may result in deeper understanding. While artistic and sports exchanges are probably the most familiar, they usually provide only modest exposure, whereas academic exchanges can involve intense discussions and personal interactions. Literature, social science, and economics are safe subjects that generate interesting debates. If they are designed to prevent leakage of sensitive technology, medical, scientific, and technological exchanges can be mutually beneficial and enable further cooperation in such areas as environmental protection, disaster response, and public health. Conferences and study
opportunities that take place in the United States afford the best possibility for enabling Cubans to experience American life and be exposed to democratic values. One caveat must be clearly understood: for the most part, Cuban exchange participants do not represent a broad cross-section of society. Rather, they are government employees, selected on the basis of loyalty to the state. Still, this segment of Cuban society should not be ignored. As it turns out, the United States and Cuba have a long history of exchanges,

ranging from short-term collaboration to long-standing partnerships. From the early twentieth century, the two countries have shared information in fields ranging from meteorology to dentistry. However, decades of tension followed the rise of Cuba’s Sovietstyle dictatorship and the break in bilateral relations. Still, a substantial number of education and science-based initiatives have been attempted since 1961, meeting with success and failure, depending on the political and social climate at the time. It is worth noting that U.S. advocates of science exchanges have pursued initiatives with other closed societies , including Iran, North Korea (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, or DPRK), Syria, and Myanmar. Most have faced significant challenges in arranging visits to partner countries. Nonetheless, these

advocates have helped establish relationships between U.S. and partner country participants that could be expanded when political relations improve. Such relationships include information sharing on topics such as health and medicine, agriculture, forestry, and technology and have contributed lessons on how to facilitate and plan scholarly exchanges in similar situations. Also noteworthy are barriers that both
the United States and Cuba impose on meetings. U.S. restrictions are grounded in legislation that tasks the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) to regulate financial transactions and travel. A party desiring an exchange with Cubans must find a Cuban partner organization and work with the government. Visas for licensed American travelers to visit Cuba legally and exit permits for Cubans to travel to external locations are difficult but not impossible to obtain. Practical impediments include expenses that most Cubans are not able to pay. U.S. migration policies that welcome Cuban asylum seekers coupled with economic opportunities unmatched on the island have also led Cuban authorities to insist on picking participants they believe are likely to remain loyal to the regime and return to the island. Until those situations change, best practices for conducting successful exchanges include observing equality in participant numbers and professional status. Agendas for conferences should be developed jointly to avoid sensitive subjects—a precaution that is especially important for events taking place in Cuba, where freedom of expression is restricted. A recent Latin American studies conference in San Francisco broke this guideline and featured Raúl Castro’s daughter, who said she would vote to reelect President Obama, highlighting the fact that political observations by a U.S. exchange participant would not be tolerated in Cuba.1 Finally, for study opportunities in the United States. For

the time being, prospects remain modest for meaningful exchanges as well as study opportunities for Cubans in the United States. However, properly structured, they might yield beneficial results in building friendly contacts and mutual understanding with Cuba’s younger generations and perhaps future leaders. This is one area where the United States could take measures such as lowering U.S. visa fees, should the regime’s foreign travel restrictions change. Changes in migration
policies that grant automatic residency may not be practical until Cuba implements basic human rights guarantees. Although U.S. regulations are strict and Cuban travel barriers are difficult to overcome, academic

exchanges that result in visits to the United States do occur on an infrequent basis and have the potential to expand if U.S.
educational institutions and associations work within restrictions and guidelines, seek Cuban partners, and pay expenses.

1AC – Advantages
Science cooperation solves Latin American relations, disaster preparedness, tropical diseases, biotechnology and biodiversity Pastrana & Clegg, 08. Foreign Secretary of the Academia de Ciencias de Cuba, Foreign
Secretary of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and Donald Bren Professor of Biological Sciences, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the School of Biological Sciences, University of California (Sergio, Michael, “U.S.-Cuban Scientific Relations”. 7/3/13. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/322/5900/345.full?ijkey=3aK7XuLHCJLJ.&keytype=ref&sit eid=sci. KJ) In a few years, the two oldest national academies of science in the world outside of Europe— those of the United States and Cuba—will celebrate their 150th anniversaries. Yet despite the proximity of both nations and many common scientific interests, the U.S. embargo on exchanges with Cuba, which began in 1961 and is now based on the 1996 U.S. Helms-Burton Act and subsequent regulations, has largely blocked scientific exchange. It's time to establish a new scientific relationship, not only to address shared challenges in health, climate, agriculture, and energy, but also to start building a framework for expanded cooperation. ¶ Restrictions on U.S.-Cuba scientific cooperation deprive both research communities of opportunities that could benefit our societies, as well as others in the hemisphere, particularly in the Caribbean. Cuba is scientifically proficient in disaster management and mitigation, vaccine production, and epidemiology. Cuban scientists could benefit from access to research facilities that are beyond the capabilities of any developing country, and the U.S. scientific community could benefit from high-quality science being done in Cuba. For example, Cuba typically sits in the path of hurricanes bound for the U.S. mainland that create great destruction, as was the case with Hurricane Katrina and again last month with Hurricane Ike. Cuban scientists and engineers have learned how to protect threatened populations and minimize damage. Despite the category 3 rating of Hurricane Ike when it struck Cuba, there was less loss of life after a 3-day pounding than that which occurred when it later struck Texas as a category 2 hurricane. Sharing knowledge in this area would benefit everybody.¶ Another major example where scientific cooperation could save lives is Cuba's extensive research on tropical diseases, such as dengue fever. This viral disease is epidemic throughout the tropics, notably in the Americas, and one of the first recorded outbreaks occurred in Philadelphia in the 18th century. Today, one of the world's most outstanding research centers dedicated to dengue fever is in Cuba, and although it actively cooperates with Latin America and Africa, there is almost no interaction with U.S. scientists. Dengue fever presents a threat to the U.S. mainland, and sharing knowledge resources to counter outbreaks of the disease would be an investment in the health security of both peoples. ¶ Cuba has also made important strides in biotechnology, including the production of several important vaccines and monoclonal antibodies, and its research interests continue to expand in diverse fields, ranging from drug addiction treatment to the preservation of biodiversity. Cuban scientists are engaged in research cooperation with many countries, including the United Kingdom, Brazil, Mexico, China, and India. Yet there is no program of cooperation with any U.S. research institution. ¶ The value system of science—openness, shared communication, integrity, and a respect for

evidence—provides a framework for open engagement and could encourage evidence-based approaches that cross from science into the social, economic, and political arenas . Beyond allowing for the mutual leveraging of knowledge and resources, scientific contacts could build important cultural and social links among peoples. A recent Council on Foreign Relations report argues that the United States needs to revamp its engagement with Latin America because it is no longer the only significant force in this hemisphere. U.S. policies that are seen as unfairly penalizing Cuba, including the imposition of trade limitations that extend into scientific relations, continue to undermine U.S. standing in the entire region, especially because neither Cuba nor any other Latin American country imposes such restrictions . ¶ As a start, we urge that the present license that permits restricted travel to Cuba by scientists , as dictated by the U.S. Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control, be expanded so as to allow direct cooperation in research. At the same time, Cuba should favor increased scientific exchanges. Allowing scientists to fully engage will not only support progress in science, it may well favor positive interactions elsewhere to promote human well-being. The U.S. embargo on Cuba has hindered exchanges for the past 50 years. Let us celebrate our mutual anniversaries by starting a new era of scientific cooperation.

[Relations Impact]
LA relations spill over over to broader relations – solves democracy, warming, and prolif Shifter 12 - President of the Sol M. Linowitz Forum Intern-American Dialogue
Michael, "Remaking the Relationship: The United States and Latin America" Inter-American Dialogue Policy Report -- April -www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD2012PolicyReportFINAL.pdf There are compelling reasons for the United States and Latin America to ¶ pursue more robust ties .¶ Every country in the Americas would benefit from strengthened and ¶ expanded economic relations, with improved access to each other’s markets, investment capital, and energy resources . Even with its current economic problems, the United States’ $16-trillion economy is a vital market ¶ and source of capital (including remittances) and technology for Latin ¶ America, and it could contribute more to the region’s economic performance . For its part, Latin America’s rising economies will inevitably become ¶ more and more crucial to the United States’ economic future .The United States and many nations of Latin America and the Caribbean ¶ would also gain a great deal by more cooperation on such global matters ¶ as climate change, nuclear non-proliferation, and democracy and human ¶ rights . With a rapidly expanding US Hispanic population of more than 50 ¶ million, the cultural and demographic
integration of the United States and ¶ Latin America is proceeding at an accelerating pace, setting a firmer basis ¶ for hemispheric partnership. Despite

the multiple opportunities and potential benefits, relations between ¶ the United States and Latin America remain disappointing . If new opportunities are not seized, relations will likely continue to drift apart . The longer the ¶ current situation persists, the harder it will be to reverse course and rebuild ¶ vigorous cooperation .
Hemispheric affairs require urgent attention—both ¶ from the United States and from Latin America and the Caribbean

Failure to move towards democracy sacrifices billions of lives. authoritarian regimes are history's number one killer – This outweighs every impact in the round. Rudy Rummel, Professor Emeritus of Political Science, “Why Foster Global Freedom,” 2009,
January 10. http://democraticpeace.wordpress.com/2009/01/10/page/2/
Today, billions of human beings are

still subject to impoverishment, exposure, starvation, disease, torture, rape, beatings, forced labor, genocide, mass murder, executions, deportations, political violence, and war. These billions live in fear for their lives, and for those of their loved ones. They have no human rights, no liberties. These people are only pieces on a playing board for the armed thugs and gangs that oppress their nations, raping them, looting them, exploiting them, and murdering them. We
hide the identity of the gangs—we sanctify them—with the benign concept of ―government,‖ as in the ―government‖ of Kim’s North Korea, Stalin’s Soviet Union, or Hitler’s Germany. The gangs that

control these so-called governments oppress whole nations under cover of international law. They are like a gang that captures a group of hikers and then does with them
what it wills, robbing all, torturing and murdering some because gang members don’t like them or they are ―disobedient,‖ and raping others. Nonetheless, the thugs that rule nations ―govern‖ by the right of sovereignty: the community of nations explicitly grants them the right by international law to govern a nation when they show that they effectively control the national government, and this right carries with it the promise that other nations will not intervene in their internal affairs. International

law now recognizes that if these gangs go to extremes, such as massive ethnic cleansing or genocide, then the international community has a countervailing right to

stop them. However, this area of international law is still developing, and in the current examples of Cuba, Burma, Iran, North Korea, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Syria, among others, the thugs still largely have their way with their victims. This is unconscionable. The people of these countries, and all people everywhere have the right to freedom of speech, religion, organization, and a fair trial, among other rights, and one overarching right to be free subsumes all these civil and political rights. This right overrules sovereignty, which is granted according to tradition based on a system of international treaties, not natural law. Freedom, by contrast, is not something others grant. It is a right due every human being. For too many intellectuals, however, it is not enough to point out that a people have a right to be free. They will counter by arguing that freedom is desirable, but first people must be made equal, given food to eat, work, and health care. Freedom must be limited as a means to good ends, such as the public welfare, prosperity, peace, ethnic unity, or national honor. These intellectuals also have been allowed to assume the moral high ground. Freedom, they tell us, empowers greed, barbaric competition, inefficiency, inequality, the debasement of morals, the weakening of ethnic or racial identity, and so on. Sometimes they are so persuasive that even reasonable people will accept their convoluted arguments. Need I mention the works of Marx and Lenin, for example, who provided ―scientific‖ excuses for the tyranny of such thugs as Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot? To be defensive about freedom in the face of such justifications is morally wrong-headed. No moral code or civil law allows that a gang leader and his followers can murder, torture, and repress some at will as long as the thugs provide others with a good life. But even were it accepted that under the cover of government authority, a
ruler can murder and repress his people so long as it promotes human betterment, the burden of proof is on those who argue that therefore those people will be better off There is no such proof. Quite the opposite: in the twentieth century, we have had the most costly and extensive tests of such arguments, involving billions of people. The Nazis, Italian fascists under Mussolini, Japanese militarists, and Chinese Nationalists under Chiang Kai-shek have tested fascist promises of a better life. Likewise, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot have tested the utopian promises of communism, to mention the most prominent communist experiments; and Burma, Iraq, and Syria, among others, also have tested state socialism. All these vast social experiments have failed, utterly and miserably, and they have done so at the vast human cost that has included global social upheaval, the displacement of millions, the impoverishment of billions, and the death of tens of millions from famine, extreme internal violence, and the most destructive wars—not to mention the many hundreds of millions murdered outright. These social experiments have involved the mass murder of 262,000,000 Russians, Chinese, Cambodians, Poles, North Koreans, Cubans, Vietnamese, and others, such that were their souls to comprise a land of the dead it would be among the wor ld’s top three in population In sharp contrast, there are the arguments for freedom. Not only is a right certified in international law (e.g., the various human rights multinational conventions), but a supreme moral good in itself. The very fact of a people’s freedom creates a better life for all. Free people create a wealthy and prosperous society When people are free to go about their own business, they put their ingenuity and creativity in the service of all. They search for ways to satisfy the needs, desires, and wants of others. The true utopia lies not in some state-sponsored tyranny, but the free market in goods, ideas, and services, whose operating principle is that success depends on satisfying others. Moreover, it is not by chance that: No democratically free people have suffered from mass famine It is extraordinary, how little known this is. There are plenty of hunger projects and plans to increase food aid for the starving millions, all of which is good enough in the short run. A starving person will die before the people can kick out their rulers or make them reform their policies. Yet simply feeding the starving today is

not enough. They also have to be fed tomorrow and every day thereafter. However, free these people from their rulers’ commands over their farming, and soon they will be able to feed themselves and others as well. There is an adage that applies to this: ―Give a

starving person a fish to eat and you feed him only for one day; teach him how to fish, and he feeds himself forever.‖ Yet teaching is no good alone, if people are not free to apply their new knowledge — yes, teach them how to fish, but also promote the freedom they need to do so Surprisingly, the

incredible economic productivity and wealth produced by a free people and their freedom from famines are not the only moral goods of freedom, nor, perhaps, even the most important moral goods. When people are free, they comprise a spontaneous society the characteristics of which strongly inhibit society-wide political violence. Freedom greatly reduces the possibility of revolutions, civil war, rebellions, guerrilla warfare, coups, violent riots, and the like. Most of the violence within nations occurs where thugs rule with absolute power. There is a continuum here: The more power the rulers have, and the less free their people, the more internal violence these people will suffer Surely that which protects people against internal violence, that which so saves human lives, is a moral good. And this is freedom Then there is mass democide, the most destructive means of ending human lives of any form of violence. Except in the case of the Nazi Holocaust of European Jews, few people know how murderous the dictators of this world have been, and could be. Virtually unknown are the shocking tens of millions murdered by Stalin and Mao, and the other millions wiped out by Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Kim Il-sung, and their kind. Just omitting foreigners, who are most often murdered during a war, such thugs murdered about 161,000,000 of their own people from 1900 to 1987. Adding foreigners and including the whole twentieth century raises the toll they have killed to nearly the incredible aforementioned 262,000,000. Even now, in the twenty-first century, these mass murders still go on in Burma, Sudan, North Korea, and the Congo (DR), just to mention the most glaring examples. What is true about freedom and internal violence is also so for this mass democide: The more freedom a people have, the less likely their rulers will murder them. The more power the thugs have, the more likely they are to murder their people Could there be a greater moral good than to end or minimize such mass murder? This is what freedom does and for this it is, emphatically, a moral good. There is still more to say about
freedom’s value. While we now know that the world’s ruling thugs generally kill several times more of their subjects than do wars, it is war on which moralists and pacifists generally focus their hatred, and devote their resources to ending or moderating. This singular concentration is understandable, given the horror and human costs, and the vital political significance of war. Yet, it should be clear by now that war is a symptom of freedom’s denial, and that freedom is the cure. First: Democratically free people do not make war on each other Why? The diverse groups, cross-national

bonds, social links, and shared values of democratic peoples sew them together; and shared liberal values dispose them toward peaceful negotiation and compromise with each other. It is as though the people of democratic nations were one society This truth that democracies do not make war on each other provides a solution for eliminating war from the world: globalize democratic freedom Second: The less free the people within any two nations are, the bloodier and more destructive the wars between them; the greater their freedom, the less likely such wars become And third: The more freedom the people of a nation have, the less bloody and destructive their wars. What this means is that we do not have to wait for all, or almost all nations to become liberal democracies to reduce the severity of war. As we promote freedom, as
the people of more and more nations gain greater human rights and political liberties, as those people without any freedom become partly free, we will decrease the bloodiness of the world’s wars. In short: Increasing freedom in the world decreases the death toll of its wars. Surely, whatever reduces and then finally ends the scourge of war in our history, without causing a

greater evil, must be a moral good. And this is freedom In conclusion, then, we have wondrous human freedom as a moral force for the good, as President Bush well recognizes. Freedom produces social justice, creates wealth and prosperity, minimizes violence, saves human lives, and is a solution to war. In two words, it creates human security. Moreover, and most important: People should not be free only because it is good for them. They should be free because it is their right as human beings. In opposition to freedom is power, its antagonist. While freedom is a right, the power to govern is a privilege granted by a people to those they elect and hold responsible for its use. Too often, however, thugs seize control of a people with their guns and use them to make their power total and absolute. Where freedom produces wealth and prosperity, such absolute power causes impoverishment and famine. Where freedom minimizes internal violence, eliminates genocide and mass

murder, and solves the problem of war, such absolute power unleashes internal violence, murders millions, and produces the bloodiest wars. In short, power kills; absolute power kills absolutely.

Proliferation snowballs and puts everyone on hair trigger – every small crisis will go nuclear. Sokolski, executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, serves on the U.S.
congressional Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism, ‘9 (Henry, Avoiding a Nuclear Crowd, Policy Review June & July, http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/46390537.html)

such developments will be a departure from whatever stability existed during the Cold War. After World War II, there was a clear subordination of nations to one or
At a minimum, another of the two superpowers’ strong alliance systems — the U.S.-led free world and the RussianChinese led Communist Bloc. The net effect was relative peace with only small, nonindustrial wars. This alliance tension and system, however, no longer exist. Instead, we now have one superpower, the United States, that is capable of overthrowing small nations unilaterally with conventional arms alone, associated with a relatively weak alliance system ( nato) that includes two European nuclear powers (France and the uk). nato is increasingly integrating its nuclear targeting policies. The U.S. also has retained its security allies in Asia (Japan, Australia, and South Korea) but has seen the emergence of an increasing number of nuclear or nuclear-weapon-armed or -ready states. So far, the U.S. has tried to cope with independent nuclear powers by making them ―strategic partners‖ (e.g., India and Russia), nato nuclear allies (France and the uk), ―non-nato allies‖ (e.g., Israel and Pakistan), and strategic stakeholders (China); or by fudging if a nation actually has attained full nuclear status (e.g., Iran or North Korea, which, we insist, will either not get nuclear weapons or will give them up). In this world, every nuclear power center (our European nuclear nato allies), the U.S., Russia, China, Israel, India, and Pakistan could have significant diplomatic security relations or ties with one another but none of these ties is viewed by Washington (and, one hopes, by no one else) as being as important as the ties between Washington and each of these nuclear-armed entities (see Figure 3). There are limits, however, to what this approach can accomplish. Such a weak alliance system, with its expanding set of loose affiliations, risks becoming analogous to the international system that failed to contain offensive actions prior to World War I. Unlike 1914, there is no power today that can rival the projection of U.S. conventional forces anywhere on the globe. But in a world with an increasing number of nuclear-armed or nuclear-ready states, this may not matter as much as we think. In such a world, the actions of just one or two states or groups that might threaten to disrupt or overthrow a nuclear weapons state could check U.S. influence or

ignite a war Washington could have difficulty containing. No amount of military science or tactics could assure that the U.S. could disarm or neutralize such threatening or unstable nuclear states.22 Nor could diplomats or our intelligence services be relied upon to keep
up to date on what each of these governments would be likely to do in such a crisis (see graphic below): Combine these proliferation trends with the others noted above and one could easily

create the perfect nuclear storm: Small differences between nuclear competitors that would put all actors on edge; an overhang of nuclear materials that could be called upon to break out or significantly ramp up existing nuclear deployments; and a variety of potential new nuclear actors developing weapons options in the wings. In such a setting, the military and nuclear rivalries between states could easily be much more intense than before. Certainly each nuclear state’s military would place an even higher premium than before on being able to weaponize its military and civilian surpluses quickly, to deploy forces
that are survivable, and to have forces that can get to their targets and destroy them with high levels of probability. The advanced military states will also be even more inclined to develop and deploy enhanced air and missile defenses and long-range, precision guidance munitions, and to develop a variety of preventative and preemptive war options. Certainly, in such a world, relations between states could become far less stable. Relatively small developments — e.g., Russian support for sympathetic near-abroad provinces; Pakistani-inspired terrorist strikes in India, such as those experienced recently in Mumbai; new Indian flanking activities in Iran near Pakistan; Chinese weapons developments or moves regarding Taiwan; state-sponsored assassination attempts of key figures in the Middle East or South West Asia, etc. — could easily prompt nuclear weapons

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

Warming is an existential threat Mazo 10 – PhD in Paleoclimatology from UCLA
Jeffrey Mazo, Managing Editor, Survival and Research Fellow for Environmental Security and Science Policy at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, 3-2010, “Climate Conflict: How global warming threatens security and what to do about it,” pg. 122
The best estimates for global warming to the end of the century range from 2.5-4.~C above pre-industrial levels, depending on the scenario. Even in the best-case scenario, the low end of the likely range is 1.goC, and in the worst 'business as usual' projections, which actual emissions have been matching, the range of likely warming runs from 3.1--7.1°C. Even keeping emissions at constant 2000 levels (which have already been exceeded), global temperature would still be expected to reach 1.2°C (O'9""1.5°C)above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century." Without

early and severe reductions in emissions, the effects of climate change in the second half of the twenty-first century are likely to be catastrophic for the stability and security of countries in the developing world - not to mention the associated human tragedy. Climate change could even undermine the strength and stability of emerging and advanced economies, beyond the knock-on effects on security of widespread state failure and collapse in developing countries.' And although they have been condemned as melodramatic and alarmist, many informed observers believe that unmitigated climate change beyond the end of the century could pose an existential threat to civilisation." What is certain is that there is no precedent in human experience for such rapid change or such climatic conditions, and even in the best case adaptation to these extremes would mean profound social, cultural and political changes.

[Disease Impact]
Disease spread causes conflict Gordon 2000 (David, National Intelligence Officer for Economics and Global Issues, “The
Global Infectious Disease Threat and Its Implications for the United States”, http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/nie99-17d.htm) The persistent infectious disease burden is likely to aggravate and, in some cases, may even provoke economic decay, social fragmentation, and political destabilization in the hardest hit countries in the
developing and former communist worlds, especially in the worst case scenario outlined above: The economic costs of infectious diseases--especially HIV/AIDS and malaria--are already significant, and their increasingly heavy toll on productivity, profitability, and foreign investment will be reflected in growing GDP losses, as well, that could reduce GDP by as much as 20 percent or more by 2010 in some Sub-Saharan African countries, according to recent studies. Some of the hardest hit countries in Sub-Saharan Africa--and possibly later in South and Southeast Asia--will face a demographic upheaval as HIV/AIDS and associated diseases reduce human life expectancy by as much as 30 years and kill as many as a quarter of their populations over a decade or less, producing a huge orphan cohort. Nearly 42 million children in 27 countries will lose one or both parents to AIDS by 2010; 19 of the hardest hit countries will be in Sub-Saharan Africa.

The relationship between disease and political instability is indirect but

real. A wide-ranging study on the causes of state instability suggests that infant mortality--a good with political instability, particularly in countries that already have achieved a measure of democracy. The severe social and economic impact of infectious diseases is likely to intensify the struggle for political power to control scarce state resources.
indicator of the overall quality of life--correlates strongly

[Biotech Impact]
Biotechnology advancement is key to avoid otherwise inevitable food shortages Ahmad 12 – Professor in the department of botany, University of Kashmir, India. (Parvaiz, “Biotechnology as an Aid for Crop
Improvement to Overcome Food Shortage”, 2012, http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-94-007-4116-4_9, HW)

World’s population has crossed 6.5 billion with majority of human beings living in developing or under developing countries. Clearly, food security in such countries will be a primary concern over the next few decades. However, options for increased food production to meet this population pressure are limited because most arable land is already under cultivation, and in many areas land use cannot be further intensified without a risk to the long-term productivity. Agricultural land use has been especially intense in recent years because of rapid urbanization and increasing environmental pollution. The ultimate need is to use newer technologies which could help us to curb this food insecurity. Biotechnology is globally recognized as a rapidly emerging, complex and far reaching new technology. It has revolutionized all the fields of life. Recent discoveries and technical innovations in the field of genomics and biotechnology are revealing the full complement of genes in crops, the ability to define genetic variation and use DNA markers to follow chromosome segments with known functions through breeding programmes are leading to new efficiencies in breeding. The ability to isolate and redesign genes and transfer them into different plants also offers the breeder solutions to several key limitations. The convergence of advances in biologygenomics, proteomics, bioinformatics and information technologies is driving the emergence of a new bio-economy. By the usage of this technology we have achieved remarkable success in increasing crop productivity, improving crop quality as well as overcoming food shortage. Additionally the
genetically engineered crops have shown a remarkable potential to tackle some of the world’s most challenging socioeconomic problems which are more prevalent in the developing world than in the industrialized nations.

Famine causes extinction George Plumb, Environmental Activist, “Was Malthus just off a few decades?” 5/18/2008,
http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AI D=/20080518/FEATURES05/805180310/1014/FEATURES05 Once again the world's food situation is bleak. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations, the price of wheat is more than 80 percent higher than a year ago, and corn prices are up by 25 percent. Global cereal stocks have fallen to their lowest level since 1982. Prices have gone so high that the United Nations World Food Program, which aims to feed 73 million people this year, reported it might have to reduce rations or the number of people it will

Food riots are happening in many countries and threaten to bring down some countries as starving people demand better from their government. However, this time the problem will not be so easy to solve. There are some 75 million more people to feed each year!
help. Consumption of meat and other high-quality foods — mainly in China and India — has boosted demand for grain for animal feed. Poor

harvests due to bad weather in this country and elsewhere have contributed. High energy prices are adding to the pressures as some arable land is converted from growing food crops to biofuel crops and making it more expensive to ship the food that is produced. According to Lester Brown, president of the World Policy Institute, "This troubling situation is unlike any the world has faced before. The challenge is not simply to deal with a temporary rise in grain prices, as in the past, but rather to quickly alter those trends whose cumulative effects collectively threaten the food security that is a hallmark of civilization. If food security cannot be restored quickly, social unrest and political instability will spread and the number of failing states will likely increase dramatically, threatening the very stability of civilization itself."

[Biodiversity impact]
Biodiversity loss risks extinction Walsh 10 [Bryan, covers environment, energy and — when the need arises — particularly
alarming diseases for TIME magazine, Wildlife: A Global Convention on Biodiversity Opens in Japan, But Can It Make a Difference? October 18, 2010 http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2010/10/18/wildlife-a-global-convention-on-biodiversityopens-in-japan-but-can-it-make-a-difference/#ixzz131wU6CSp]

The story of non-human life on the planet Earth over the past few decades is a simple one: loss. While there are always a few bright spots—including the recovery of threatened animals
like the brown pelican, thanks to the quietly revolutionary Endangered Species Act —on a planetary

scale biodiversity is steadily marching backwards, with extinctions rising and habitat destroyed. Species as diverse as the tiger—less than 3,500 live in the wild today—to tiny frogs

could be gone forever if the trends keep heading downwards. In a bitterly ironic twist,
back in 2002 the United Nations declared that 2010 would be the international year of biodiversity, and countries agreed to" achieve a significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss at the global, regional and national level," as part of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). At this paper in Science shows (download a PDF here), however, the world has utterly failed to reduce the rate of biodiversity loss, and by just about every measurement, things are getting worse all the time. (Read the Global Biodiversity Outlook if you really want to be depressed.) With that cheery backdrop, representatives from nearly 200 nations are meeting in the Japanese city of Nagoya—home to Toyota and not a whole lot else —for the 10th summit of the CBD, where they will set new goals for reducing species loss and slowing habitat destruction. At the very least, they should know how critical the biodiversity challenge is—as Japanese Environment Minister Ryo Matsumoto said in an opening speech: All life on Earth exists thanks to the benefits from

biodiversity in the forms of fertile soil, clear water and clean air. We are now close to a 'tipping point' - that is, we are about to reach a threshold beyond which biodiversity loss will become irreversible, and may cross that threshold in the next 10 years if we do not make proactive efforts for conserving biodiversity. Ahmed Djoghlaf, the executive secretary of the CBD, struck an even darker note, reminding diplomats that they were on a clock—and time was running out: Let's have the courage to look in the eyes of our
children and admit that we have failed, individually and collectively, to fulfil the Johannesburg promise made by 110 heads of state to substantially reduce the rate of loss of biodiversity by 2010. Let us look in the eyes of our children and admit that we continue to lose biodiversity at an unprecedented rate, thus mortgaging their future. But what will actually come out of the Nagoya summit, which will continue until Oct. 29? Most likely there will be another agreement—a new protocol—outlining various global strategies on sustaining biodiversity and goals on slowing the rate of species loss. (You can download a PDF of the discussion draft document that will be picked over at Nagoya.) It won't be hard for governments to agree on general ambitions for reducing biodiversity loss—who's against saving pandas?—but the negotiations will be much trickier on the question of who will actually pay for a more biodiverse planet? And much as we've seen in international climate change negotiations, the essential divide is between the developed and developing nations —and neither side seems ready to bend. The reality is that much of the world's biodiversity —the most fantastic species and the most complete forests—is found in the poorer, less developed parts of the world. That's in part because the world's poor have been, well, too poor to develop the land around them in the way rich nations have. (There was once a beautiful, undeveloped island off the East Coast of the U.S., with wetlands and abundant forests. It was called Mannahatta. It's a little different now.) As a result, the rural poor—especially in tropical nations—are directly dependent on healthy wildlife and plants in a way that inhabitants of developed nations aren't. So on one hand that makes the poor directly vulnerable when species are lost and forests are chopped down —which often results in migration to thronging urban areas. But on the other, poverty often drives the rural poor to slash-and-

burn forests for agriculture, or hunt endangered species to sell for bush meat. Conservation and development have to go hand in hand. That hasn't always been the mantra of the conservation movement—as Rebecca Tuhus-Dubrow writes in Slate, conservation projects in the past sometimes displaced the human inhabitants over a reserve or park, privileging nature over people. But that's changed in recent decades—environmental groups like Conservation International or the Nature Conservancy now spend as much of their time working on development as they do in protecting nature. "Save the people, save the wildlife" —that's the new mantra. The missing ingredient is money—and that's what will be up for debate at Nagoya. As climate change has risen on the international agenda, funding for biodiversity has lagged—the 33 member nations of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) donated $8.5 billion for climate change mitigation projects in 2008, but just $3 billion annually for biodiversity. One way to change that could be through "payment for ecosystem services." A biodiverse landscape, intact forests, clean

water and air—all of these ebbing qualities of a healthy world are vital for our economies as well. (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity, a UN-funded study, estimates that nature degradation costs the world $2 trillion to $5 trillion a year, with
the poorest nations bearing the brunt of the loss.) Rich countries could pay more biodiverse developing nations to keep nature running—allowing poorer countries to capitalize on their natural resources without slashing and burning. Will that work? I'm skeptical —the experience of climate change negotiations have shown that the nations of the world are great at high ideals and fuzzy goals, but not so hot at actually dividing up the pie in a more sustainable fashion. That doesn't mean there aren't smaller solutions—like Costa Rica's just-announced debt-for-nature deal—but a big bang from Japan this month doesn't seem too likely. The problem is as simple as it is unsolvable, at least so far— there's no clear path to national development so far that doesn't take from the natural world. That worked for rich nations, but we're rapidly running out of planet, as a report last week from the World Wildlife Fund showed. And there's something greater at stake as well, as the naturalist E.O. Wilson once put it: The one process now going on that will take millions of years to

correct is the loss of genetic and species diversity by the destruction of natural habitats-this is the folly our descendants are least likely to forgive us. We're losing nature. And that loss really is forever.

Topicality
We meet
Haass 2000 (Richard, Summer 2000, Brooking Institute, “Terms of Engagement: Alternatives to Punitive Policies”, pg 3,http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/articles/2000/6/summer%20haass/2000su rvival.pdf, accessed 6-24-13, WP) Architects of engagement strategies can choose from a wide variety of incentives. Economic engagement might offer tangible incentives such as export credits, investment insurance or promotion, access to technology, loans and economic aid. Other equally useful economic incentives involve the removal of penalties such as trade embargoes, investment bans or high tariffs, which have impeded economic relations between the United States and the target country. Facilitated entry into the economic global arena and the institutions that govern it rank among the most potent incentives in today’s global market. Similarly, political engagement can involve the lure of diplomatic recognition, access to regional or international institutions, the scheduling of summits between leaders – or the termination of these benefits. Military engagement could involve the extension of international military educational training in order both to strengthen respect for civilian authority and human rights among a country’s armed forces and, more feasibly, to establish relationships between Americans and young foreign military officers. While these areas of engagement are likely to involve working with state institutions, cultural or civil-society engagement entails building people-to-people contacts. Funding non- governmental organisations, facilitating the flow of remittances and promoting the exchange of students, tourists and other non-governmental people between countries are just some of the possible incentives used in the form of engagement.

That’s what science diplomacy includes Cathy Campbell, 2010, President and chief executive officer of CRDF Global - an independent
nonprofit organization that promotes international scientific and technical collaboration, “Send in the Scientists: Why Mobilizing America’s Researchers Makes Sense for Diplomacy” http://scienceprogress.org/2010/10/send_scientists/

While important for solving scientific problems and strengthening international cooperation, these initiatives represent established cooperation among longstanding partners. The uniqueness of President Obama’s “New Beginnings” science diplomacy initiative is its focus on using science as a tool for engaging countries that are emerging from isolation or with which political relations are strained. Science diplomacy involves dialogue, exchanges, and eventually collaboration. It is a long process that requires creativity, patience, and perseverance to achieve success.

Science diplomacy is economic engagement Cathy Campbell, 2010, President and chief executive officer of CRDF Global - an independent
nonprofit organization that promotes international scientific and technical collaboration, “Send in the Scientists: Why Mobilizing America’s Researchers Makes Sense for Diplomacy” http://scienceprogress.org/2010/10/send_scientists/ Third, scientists and engineers speak a common language that transcends political, cultural, and economic boundaries. Whether working in the United States, scientists from Russia, Egypt, or Indonesia understand and apply the same formulas and principles. They are driven by an overwhelming interest to discover new knowledge and find solutions to some of today’s most vexing problems. Their ability to forge new pathways of collaboration, often despite difficult political environments, is a valuable tool for diplomacy. Furthermore, as we have seen all around the world, when science and technology flourishes, so do economies.

Education about science diplomacy is important Cathy Campbell, 2010, President and chief executive officer of CRDF Global - an independent
nonprofit organization that promotes international scientific and technical collaboration, “Send in the Scientists: Why Mobilizing America’s Researchers Makes Sense for Diplomacy” http://scienceprogress.org/2010/10/send_scientists/ What is needed for science diplomacy to succeed? First, we must continue to educate the international research community, policymakers, and the public about the importance of science diplomacy. Earlier this year, CRDF Global joined with the Partnership for a Secure America and the American Association for the Advancement of Science to highlight the importance of science diplomacy.

***Relations***

2AC Mods

Democracy
Latin American ties are critical to expanding democracy Lowenthal 9 - professor of international relations at the University of Southern California
Abraham F. Lowenthal, a nonresident senior fellow of the Brookings Institution, president emeritus of the Pacific Council on International Policy, and the founding director of the InterAmerican Dialogue. “The Obama Administration and Latin America: Will the Promising Start Be Sustained?”. NUEVA SOCIEDAD NRO. 222. July-August 2009. http://www.nuso.org/upload/articulos/3617_2.pdf Fourth, shared values in the Western Hemisphere, especially commitment to fundamental human rights, including free political expression, effective democratic governance, and consistent application of the rule of law. At a time when the very difficult experiences in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere have discouraged many in the United States about the prospects of expanding the international influence of U.S. ideals, the new administration recognizes that the shared commitment throughout the Americas to the norms of democratic governance and the rule of law is worth reinforcing. The Western Hemisphere remains a largely congenial
neighborhood for the United States in an unattractive broader international environment.

Democracy prevents global nuclear war. Joshua Muravchik 7/11/01 (Resident Scholar American Enterprise Institute, www.npecweb.org/syllabi/muravchik.htm)

The greatest impetus for world peace -- and perforce of nuclear peace -- is the spread of democracy. In a famous article, and subsequent book, Francis Fukuyama argued that democracy's extension was
leading to "the end of history." By this he meant the conclusion of man's quest for the right social order, but he also meant the "diminution of the likelihood of large-scale conflict between states." (1) Fukuyama's phrase was intentionally provocative, even

democracies are more peaceful than other kinds of government and that the world is growing more democratic. Neither point has gone unchallenged. Only a few decades ago, as distinguished an observer of international
tongue-in-cheek, but he was pointing to two down-to-earth historical observations: that relations as George Kennan made a claim quite contrary to the first of these assertions. Democracies, he said, were slow to anger, but once aroused "a democracy . . . . fights in anger . . . . to the bitter end." (2) Kennan's view was strongly influenced by the policy of "unconditional surrender" pursued in World War II. But subsequent experience, such as the negotiated settlements

Democracies are not only slow to anger but also quick to compromise. And to forgive. Notwithstanding the insistence on unconditional surrender, America treated Japan and that part of Germany that it occupied with extraordinary generosity. In recent years a burgeoning literature has discussed the peacefulness of democracies. Indeed the proposition that democracies do not go to war with one another has been described by one political scientist as being "as close as anything we have to an empirical law in international relations." (3) Some of those who find enthusiasm for democracy off-putting have challenged this
America sought in Korea and Vietnam proved him wrong. proposition, but their challenges have only served as empirical tests that have confirmed its robustness. For example, the academic Paul Gottfried and the columnist-turned-politician Patrick J. Buchanan have both instanced democratic England's declaration of war against democratic Finland during World War II. (4) In fact, after much procrastination, England did accede to the pressure of its Soviet ally to declare war against Finland which was allied with Germany. But the declaration was purely formal: no fighting ensued between England and Finland. Surely this is an exception that proves the rule. Continues… This

progress offers a source of hope for enduring nuclear peace. The danger of nuclear war was radically reduced almost overnight when Russia abandoned Communism and turned to democracy. For other ominous corners of the world, we may be in a kind of race between the emergence or growth of nuclear arsenals and the advent of democratization. If this is so, the greatest cause for worry may rest with the Moslem Middle East where nuclear arsenals do not yet exist but where the prospects for

democracy may be still more remote.

Heg
U.S. influence in the region is critical to maintaining hegemony Castañeda 8 - Global Distinguished Professor at New York University
Jorge G. Castañeda, was Foreign Minister of Mexico from 2000 to 2003. “Morning in Latin America The Chance for a New Beginning”. Foreign Affairs 87 no5 126-39 S/O 2008.Wilson Online. The next U.S. president has a unique chance to bring up to date a relationship that is ready to be substantially transformed for the first time since Franklin Roosevelt's Good Neighbor Policy (John F. Kennedy's Alliance for Progress was a good idea, but just that). Latin America today is
growing at a faster pace than at any time since the 1970s; it has consolidated and deepened its democratic roots like never before and is more willing than ever to play a responsible role on the world stage. The

United States needs the region dearly, as resistance to its world hegemony springs up everywhere and with greater virulence than at any time since the end of World War II. Perhaps most important, as of
next year, Washington will be led by a president -- whether it is McCain or Obama -- with the best attributes in a generation for dealing with Latin America's finest-ever batch of democratic, modernizing, progressive regional leaders -- from Calderón to Bachelet, from Fernandez to Uribe, from Torrijos to Lula. If,

all together, they face up to these four principal challenges, they may leave a greater mark on the hemispheric relationship than any group of leaders in generation.

Heg is key to preserving a peaceful international order and preventing great power wars Kagan 12 (Robert, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, and columnist for the Washington Post, “The impo rtance
of U.S. military might shouldn’t be underestimated” February 2nd, 2012) These days “soft” power and “smart” power are in vogue (who wants to make the case for “dumb” power?) while American “hard” power is on the chopping block. This is, in part, a symbolic sacrifice to the fiscal crisis — even though the

looming defense cuts are a drop in the bucket compared with the ballooning entitlement spending that is not being cut. And partly this is the Obama administration’s election-year strategy of playing to

a presumably war-weary nation. But there is a theory behind all this: The United States has relied too much on hard power for too long, and to be truly effective in a complex, modern world, the United States needs to emphasize other tools. It must be an attractive power, capable of persuading rather than compelling. It must convene and corral both partners and non-partners, using economic, diplomatic and other means to “leverage” American influence. These are sensible arguments . Power

takes many forms, and it’s smart to make use of all of them. But there is a danger in taking this wisdom too far and forgetting just how important U.S. military power has been in building and sustaining the present liberal international order. That order has rested significantly on the U.S. ability to provide security in parts of the world, such as Europe and Asia, that had known endless cycles of warfare before the arrival of the United States. The world’s free-trade, free-market economy has depended on America’s ability to keep trade routes open, even during times of conflict. And the remarkably wide spread of democracy around the world owes something to America’s ability to provide support to democratic forces under siege and to protect peoples from dictators such as Moammar Gaddafi and Slobodan Milosevic. Some find it absurd that the United States should have a larger military than the next 10 nations combined. But that gap in military power has probably been the greatest factor in upholding an international system that, in historical terms, is unique — and uniquely beneficial to Americans. Nor should we forget that this power is part of what makes America attractive to many other nations. The world has not always loved America. During the era of Vietnam and Watergate and the ugly last stand of segregationists, America was often hated . But nations that relied on the United States for security from threatening neighbors tended to overlook the country’s flaws. In the 1960s, millions of young Europeans took to the streets to protest American “imperialism,” while

their governments worked to ensure that the alliance with the United States held firm. Soft

power, meanwhile, has its limits. No U.S. president has enjoyed more international popularity than Woodrow Wilson did when he traveled to Paris to negotiate the treaty ending World War I. He was a hero to the world, but he found his ability to shape the peace, and to establish the new League of Nations, severely limited, in no small part by his countrymen’s refusal to commit U.S. military power to the defense of the peace. John F.
Kennedy, another globally admired president, found his popularity of no use in his confrontations with Nikita Khrushchev, who, by Kennedy’s own admission, “beat the hell out of me” and who may have been convinced by his perception of Kennedy’s weakness that the United States would tolerate his placing Soviet missiles in Cuba. The

international system is not static. It responds quickly to fluctuations in power. If the United States were to cut too deeply into its ability to project military power, other nations could be counted on to respond accordingly. Those nations whose power rises in relative terms would display expanding ambitions commensurate with their new clout in the international system. They would, as in the past, demand particular spheres of influence. Those whose power declined in relative terms, like the United States, would have little choice but to cede some influence in those areas. Thus China would lay claim to its sphere of influence in Asia, Russia in eastern Europe and the Caucasus. And, as in the past, these burgeoning great-power claims would overlap and conflict: India and China claim the same sphere in the Indian Ocean; Russia and Europe have overlapping spheres in the region between the Black Sea and the Baltic. Without the United States to suppress and contain these conflicting ambitions, there would have to be complex adjustments to establish a new balance. Some of these adjustments could be made through diplomacy, as they were sometimes in the past. Other adjustments might be made through war or the threat of war, as also happened in the past. The biggest illusion is to imagine that as American power declines, the world stays the same. What has been true since the time of Rome remains true today: There can be no world order without power to preserve it, to shape its norms, uphold its institutions, defend the sinews of its economic system and keep the peace. Military power can be abused, wielded unwisely and ineffectively. It can be deployed to answer problems that it cannot answer or that have no answer. But it is also essential. No nation or group of
nations that renounced power could expect to maintain any kind of world order. If the United States begins to look like a less reliable defender of the present order, that order will begin to unravel. People might indeed find Americans very attractive in this weaker state, but if the United States cannot help them when and where they need help the most, they will make other arrangements.

Terror
Latin American cooperation checks terrorism and proliferation – antiterror training, infosharing, and curbing proximate regional influence of Iran are vital internal links. Ferkaluk, Executive Officer to the Commander at 88 Air Base Wing Logistics Readiness Officer at United States Air Force, 10
(Brian, Fall 2010, Global Security Studies, “Latin America: Terrorist Actors on a Nuclear Stage,” pg 12, ACCESSED June 29, 2013, RJ) The policy implications for the United States are to maintain the role of a guiding figure in Latin American developments. The stakes for the US have never been higher. In a region that has a strong history of domestic terrorism and stratocracy, strong oversight is warranted. The current US administration’s policy on nuclear deterrence is that the threat of a nuclear attack from a sovereign state has gone down, but the threat of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists has gone up. No region of the world is closer to the US or has a greater ease of access to the US border than Latin America. Therefore, it is vital that the US continue providing antiterrorism training to key Latin American states, offer economic assistance and encourage mutual cooperation and information sharing among allied states. Once this is accomplished, Latin American nuclear proliferation will cease to be a factor in the terrorist activity that threatens each state to this day. The mutual cooperation will help to diminish the activities of groups like the FARC and the AUC. Furthermore, international groups such as Al Qaida and Hezbollah will not be able to acquire nuclear weapons should they develop a stronger presence in the region. A blind eye should also not be turned towards states that overtly refuse to cooperate in the GWOT. States like Venezuela and Nicaragua should not be left to their own devices. The relationships that are being built with Russia and Iran must also be carefully monitored. Venezuela may not be very close to a nuclear weapon, but the technology and applied sciences it receives from both Iran and Russia has the potential to speed up its development. It has already failed to acquire technology from its neighbors, so the US must continue to solidify its relations with states like Brazil and Argentina and discourage any relations with Iran. If its leaders and diplomats can continue to press that issue, it can curb the increase in trade between Latin America and Iran and end the political and diplomatic connections Iran has been forming in recent years. Above any other measure, the US must ensure that every Latin American nation knows that it cares about the development and defense of the region. If that region is secure, the US is secure; and as long as the region struggles with terrorism and nuclear proliferation, the US will be there to support it in every way possible.

Nuclear terrorism causes full-scale escalation – draws in Russia and China Ayson, 2010 (Robert, Professor of Strategic Studies and directs the Centre for Strategic Studies: New Zealand at Victoria
University, “After a Terrorist Nuclear Attack:Envisaging Catalytic Effects” Published in the Studies for Conflict and Terrorism, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/1057610X.2010.483756 p. 583-585)

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

But these two nuclear worlds—a non-state actor nuclear attack and a catastrophic interstate nuclear exchange—are not necessarily separable. It is just possible that some sort of terrorist attack, and especially an act of 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, today’s and tomorrow’s terrorist groups might assume the 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
nuclear exchange taking place precipitated entirely by state possessors themselves. 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. It may require a considerable amount of imagination to depict an especially plausible situation where an act of nuclear terrorism could lead to such a massive inter-state nuclear war. For example, in the event of a terrorist nuclear attack on the United States, it might well be wondered just how Russia and/or China could plausibly be brought into the picture, not least because they seem unlikely to be fingered as the most obvious state sponsors or encouragers of terrorist groups. They would seem far too responsible to be involved in supporting that sort of terrorist behavior that could just as easily threaten them as well. Some possibilities, however remote, do suggest themselves. For example, how

might the United States react if it was thought or discovered that the fissile material used in the act of nuclear terrorism had come from Russian stocks, 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 Washington’s relations with Russia and/or China, and at a time when threats had already been traded between these major powers, would officials and political leaders not be tempted to assume the worst? Of course, the chances of this
occurring would only seem to increase if the United States was already involved in some sort of limited armed conflict with Russia and/or China, or if they were confronting each other from a distance in a proxy war, as unlikely as these developments may seem at the present time. The reverse might well apply too: should a nuclear terrorist attack occur in Russia or China during a period of heightened tension or even limited conflict with the United States, could Moscow and Beijing resist the pressures that might rise

Washington’s 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 country’s armed forces, including its nuclear arsenal, on a higher stage of alert. In such a tense environment, when careful planning runs up against the friction of reality, it is just possible that Moscow and/or China might mistakenly read this as a sign of U.S. intentions to use force (and possibly nuclear force) against them. In that situation, the temptations to preempt such actions might grow, although it must be admitted that any preemption would probably still meet with a devastating response. As part of its initial response to the act of nuclear terrorism (as discussed earlier) Washington might decide to order a significant conventional (or nuclear) retaliatory or disarming attack against the leadership of the terrorist group and/or states seen to support that group. Depending on the identity and especially the location of these targets, Russia and/or China might interpret such action as being far too close for their comfort, and potentially as an infringement on their spheres of influence and even on their sovereignty. One far-fetched but
domestically to consider the United States as a possible perpetrator or encourager of the attack? perhaps not impossible scenario might stem from a judgment in Washington that some of the main aiders and abetters of the terrorist action resided somewhere such as Chechnya, perhaps in connection with what Allison claims is the “Chechen insurgents’ … long-standing interest in all things nuclear.”42 American

pressure on that part of the world would almost certainly raise alarms in Moscow that might require a degree of advanced consultation from Washington that the latter

There is also the question of how other nuclear-armed states respond to the act of nuclear terrorism on another member of that special club. It could reasonably
found itself unable or unwilling to provide. be expected that following a nuclear terrorist attack on the United States, both Russia and China would extend immediate sympathy and support to Washington and would work alongside the United States in the Security Council. But there is just a chance, albeit a slim one, where the support of Russia and/or China is less automatic in some cases than in others. For example, what would

happen if the United States wished to discuss its right to retaliate against groups based in their territory? If, for some reason, Washington found the responses of Russia and China deeply underwhelming, (neither “for us or against us”) might it also suspect that they secretly were in cahoots with the group, increasing (again perhaps ever so slightly) the chances of a major exchange. If the terrorist group had some
connections to groups in Russia and China, or existed in areas of the world over which Russia and China held sway, and if Washington felt that Moscow or Beijing were placing a curiously modest level of pressure on them, what conclusions might it then draw about their culpability? If Washington decided to use, or decided to threaten the use of, nuclear weapons, the responses of Russia and China would be crucial to the chances of avoiding a more serious nuclear exchange. They might surmise, for example, that while the act of nuclear terrorism was especially heinous and demanded a strong response, the response simply had to remain below the nuclear threshold. It

would be one thing for a non-state actor to have broken the nuclear use taboo, but an entirely different thing for a state actor, and indeed the leading state in the international system, to do so. If Russia and China felt sufficiently strongly about that prospect, there is then the
question of what options would lie open to them to dissuade the United States from such action: and as has been seen over the last several decades, the central dissuader of the use of nuclear weapons by states has been the threat of nuclear retaliation. If some readers find this simply too fanciful, and perhaps even offensive to contemplate, it may be informative to reverse the tables. Russia, which possesses an arsenal of thousands of nuclear warheads and that has been one of the two most important trustees of the nonuse taboo, is subjected to an attack of nuclear terrorism. In response, Moscow places its nuclear forces very visibly on a higher state of alert and declares that it is considering the use of nuclear retaliation against the group and any of its state supporters. How would Washington view such a possibility? Would it really be keen to support Russia’s use of nuclear weapons, including outside Russia’s traditional sphere of influence? And if not, which seems quite plausible, what options would Washington have to communicate that displeasure? If China had been the victim of the nuclear terrorism and seemed likely to retaliate in kind, would the United States and Russia be happy to sit back and let this occur? In

the charged atmosphere immediately after a nuclear terrorist attack, how would the attacked country respond to pressure from other major nuclear powers not to respond in kind? The phrase “how dare they tell us what to do” immediately springs to mind. Some might even go so far as to interpret this concern as a tacit form of sympathy or support for the terrorists. This might not help the chances of nuclear restraint.

State Failure
US leadership in Latin America necessary to contain escalatory instability and make international institutions effective
Christopher Sabatini, editor-in-chief of Americas Quarterly and senior director of policy at Americas Society/Council of the Americas, and Ryan Berger, policy associate at the Americas Society/Council of the Americas, 6/13/2012, Why the U.S. can't afford to ignore Latin America, globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/13/why-the-u-s-cant-afford-to-ignore-latinamerica/
Speaking in Santiago, Chile, in March of last year, President Obama called Latin

America “a region on the move,” one that is “more important to the prosperity and security of the United States than ever before.” Somebody
forgot to tell the Washington brain trust. The Center for a New American Security, a respected national security think tank a halfmile from the White House, recently released a new series of policy recommendations for the next presidential administration. The 70-page “grand strategy” report only contained a short paragraph on Brazil and made only one passing reference to Latin America. Yes, we get it. The relative calm south of the United States seems to pale in comparison to other developments in the world: China on a seemingly inevitable path to becoming a global economic powerhouse, the potential of political change in the Middle East, the feared dismemberment of the eurozone, and rogue states like Iran and North Korea flaunting international norms and regional stability. But the need to shore up our allies and recognize legitimate threats south of the Rio Grande goes to the heart of the U.S.’ changing role in the world and its strategic interests within it. Here are three reasons why the U.S. must include Latin America in its strategic calculations: 1. Today, pursuing

a global foreign policy requires regional allies . Recently, countries with emerging economies have appeared to be taking positions diametrically opposed to the U.S. when it comes to matters of global governance and human rights. Take, for example, Russia and China’s stance on Syria, rejecting calls for intervention. Another one of the BRICS, Brazil, tried to stave off the tightening of U.N. sanctions on Iran two years ago. And last year, Brazil also voiced its official opposition to intervention in Libya, leading political scientist Randall Schweller to refer to Brazil as “a rising spoiler.” At a time of (perceived) declining U.S. influence, it’s important that America deepens its ties with regional allies that might have been once taken for granted. As emerging nations such as Brazil clamor for permanent seats on the U.N. Security Council and more representatives in the higher reaches of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, the U.S. will need to integrate them into global decision-making rather than isolate them. If not, they could be a thorn in the side of the U.S. as it tries to implement its foreign policy agenda. Worse, they could threaten to undermine efforts to defend international norms and human rights. 2. Latin America is becoming more international. the U.S. isn’t the only country that has clout in Latin America . For far too long, U.S. officials and Latin America experts have tended to treat the region as separate, politically and strategically, from the rest of the world. But as they’ve fought battles over small countries such as Cuba and Honduras and
It’s time to understand that narrow bore issues such as the U.S.-Colombia free-trade agreement, other countries like China and India have increased their economic presence and political influence in the region. It’s also clear that countries such as Brazil and Venezuela present their own challenges

to U.S. influence in the region and even on the world forum. The U.S. must embed its Latin America relations in the conceptual framework and strategy that it has for the rest of the world, rather than just focus on human rights and development as it often does toward southern neighbors such as Cuba. 3. There are security and strategic risks in the region. Hugo Chavez’s systematic deconstruction of the Venezuelan state and alleged ties between FARC rebels and some of Chavez’s senior officials have created a volatile cocktail that could explode south of the U.S. border . FARC, a left-wing guerrilla group based in Colombia, has been designated as a “significant foreign narcotics trafficker” by the U.S. government. At the same time, gangs, narcotics traffickers and transnational criminal syndicates are overrunning Central America. In 2006, Mexican President Felipe

Calderón launched a controversial “war on drugs” that has since resulted in the loss of over 50,000 lives and increased the levels of violence and corruption south of the Mexican border in Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras and even once-peaceful Costa Rica. Increasingly, these already-weak

states are finding themselves overwhelmed by the corruption and violence that has come with the use of their territory as a transit point for drugs heading north. Given their proximity and close historical and political connections with Washington, the U.S. will find it increasingly difficult not to be drawn in . Only this case, it won’t be with or against governments — as it was in the 1980s — but in the far more complex, sticky situation of failed states. There are many other reasons why Latin America is important to U.S. interests. It is a market for more than 20% of U.S. exports. With the notable exception of Cuba, it is
nearly entirely governed by democratically elected governments — a point that gets repeated ad nauseum at every possible regional meeting. The Western Hemisphere is a major source of energy that has the highest potential to seriously reduce dependence on Middle East supply. And through immigration, Latin America has close personal and cultural ties to the United States. These have been boilerplate talking points since the early 1990s. But the

demands of the globe today are different, and they warrant a renewed engagement with Latin America — a strategic pivot point for initiatives the U.S. wants to accomplish elsewhere. We need to stop thinking of Latin America as the U.S. “backyard” that is
outside broader, global strategic concerns.

Latin American instability causes state failure - extinction Manwaring 5
Max G., Retired U.S. Army colonel and an Adjunct Professor of International Politics at Dickinson College, venezuela’s hugo chávez, bolivarian socialism, and asymmetric warfare, October 2005, pg. PUB628.pdf President Chávez also understands that the process leading to state failure is the most dangerous long-term security challenge facing the global community today. The argument in general is that failing and failed state status is the breeding ground for instability, criminality, insurgency, regional conflict, and terrorism. These conditions breed massive humanitarian disasters and major refugee flows. They can
host “evil” networks of all kinds, whether they involve criminal business enterprise, narco-trafficking, or some form of ideological crusade such as Bolivarianismo. More specifically, these conditions spawn all kinds of things people in general do not like such as murder, kidnapping, corruption, intimidation, and destruction of infrastructure. These means of coercion and persuasion can

spawn further human rights violations, torture, poverty, starvation, disease, the recruitment and use of child soldiers, trafficking in women and body parts, trafficking and proliferation of conventional weapons systems and WMD, genocide, ethnic cleansing, warlordism, and criminal anarchy. At the same time, these actions are usually unconfined and spill over into regional syndromes of poverty, destabilization, and conflict.62 Peru’s Sendero Luminoso calls
violent and destructive activities that facilitate the processes of state failure “armed propaganda.” Drug cartels operating throughout the Andean Ridge of South America and elsewhere call these activities “business incentives.” Chávez considers these actions to be steps that must be taken to bring about the political conditions necessary to establish Latin American socialism for the 21st century.63 Thus, in addition to helping to provide wider latitude to further their tactical and operational objectives, state and nonstate actors’ strategic efforts are aimed at progressively lessening a targeted regime’s credibility and capability in terms of its ability and willingness to govern and develop its national territory and society.

Chávez’s intent is to focus his primary attack politically and psychologically on selected Latin American governments’ ability and right to govern. In that context, he understands that popular
perceptions of corruption, disenfranchisement, poverty, and lack of upward mobility limit the right and the ability of a given regime to conduct the business of the state. Until a given populace generally perceives that its government is dealing with these and other basic issues of political, economic, and social injustice fairly and effectively, instability and the threat of subverting or destroying such a government are real.64 But failing and failed states simply do not go away. Virtually anyone can take advantage of such an unstable situation. The tendency is that the best motivated and best armed organization on the scene will control that instability. As a consequence, failing and failed states become dysfunctional states, rogue states, criminal states, narco-states, or new people’s democracies. In connection with the creation of new people’s democracies, one can rest assured that Chávez and his Bolivarian populist allies will be available to provide money, arms, and leadership at any given opportunity. And, of course, the narco-states and people’s democracies persist,

longer dysfunctional, rogue, criminal, and the more they and their associated problems endanger global security, peace, and prosperity.65

Poverty
US- Latin America Relations good- Key to solving poverty and inequality Barshefsky et. al., senior international partner at WilmerHale in DC, 08,
(Charlene Barshefsky, R. Rand Beers, Alberto Coll, Margaret Crahan, Jose Fernandez, Francis Fukuyama, Peter Hankim, James Hermon, John Heimann, James Hill, Donna Hrinak, James Kimsey, Jim Kolbe, Kellie Meiman, Shannon O'Neil, Maria Otero, Arturo Porzecanski, David Rothkopf, Julia Sweig, 5/2008, Council on Foreign Relations, “US- Latin America Relations: A New Direction for a New Reality”, http://www.cfr.org/mexico/us-latin-america-relations/p16279, 6/30/2013) GM. Latin America has never mattered more for the United States.¶ The region is the largest foreign supplier of oil to the United States and a strong partner in the development of alternative fuels. It is the United States' fastest-growing trading partner, as well as its biggest supplier of illegal drugs. Latin America is also the largest source of U.S. immigrants, both documented and not. All of this reinforces deep U.S. ties with the region—strategic, economic, and cultural—but also deep concerns.¶ This report makes clear that the era of the United States as the dominant influence in Latin America is over. Countries in the region have not only grown stronger but have expanded relations with others, including China and India. U.S. attention has also focused elsewhere in recent years, particularly on challenges in the Middle East. The result is a region shaping its future far more than it shaped its past.¶ At the same time Latin America has made substantial progress, it also faces ongoing challenges. Democracy has spread, economies have opened, and populations have grown more mobile. But many countries have struggled to reduce poverty and inequality and to provide for public security.¶ The Council on Foreign Relations established an Independent Task Force to take stock of these changes and assess their consequences for U.S. policy toward Latin America. The Task Force finds that the long-standing focus on trade, democracy, and drugs, while still relevant, is inadequate. The Task Force recommends reframing policy around four critical areas—poverty and inequality, public security, migration, and energy security—that are of immediate concern to Latin America's governments and citizens.¶ The Task Force urges that U.S. efforts to address these challenges be done in coordination with multilateral institutions, civil society organizations, governments, and local leaders. By focusing on areas of mutual concern, the United States and Latin American countries can develop a partnership that supports regional initiatives and the countries' own progress. Such a partnership would also promote U.S. objectives of fostering stability, prosperity, and democracy throughout the hemisphere.

While we as individuals may not be responsible for the totality of these circumstances, and while we may be powerless in some instances to change overarching problems, to continue with everyday life without recognizing the fundamentally unfair and immoral allocation of resources and taking actions to solve us dooms us to catastrophe
Pierik 02 (Roland, Tillburg University Law School + Visiting Scholar, Department of Philosophy
@ Columbia University, "Book review, forthcoming in the Leiden Journal of International Law," http://www.rolandpierik.nl/theory/Downloads/WPHR.pdf)

The chapters discuss a large variety of issues, but the central thought can be summarized as follows:

we, the governments and citizens of affluent democracies, have a negative duty not to uphold a global structure that violates human rights. Pogge’s position can be characterized as ‘moral institutional cosmopolitanism.’ Let me
elaborate this characterization by explaining the constituting parts. First, Pogge explicates a moral instead of legal notion of human rights (53). His defense is inspired by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, especially art. 25 − claiming that everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for health and well-being − and art. 28 − claiming that everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms of the UDHR can be fully realized. Secondly, Pogge understands human rights not in an interactional but in an institutional way: On the interactional understanding of human rights, governments and individuals have a responsibility not to violate human rights. On my institutional understanding, by contrast, their responsibility is to work for an institutional order and public culture that ensure that all members of society have secure access to the objects of their human rights. … By postulating a human right to X, one is asserting that any society or other social system, insofar as this is reasonably possible, ought to be so (re)organized that all its members have secure access to X . Pogge explicitly understands human rights in an institutional way: human rights are primarily claims against coercive social

Pogge’s defense is a cosmopolitan one, centering “on the fundamental needs and interests of human beings and all human beings,” and emphasizing “that every human being has a global stature as an ultimate unit of moral concern.” Pogge’s claim that we are not merely failing to help the global poor but actually harming them, needs an additional argument, establishing our responsibility for their fate. Central in this argument is the existence of a global order, in which all
institutions, and secondarily claims against individuals that uphold (and benefit from) such institutions. Finally, national governments participate, along with international and supranational institutions like the UN, EU, NATO, WTO, World Bank, and IMF.

To show why this global world order generates injustices Pogge presents three disjunctive arguments, addressing the adherents of three different strands of Western political thought. First, shared institutions. States are interconnected through a global network of market trade and diplomacy. This shared institutional global order is shaped by the better-off, and imposed on the worse-off. We impose a global institutional order that foreseeably and avoidably reproduces severe and widespread poverty. This order is unjust if there is a feasible institutional alternative under which such severe human rights deprivations would not persist. (199-201). Second, uncompensated exclusion. The better-off enjoy significant advantages in appropriating wealth from our planet, such as the use of a single natural resource base like crude oil. The worse-off are largely, and without compensation, excluded from the gains of this appropriation (201-203). Third violent history. The inequalities in the social starting positions of the better-off and the worseoff have emerged from a single historical process that was pervaded by massive, grievous wrongs, such as a history of conquest and colonization with oppression and enslavement (203204). Pogge concludes that poverty in developing countries cannot be seen as disconnected from our affluence. The existing global order, and the injustices it generates, implies that we violate a negative duty not to harm the global poor, that is, not to violate their basic human rights. This negative duty implies that Western governments should not impose an institutional order under which, foreseeably
and avoidably, individuals lack secure access to some of the objects of their human rights. Pogge criticizes the foreign policy of Western societies, and especially their policies that shaped the global order, for having pushed their self-interest to the extreme. He gives some examples: the negotiation of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (125) and the WTO-regime (15-19), and concludes that: Our new global economic order is so harsh on the global poor, then, because it is shaped in negotiations where our representatives ruthlessly exploit their vastly superior bargaining power and expertise, as well as any weakness, ignorance, or corruptibility they may find in their counterpart negotiators, to shape each agreement for our greatest benefit (20). His complaint against the WTO regime is not that it opens markets too much, but that it opens our markets not enough and thereby gains for us the benefits of free trade, while withholding them from the global poor (19). The idea that we might only have a humanitarian duty is thus beside the point. We are harming the global poor by imposing an unjust global order, in which Western societies close their markets by protectionist policies, massively subsidize the local agriculture, and introduce anti-dumping measures in many of the sectors where developing countries are best able to compete, like agriculture, textiles and clothing. The existing global institutional order is neither natural, nor God-given, but shaped and upheld by the more powerful governments and

The current global order produces a stable pattern of widespread malnutrition and starvation, and there are alternative regimes possible that would not produce similarly severe deprivations (176). It is the negative duty of Western governments to aim for a global order under which basic human rights are not
by actors they control such as the EU, NATO, WTO, OECD, World Bank, and IMF.

violated, that is, a global order in which all individuals are able to meet their basic social and economic needs. Of course, national governments primarily focus on the interests of their own citizens, but they should not do so at the expense of gross human rights violations abroad. Indeed, they can improve the circumstances of the globally worst-off and meet the demands of justice without becoming badly-off themselves.

Warming
Latin American relations solve warming Lowenthal 9 - professor of international relations at the University of Southern California
Abraham F. Lowenthal, a nonresident senior fellow of the Brookings Institution, president emeritus of the Pacific Council on International Policy, and the founding director of the InterAmerican Dialogue. “The Obama Administration and Latin America: Will the Promising Start Be Sustained?”. NUEVA SOCIEDAD NRO. 222. July-August 2009. http://www.nuso.org/upload/articulos/3617_2.pdf Apart from the scheduling coincidence that the Fifth Summit of the Americas was already on the calendar, the main reason for the Obama administration’s early engagement with Latin America is the new team’s perception that although the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean pose no urgent issues for the United States, many of them are likely to be increasingly important to its future. This is so not
because of long-standing axioms about Western Hemisphere security, extra-hemispheric threats and Pan-American solidarity, but rather for four much more contemporary reasons. First,

the increased perceived significance of Latin America for confronting such transnational issues as energy security, global warming, pollution and other environmental concerns, crime, narcotics and public health. The new administration recognizes that these issues cannot be solved or even managed effectively without close and sustained cooperation from many countries of the Americas.

Warming is an existential threat Mazo 10 – PhD in Paleoclimatology from UCLA
Jeffrey Mazo, Managing Editor, Survival and Research Fellow for Environmental Security and Science Policy at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, 3-2010, “Climate Conflict: How global warming threatens security and what to do about it,” pg. 122
The best estimates for global warming to the end of the century range from 2.5-4.~C above pre-industrial levels, depending on the scenario. Even in the best-case scenario, the low end of the likely range is 1.goC, and in the worst 'business as usual' projections, which actual emissions have been matching, the range of likely warming runs from 3.1--7.1°C. Even keeping emissions at constant 2000 levels (which have already been exceeded), global temperature would still be expected to reach 1.2°C (O'9""1.5°C)above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century." Without

early and severe reductions in emissions, the effects of climate change in the second half of the twentyfirst century are likely to be catastrophic for the stability and security of countries in the developing world - not to mention the associated human tragedy. Climate change could even undermine the strength and stability of emerging and advanced economies, beyond the knock-on effects on security of widespread state failure and collapse in developing countries.' And although they have been condemned as melodramatic and alarmist, many informed observers believe that unmitigated climate change beyond the end of the century could pose an existential threat to civilisation." What is certain is that there is no precedent in human experience for such rapid change or such climatic conditions, and even in the best case adaptation to these extremes would mean profound social, cultural and political changes.

Relations I/L’s

Democracy
Latin American democracy solves global backsliding Fauriol and Weintraub 95 – *director of the CSIS Americas program and **Prof of Public
Affairs at the University of Texas Georges and Sidney, The Washington Quarterly, "U.S. Policy, Brazil, and the Southern Cone", Lexis The democracy theme also carries much force in the hemisphere today. The State Department
regularly parades the fact that all countries in the hemisphere, save one, now have democratically elected governments. True enough, as long as the definition of democracy is flexible, but these countries turned to democracy mostly of their own volition. It is hard to determine if the United States is using the democracy theme as a club in the hemisphere (hold elections or be excluded) or promoting it as a goal. If as a club, its efficacy is limited to this hemisphere, as the 1994 AsiaPacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting in Indonesia demonstrated in its call for free trade in that region, replete with nondemocratic nations, by 2020. Following that meeting, Latin Americans

are somewhat cynical as to whether the United States really cares deeply about promoting democracy if this conflicts with expanding exports. Yet this triad of objectives -- economic liberalization and free trade, democratization, and sustainable development/ alleviation of poverty -is generally accepted in the hemisphere. The commitment to the latter two varies by country, but all three are taken as valid. All three are also themes expounded widely by the United States, but with more vigor in this hemisphere than anywhere else in the developing world. Thus, failure to advance on all three in Latin America will compromise progress elsewhere in the world .

Latin American ties are critical to expanding democracy Lowenthal 9 - professor of international relations at the University of Southern California
Abraham F. Lowenthal, a nonresident senior fellow of the Brookings Institution, president emeritus of the Pacific Council on International Policy, and the founding director of the InterAmerican Dialogue. “The Obama Administration and Latin America: Will the Promising Start Be Sustained?”. NUEVA SOCIEDAD NRO. 222. July-August 2009. http://www.nuso.org/upload/articulos/3617_2.pdf Fourth, shared values in the Western Hemisphere, especially commitment to fundamental human rights, including free political expression, effective democratic governance, and consistent application of the rule of law. At a time when the very difficult experiences in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere have discouraged many in the United States about the prospects of expanding the international influence of U.S. ideals, the new administration recognizes that the shared commitment throughout the Americas to the norms of democratic governance and the rule of law is worth reinforcing. The Western Hemisphere remains a largely congenial
neighborhood for the United States in an unattractive broader international environment.

Heg
Lack of relations leads to creeping influence of China – threaten U.S. hegemony. Hakim 6 - President of the Inter-American Dialogue
Peter Hakim, “Is Washington Losing Latin America?”. Foreign Affairs 85 no1 39-53 Ja/F 2006. Wiley Online. Washington also worries about China's growing presence in Latin America, a concern that has already been the subject of congressional hearings. In fact, some members of Congress view China as the most serious challenge to U.S. interests in the region since the collapse of the Soviet Union. They cite the huge financial resources China is promising to bring to Latin America, its growing military-tomilitary relations in the region, and its clear political ambitions there all as potential threats to the long-standing pillar of U.S. policy in the hemisphere, the Monroe Doctrine. China's
interest in Latin America is significant and expanding. The region has become a vital source of raw materials and foodstuffs for China. In the past six years, Chinese imports from Latin America have grown more than sixfold, or by nearly 6o percent a year. Beijing also faces a major political challenge in the region: of the 26 countries that recognize Taiwan, 12 are in Latin America or the Caribbean. China is intent on reducing that number through aggressive diplomacy and increased trade, aid, and investment. Bush administration officials have watched China's growing commercial and political engagement in the region closely. Chinese President Hu Jintao traveled to Latin America twice in the past two years, spending a total of 16 days there. The White House could not have missed the warm welcome he received in the five Latin American countries he visited, the concessions the host governments offered him (such as the quick granting of "market-economy status" to China), and the enormous expectations his presence created of major Chinese investments in roads, ports, and other infrastructure. Hu's trips have been reciprocated by a long series of visits to China by Latin American heads of state, economic officials, and corporate leaders.

Many people in Latin America look to China as an economic and political alternative to U.S. hegemony. Although officials in some of these countries are
concerned that China, with its lower manufacturing costs, will cut into their sales, profits, and investment, others (mainly South America's food- and mineral-producing nations) largely see China as a major potential partner for new trade and investment. Brazilian leaders, including President Lula, have said they want to establish a strategic relationship with Beijing that might involve trade in high-tech products, mutual support in international organizations, and scientific and cultural collaboration. Interestingly, the recent advances of China (and India as well) have prompted some Latin Americans to examine their own economic and political development, producing a new wave of self-criticism about the region's stumbling performance in recent years and intense discussion about what can be learned from the success of some Asian countries.

U.S. influence in the region is critical to maintaining hegemony Castañeda 8 - Global Distinguished Professor at New York University
Jorge G. Castañeda, was Foreign Minister of Mexico from 2000 to 2003. “Morning in Latin America The Chance for a New Beginning”. Foreign Affairs 87 no5 126-39 S/O 2008.Wilson Online. The next U.S. president has a unique chance to bring up to date a relationship that is ready to be substantially transformed for the first time since Franklin Roosevelt's Good Neighbor Policy (John F. Kennedy's Alliance for Progress was a good idea, but just that). Latin America today is
growing at a faster pace than at any time since the 1970s; it has consolidated and deepened its democratic roots like never before and is more willing than ever to play a responsible role on the world stage. The

United States needs the region dearly, as resistance to its world hegemony springs up everywhere and with greater virulence than at any time since the end of World War II. Perhaps most important, as of
next year, Washington will be led by a president -- whether it is McCain or Obama -- with the best attributes in a generation for dealing with Latin America's finest-ever batch of democratic, modernizing, progressive regional leaders -- from Calderón to Bachelet, from Fernandez to Uribe, from Torrijos to Lula. If,

all together, they face up to these four principal challenges, they may leave a greater mark on the hemispheric relationship than any group of leaders in generation.

Latin American wars go global – even absent escalation, they collapse hegemony and encourage counterbalancing Rochin, Professor of Political Science, 94
James, Professor of Political Science at Okanagan University College, Discovering the Americas: the evolution of Canadian foreign policy towards Latin America, pp. 130-131
While there were economic motivations for Canadian policy in Central America, security considerations were perhaps more important. Canada possessed an interest in promoting stability in the face of a potential decline of U.S. hegemony in the Americas. Perceptions of declining U.S. influence in the region – which had some credibility in 19791984 due to the wildly inequitable divisions of wealth in some U.S. client states in Latin America, in addition to political repression, under-development, mounting external debt, anti-American sentiment produced by decades of subjugation to U.S. strategic and economic interests, and so on – were

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

Terror
Latin American cooperation checks terrorism and proliferation – antiterror training, infosharing, and curbing proximate regional influence of Iran are vital internal links. Ferkaluk, Executive Officer to the Commander at 88 Air Base Wing Logistics Readiness Officer at United States Air Force, 10
(Brian, Fall 2010, Global Security Studies, “Latin America: Terrorist Actors on a Nuclear Stage,” pg 12, ACCESSED June 29, 2013, RJ) The policy implications for the United States are to maintain the role of a guiding figure in Latin American developments. The stakes for the US have never been higher. In a region that has a strong history of domestic terrorism and stratocracy, strong oversight is warranted. The current US administration’s policy on nuclear deterrence is that the threat of a nuclear attack from a sovereign state has gone down, but the threat of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists has gone up. No region of the world is closer to the US or has a greater ease of access to the US border than Latin America. Therefore, it is vital that the US continue providing antiterrorism training to key Latin American states, offer economic assistance and encourage mutual cooperation and information sharing among allied states. Once this is accomplished, Latin American nuclear proliferation will cease to be a factor in the terrorist activity that threatens each state to this day. The mutual cooperation will help to diminish the activities of groups like the FARC and the AUC. Furthermore, international groups such as Al Qaida and Hezbollah will not be able to acquire nuclear weapons should they develop a stronger presence in the region. A blind eye should also not be turned towards states that overtly refuse to cooperate in the GWOT. States like Venezuela and Nicaragua should not be left to their own devices. The relationships that are being built with Russia and Iran must also be carefully monitored. Venezuela may not be very close to a nuclear weapon, but the technology and applied sciences it receives from both Iran and Russia has the potential to speed up its development. It has already failed to acquire technology from its neighbors, so the US must continue to solidify its relations with states like Brazil and Argentina and discourage any relations with Iran. If its leaders and diplomats can continue to press that issue, it can curb the increase in trade between Latin America and Iran and end the political and diplomatic connections Iran has been forming in recent years. Above any other measure, the US must ensure that every Latin American nation knows that it cares about the development and defense of the region. If that region is secure, the US is secure; and as long as the region struggles with terrorism and nuclear proliferation, the US will be there to support it in every way possible.

Latin America plays key role in the war on terror Hill 3 – Commander, United States Southern Command
General James T. Hill, Heritage Lecture #790, “Colombia: Key to Security in the Western Hemisphere,” 6-2-2003, www.heritage.org/Research/LatinAmerica/HL790.cfm Fighting Terrorism¶ The war on terrorism is my number one priority in the region. While the
primary front in this global war is in the Middle East, Southern Command plays a vital role fighting the malignancy here in our hemisphere. We are increasingly engaging those who seek to exploit real and perceived weaknesses of our newest democracies. Shoring

up our allies also serves to shore up our own homeland security. Given our proximity and general ease of access, Latin America is a potentially vulnerable flank

of the homeland, providing many seams through which terrorists can infiltrate.¶ To our
south, just a short plane ride or Carnival Cruise away, radical Islamic groups that support Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamiyya alGamat are active. These cells, extending from Trinidad and Tobago to the tri-border area of Paraguay, Argentina, and Brazil, consist of logistics and support personnel. However, terrorists

who have planned or participated in attacks in the Middle East, such as Khalid Sheik Mohammed, have transited the region. These terrorist cells continue to reach back to the Middle East and solidify the global support structure of international terrorism.¶ Beyond these extensions of Middle Eastern extremism are three larger and better-armed groups, all originating in Colombia. Many familiar with Colombia's conflict and most press accounts still romantically describe these illegal
groups as "revolutionaries," "guerrillas," "rebels," or "militias," lending them some kind of tacit legitimacy with those words. I find these terms misleading and out-of-date. Simply put, these groups consist of criminals, more precisely defined as narco-terrorists, who profit at the expense of Colombia and its people. These terrorists with their ideologically appealing names--the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC; the National Liberation Army, or ELN; and the United Defense Forces, or AUC--directly challenge the legitimate authority of the Colombian administration yet offer no viable form of government themselves. Some of them have had 40 years to win the hearts and minds of their countrymen, yet they garner no more than 3 percent public approval. All they have to offer is more innocent blood being spilt by their greed for white powder profits.

State Failure
US leadership in Latin America necessary to contain escalatory instability and make international institutions effective
Christopher Sabatini, editor-in-chief of Americas Quarterly and senior director of policy at Americas Society/Council of the Americas, and Ryan Berger, policy associate at the Americas Society/Council of the Americas, 6/13/2012, Why the U.S. can't afford to ignore Latin America, globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/13/why-the-u-s-cant-afford-to-ignore-latinamerica/
Speaking in Santiago, Chile, in March of last year, President Obama called Latin

America “a region on the move,” one that is “more important to the prosperity and security of the United States than ever before.” Somebody
forgot to tell the Washington brain trust. The Center for a New American Security, a respected national security think tank a halfmile from the White House, recently released a new series of policy recommendations for the next presidential administration. The 70-page “grand strategy” report only contained a short paragraph on Brazil and made only one passing reference to Latin America. Yes, we get it. The relative calm south of the United States seems to pale in comparison to other developments in the world: China on a seemingly inevitable path to becoming a global economic powerhouse, the potential of political change in the Middle East, the feared dismemberment of the eurozone, and rogue states like Iran and North Korea flaunting international norms and regional stability. But the need to shore up our allies and recognize legitimate threats south of the Rio Grande goes to the heart of the U.S.’ changing role in the world and its strategic interests within it. Here are three reasons why the U.S. must include Latin America in its strategic calculations: 1. Today, pursuing

a global foreign policy requires regional allies . Recently, countries with emerging economies have appeared to be taking positions diametrically opposed to the U.S. when it comes to matters of global governance and human rights. Take, for example, Russia and China’s stance on Syria, rejecting calls for intervention. Another one of the BRICS, Brazil, tried to stave off the tightening of U.N. sanctions on Iran two years ago. And last year, Brazil also voiced its official opposition to intervention in Libya, leading political scientist Randall Schweller to refer to Brazil as “a rising spoiler.” At a time of (perceived) declining U.S. influence, it’s important that America deepens its ties with regional allies that might have been once taken for granted. As emerging nations such as Brazil clamor for permanent seats on the U.N. Security Council and more representatives in the higher reaches of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, the U.S. will need to integrate them into global decision-making rather than isolate them. If not, they could be a thorn in the side of the U.S. as it tries to implement its foreign policy agenda. Worse, they could threaten to undermine efforts to defend international norms and human rights. 2. Latin America is becoming more international. the U.S. isn’t the only country that has clout in Latin America . For far too long, U.S. officials and Latin America experts have tended to treat the region as separate, politically and strategically, from the rest of the world. But as they’ve fought battles over small countries such as Cuba and Honduras and
It’s time to understand that narrow bore issues such as the U.S.-Colombia free-trade agreement, other countries like China and India have increased their economic presence and political influence in the region. It’s also clear that countries such as Brazil and Venezuela present their own challenges

to U.S. influence in the region and even on the world forum. The U.S. must embed its Latin America relations in the conceptual framework and strategy that it has for the rest of the world, rather than just focus on human rights and development as it often does toward southern neighbors such as Cuba. 3. There are security and strategic risks in the region. Hugo Chavez’s systematic deconstruction of the Venezuelan state and alleged ties between FARC rebels and some of Chavez’s senior officials have created a volatile cocktail that could explode south of the U.S. border . FARC, a left-wing guerrilla group based in Colombia, has been designated as a “significant foreign narcotics trafficker” by the U.S. government. At the same time, gangs, narcotics traffickers and transnational criminal syndicates are overrunning Central America. In 2006, Mexican President Felipe

Calderón launched a controversial “war on drugs” that has since resulted in the loss of over 50,000 lives and increased the levels of violence and corruption south of the Mexican border in Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras and even once-peaceful Costa Rica. Increasingly, these already-weak

states are finding themselves overwhelmed by the corruption and violence that has come with the use of their territory as a transit point for drugs heading north. Given their proximity and close historical and political connections with Washington, the U.S. will find it increasingly difficult not to be drawn in . Only this case, it won’t be with or against governments — as it was in the 1980s — but in the far more complex, sticky situation of failed states. There are many other reasons why Latin America is important to U.S. interests. It is a market for more than 20% of U.S. exports. With the notable exception of Cuba, it is
nearly entirely governed by democratically elected governments — a point that gets repeated ad nauseum at every possible regional meeting. The Western Hemisphere is a major source of energy that has the highest potential to seriously reduce dependence on Middle East supply. And through immigration, Latin America has close personal and cultural ties to the United States. These have been boilerplate talking points since the early 1990s. But the

demands of the globe today are different, and they warrant a renewed engagement with Latin America — a strategic pivot point for initiatives the U.S. wants to accomplish elsewhere. We need to stop thinking of Latin America as the U.S. “backyard” that is
outside broader, global strategic concerns.

Poverty
US- Latin America Relations good- Key to solving poverty and inequality Barshefsky et. al., senior international partner at WilmerHale in DC, 08,
(Charlene Barshefsky, R. Rand Beers, Alberto Coll, Margaret Crahan, Jose Fernandez, Francis Fukuyama, Peter Hankim, James Hermon, John Heimann, James Hill, Donna Hrinak, James Kimsey, Jim Kolbe, Kellie Meiman, Shannon O'Neil, Maria Otero, Arturo Porzecanski, David Rothkopf, Julia Sweig, 5/2008, Council on Foreign Relations, “US- Latin America Relations: A New Direction for a New Reality”, http://www.cfr.org/mexico/us-latin-america-relations/p16279, 6/30/2013) GM. Latin America has never mattered more for the United States.¶ The region is the largest foreign supplier of oil to the United States and a strong partner in the development of alternative fuels. It is the United States' fastest-growing trading partner, as well as its biggest supplier of illegal drugs. Latin America is also the largest source of U.S. immigrants, both documented and not. All of this reinforces deep U.S. ties with the region—strategic, economic, and cultural—but also deep concerns.¶ This report makes clear that the era of the United States as the dominant influence in Latin America is over. Countries in the region have not only grown stronger but have expanded relations with others, including China and India. U.S. attention has also focused elsewhere in recent years, particularly on challenges in the Middle East. The result is a region shaping its future far more than it shaped its past.¶ At the same time Latin America has made substantial progress, it also faces ongoing challenges. Democracy has spread, economies have opened, and populations have grown more mobile. But many countries have struggled to reduce poverty and inequality and to provide for public security.¶ The Council on Foreign Relations established an Independent Task Force to take stock of these changes and assess their consequences for U.S. policy toward Latin America. The Task Force finds that the long-standing focus on trade, democracy, and drugs, while still relevant, is inadequate. The Task Force recommends reframing policy around four critical areas—poverty and inequality, public security, migration, and energy security—that are of immediate concern to Latin America's governments and citizens.¶ The Task Force urges that U.S. efforts to address these challenges be done in coordination with multilateral institutions, civil society organizations, governments, and local leaders. By focusing on areas of mutual concern, the United States and Latin American countries can develop a partnership that supports regional initiatives and the countries' own progress. Such a partnership would also promote U.S. objectives of fostering stability, prosperity, and democracy throughout the hemisphere.

Econ
US-Latin American science cooperation is key to successful economic integration, eliminating poverty and sustainable growth

Ventura 05 (Arnoldo K, Adviser to the Prime Minister of
Jamaica, http://www.scidev.net/global/opinion/cooperation-is-key-to-scientific-growth-in-theame.html

The will to forge partnerships in science and technology between strong and weak economies has been more evident in the European Union and Asian trading blocs than in other parts of the world. As a result, these regions have begun to show more economic coherence and vitality than the American hemisphere, even though our region has some of the world’s most knowledge-based economies. Economic integration has long been called for in our hemisphere. But progress has been slow partly because of the great disparities in science and technology between adjacent states. In contrast to the European and South-East Asian
blocs, which are well organised and have made substantial regional investments in science and technology, we in the Americas have not yet got our act together. In particular , the stronger economies in the region have not yet seen the merits of significantly improving the general state of science and technology , even though this underpins the economic prospects of the whole hemisphere. Yet it is difficult to see how to improve conditions within our

hemisphere without enhancing science and technology at the regional level. Weak states need to be able to supply better products and services, thus increasing their purchasing power. This cannot be done without building high quality science, technology, engineering and innovation. Unfortunately, if nations already facing severe development challenges are left to do this on their own, their situation will only get worse. Poverty now grips over half of the American hemisphere, and has become the greatest threat to the development of states in our region. Science and technology must therefore be shared in order to allow
countries to build competence in areas in which they can become globally competitive.

Environment
Latin American relations solve warming Lowenthal 9 - professor of international relations at the University of Southern California
Abraham F. Lowenthal, a nonresident senior fellow of the Brookings Institution, president emeritus of the Pacific Council on International Policy, and the founding director of the InterAmerican Dialogue. “The Obama Administration and Latin America: Will the Promising Start Be Sustained?”. NUEVA SOCIEDAD NRO. 222. July-August 2009. http://www.nuso.org/upload/articulos/3617_2.pdf Apart from the scheduling coincidence that the Fifth Summit of the Americas was already on the calendar, the main reason for the Obama administration’s early engagement with Latin America is the new team’s perception that although the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean pose no urgent issues for the United States, many of them are likely to be increasingly important to its future. This is so not
because of long-standing axioms about Western Hemisphere security, extra-hemispheric threats and Pan-American solidarity, but rather for four much more contemporary reasons. First,

the increased perceived significance of Latin America for confronting such transnational issues as energy security, global warming, pollution and other environmental concerns, crime, narcotics and public health. The new administration recognizes that these issues cannot be solved or even managed effectively without close and sustained cooperation from many countries of the Americas.

Key to clean energy transition Zedillo et al. 8
Ernesto Zedillo, Commission co-chair; Former President of Mexico, Thomas R. Pickering, Commission co-chair; Former U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Members of the Partnership for the Americas Commission, Mauricio Cárdenas, Director of the Commission; Senior Fellow and Director, Latin America Initiative, Brookings, and Leonardo Martinez-Diaz, Deputy Director of the Commission; Political Economy Fellow, Global Economy and Development, Brookings. Report of the Partnership for the Americas Commission. The Brookings Institution. November 2008. “Rethinking U.S.–Latin American Relations A Hemispheric Partnership for a Turbulent World”. http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2008/1124_latin_america_partnership/11 24_latin_america_partnership.pdf Addressing the challenge of energy security will require making energy consumption more efficient and developing new energy sources, whereas addressing the challenge of climate change will require finding ways to control carbon emissions, helping the world shift away from carbon-intensive energy generation, and adapting to some aspects of changing ecosystems. Potential solutions to these problems exist in the Americas, but mobilizing them will require a sustained hemispheric partnership. Latin America has enormous potential to help meet the world’s growing thirst for energy, both in terms of hydrocarbons and alternative fuels. Latin America has about 10 percent of the world’s proven oil reserves.
Venezuela accounts for most of these, though Brazil’s oil reserves could increase from 12 to 70 billon barrels if recent discoveries can be developed. Bolivia is an important producer of natural gas, Mexico

has great potential in solar energy generation, and several countries in the region could potentially produce much more hydroelectric power. Brazil is a world leadeer in sugarcane-based ethanol production, and the United States is a leader in corn-based ethanol (figure 3). Solar and wind power, particularly in Central America and the Caribbean, remain underdeveloped. To expand the
hemisphere’s energy capacity, massive infrastructure investments will be required. Major investments in oil production

(especially deep offshore), refining, and distribution will be needed to achieve the region’s potential. Developing the Tupi project in Brazil alone will cost $70–240 billion. Liquefied natural gas will become an important source of energy, but not before major investments are made in infrastructure to support liquefaction, regasification, transport, and security. U.S. and Canadian electricity networks, which are already highly integrated, can be further integrated with Mex ico’s. Mexico also plans to connect its grid to those of Guatemala and Belize, eventually creating an integrated power market in Central America. Power integration in South America will demand even larger investments in generation, transmission, and distribution. Finally, reliance on nuclear power may grow because it is carbon free and does not require fossil fuel imports. However,

efforts to expand energy capacity and integrate hemispheric energy markets face a variety of obstacles. Energy nationalism has led to disruptive disputes over pricing and ownership. Tensions and mistrust in South America have hindered regional cooperation and investment, particularly on natural gas. The security of the energy infrastructure, especially
pipelines, remains a concern in Mexico and parts of South America. Gas, oil, and electricity subsidies distort patterns of production and consumption, and they are triggering protectionist behavior elsewhere. Technology

on renewables remains underdeveloped, and research in this area can be better centralized and disseminated. Overcoming these obstacles will require high levels of cooperation among hemispheric partners.

Terminal !’s

Democracy
Democracy prevents global nuclear war. Joshua Muravchik 7/11/01 (Resident Scholar American Enterprise Institute, www.npecweb.org/syllabi/muravchik.htm)

The greatest impetus for world peace -- and perforce of nuclear peace -- is the spread of democracy. In a famous article, and subsequent book, Francis Fukuyama argued that democracy's extension was
leading to "the end of history." By this he meant the conclusion of man's quest for the right social order, but he also meant the "diminution of the likelihood of large-scale conflict between states." (1) Fukuyama's phrase was intentionally provocative, even

democracies are more peaceful than other kinds of government and that the world is growing more democratic. Neither point has gone unchallenged. Only a few decades ago, as distinguished an observer of international
tongue-in-cheek, but he was pointing to two down-to-earth historical observations: that relations as George Kennan made a claim quite contrary to the first of these assertions. Democracies, he said, were slow to anger, but once aroused "a democracy . . . . fights in anger . . . . to the bitter end." (2) Kennan's view was strongly influenced by the policy of "unconditional surrender" pursued in World War II. But subsequent experience, such as the negotiated settlements

Democracies are not only slow to anger but also quick to compromise. And to forgive. Notwithstanding the insistence on unconditional surrender, America treated Japan and that part of Germany that it occupied with extraordinary generosity. In recent years a burgeoning literature has discussed the peacefulness of democracies. Indeed the proposition that democracies do not go to war with one another has been described by one political scientist as being "as close as anything we have to an empirical law in international relations." (3) Some of those who find enthusiasm for democracy off-putting have challenged this
America sought in Korea and Vietnam proved him wrong. proposition, but their challenges have only served as empirical tests that have confirmed its robustness. For example, the academic Paul Gottfried and the columnist-turned-politician Patrick J. Buchanan have both instanced democratic England's declaration of war against democratic Finland during World War II. (4) In fact, after much procrastination, England did accede to the pressure of its Soviet ally to declare war against Finland which was allied with Germany. But the declaration was purely formal: no fighting ensued between England and Finland. Surely this is an exception that proves the rule. Continues… This

progress offers a source of hope for enduring nuclear peace. The danger of nuclear war was radically reduced almost overnight when Russia abandoned Communism and turned to democracy. For other ominous corners of the world, we may be in a kind of race between the emergence or growth of nuclear arsenals and the advent of democratization. If this is so, the greatest cause for worry may rest with the Moslem Middle East where nuclear arsenals do not yet exist but where the prospects for democracy may be still more remote.

Heg
Refer to Heg Core

Terror
A terrorist attack escalates to a global nuclear exchange Speice 06
06 JD Candidate @ College of William and Mary *Patrick F. Speice, Jr., “NEGLIGENCE AND NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION: ELIMINATING THE CURRENT LIABILITY BARRIER TO BILATERAL U.S.-RUSSIAN NONPROLIFERATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS,” William & Mary Law Review, February 2006, 47 Wm and Mary L. Rev. 1427]edlee Accordingly, there

is a significant and ever-present risk that terrorists could acquire a nuclear

device or fissile material from Russia as a result of the confluence of Russian economic decline and the end of stringent Soviet-era
nuclear security measures. 39Terrorist groups could acquire a nuclear weapon by a number of methods, including "steal[ing] one intact from the stockpile of a country possessing such weapons, or ... [being] sold or given one by [*1438] such a country, or [buying or stealing] one from another subnational group that had obtained it in one of these ways." 40 Equally threatening, however, is the risk that terrorists will steal or purchase fissile material and construct a nuclear device on their own.

Very little

material is necessary to construct a highly destructive nuclear weapon. 41 Although nuclear devices are extraordinarily complex, the technical barriers to constructing a workable weapon are not significant. 42 Moreover, the sheer number of methods that could be used to deliver a nuclear device into the United States makes it incredibly likely that terrorists could successfully employ a nuclear weapon once it was
built. 43 Accordingly, supply-side controls that are aimed at preventing terrorists from acquiring nuclear material in the first place are the most effective means of countering the risk of nuclear terrorism. 44Moreover, the end of the Cold War eliminated the rationale for maintaining a large military-industrial complex in Russia, and the nuclear cities were closed. 45 This resulted in at least 35,000 nuclear scientists becoming unemployed in an economy that was collapsing. 46 Although the economy has stabilized somewhat, there [*1439] are still at least 20,000 former scientists who are unemployed or underpaid and who are too young to retire, 47 raising the chilling prospect that these scientists will be tempted to sell their nuclear knowledge, or steal nuclear material to sell, to states or terrorist organizations with nuclear ambitions. 48The potential consequences of the unchecked spread of nuclear knowledge and material to terrorist groups that seek to cause mass destruction in the United States are truly horrifying. A

terrorist attack with a nuclear weapon would be devastating in terms of immediate human and economic losses. 49 Moreover, there would be immense political pressure in the United States to discover the perpetrators and retaliate with nuclear weapons, massively increasing the number of casualties and potentially triggering a full-scale nuclear conflict. 50 In addition to the threat posed by
terrorists, leakage of nuclear knowledge and material from Russia will reduce the barriers that states with nuclear ambitions face and may trigger widespread proliferation of nuclear weapons. 51 This proliferation will increase the risk of nuclear attacks against the United States [*1440] or its allies by hostile states, 52 as well as increase the

likelihood that regional conflicts will draw in the United States and escalate to the use of nuclear weapons.

Nuclear terrorism causes full-scale escalation – draws in Russia and China Ayson, 2010 (Robert, Professor of Strategic Studies and directs the Centre for Strategic Studies: New Zealand at Victoria
University, “After a Terrorist Nuclear Attack:Envisaging Catalytic Effects” Published in the Studies for Conflict and Terrorism, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/1057610X.2010.483756 p. 583-585)

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

But these two nuclear worlds—a non-state actor nuclear attack and a catastrophic interstate nuclear exchange—are not necessarily separable. It is just possible that some sort of terrorist attack, and especially an act of 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, today’s and
nuclear exchange taking place precipitated entirely by state possessors themselves.

tomorrow’s terrorist groups might assume the 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. It may require a considerable amount of imagination to depict an especially plausible situation where an act of nuclear terrorism could lead to such a massive inter-state nuclear war. For example, in the event of a terrorist nuclear attack on the United States, it might well be wondered just how Russia and/or China could plausibly be brought into the picture, not least because they seem unlikely to be fingered as the most obvious state sponsors or encouragers of terrorist groups. They would seem far too responsible to be involved in supporting that sort of terrorist behavior that could just as easily threaten them as well. Some possibilities, however remote, do suggest themselves. For example, how

might the United States react if it was thought or discovered that the fissile material used in the act of nuclear terrorism had come from Russian stocks, 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 Washington’s relations with Russia and/or China, and at a time when threats had already been traded between these major powers, would officials and political leaders not be tempted to assume the worst? Of course, the chances of this
occurring would only seem to increase if the United States was already involved in some sort of limited armed conflict with Russia and/or China, or if they were confronting each other from a distance in a proxy war, as unlikely as these developments may seem at the present time. The reverse might well apply too: should a nuclear terrorist attack occur in Russia or China during a period of heightened tension or even limited conflict with the United States, could Moscow and Beijing resist the pressures that might rise

Washington’s 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 country’s armed forces, including its nuclear arsenal, on a higher stage of alert. In such a tense environment, when careful planning runs up against the friction of reality, it is just possible that Moscow and/or China might mistakenly read this as a sign of U.S. intentions to use force (and possibly nuclear force) against them. In that situation, the temptations to preempt such actions might grow, although it must be admitted that any preemption would probably still meet with a devastating response. As part of its initial response to the act of nuclear terrorism (as discussed earlier) Washington might decide to order a significant conventional (or nuclear) retaliatory or disarming attack against the leadership of the terrorist group and/or states seen to support that group. Depending on the identity and especially the location of these targets, Russia and/or China might interpret such action as being far too close for their comfort, and potentially as an infringement on their spheres of influence and even on their sovereignty. One far-fetched but
domestically to consider the United States as a possible perpetrator or encourager of the attack? perhaps not impossible scenario might stem from a judgment in Washington that some of the main aiders and abetters of the terrorist action resided somewhere such as Chechnya, perhaps in connection with what Allison claims is the “Chechen insurgents’ … long-standing interest in all things nuclear.”42 American

pressure on that part of the world would almost

certainly raise alarms in Moscow that might require a degree of advanced consultation from Washington that the latter found itself unable or unwilling to provide. There is also the question of how other nuclear-armed states respond to the act of nuclear terrorism on another member of that special club. It could reasonably
be expected that following a nuclear terrorist attack on the United States, both Russia and China would extend immediate sympathy and support to Washington and would work alongside the United States in the Security Council. But there is just a chance, albeit a slim one, where the support of Russia and/or China is less automatic in some cases than in others. For example, what would

happen if the United States wished to discuss its right to retaliate against groups based in their territory? If, for some reason, Washington found the responses of Russia and China deeply

underwhelming, (neither “for us or against us”) might it also suspect that they secretly were in cahoots with the group, increasing (again perhaps ever so slightly) the chances of a major exchange. If the terrorist group had some
connections to groups in Russia and China, or existed in areas of the world over which Russia and China held sway, and if Washington felt that Moscow or Beijing were placing a curiously modest level of pressure on them, what conclusions might it then draw about their culpability? If Washington decided to use, or decided to threaten the use of, nuclear weapons, the responses of Russia and China would be crucial to the chances of avoiding a more serious nuclear exchange. They might surmise, for example, that while the act of nuclear terrorism was especially heinous and demanded a strong response, the response simply had to remain below the nuclear threshold. It

would be one thing for a non-state actor to have broken the nuclear use taboo, but an entirely different thing for a state actor, and indeed the leading state in the international system, to do so. If Russia and China felt sufficiently strongly about that prospect, there is then the
question of what options would lie open to them to dissuade the United States from such action: and as has been seen over the last several decades, the central dissuader of the use of nuclear weapons by states has been the threat of nuclear retaliation. If some readers find this simply too fanciful, and perhaps even offensive to contemplate, it may be informative to reverse the tables. Russia, which possesses an arsenal of thousands of nuclear warheads and that has been one of the two most important trustees of the nonuse taboo, is subjected to an attack of nuclear terrorism. In response, Moscow places its nuclear forces very visibly on a higher state of alert and declares that it is considering the use of nuclear retaliation against the group and any of its state supporters. How would Washington view such a possibility? Would it really be keen to support Russia’s use of nuclear weapons, including outside Russia’s traditional sphere of influence? And if not, which seems quite plausible, what options would Washington have to communicate that displeasure? If China had been the victim of the nuclear terrorism and seemed likely to retaliate in kind, would the United States and Russia be happy to sit back and let this occur? In

the charged atmosphere immediately after a nuclear terrorist attack, how would the attacked country respond to pressure from other major nuclear powers not to respond in kind? The phrase “how dare they tell us what to do” immediately springs to mind. Some might even go so far as to interpret this concern as a tacit form of sympathy or support for the terrorists. This might not help the chances of nuclear restraint.

A NEW WMD TERRORIST ATTACK IN THE U.S. WILL TRIGGER RETALIATION THAT WILL KILL 100 MILLION PEOPLE Greg Easterbrook, senior editor with THE NEW REPUBLIC, November 2001, p.
www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0111/01/gal.00.html. (UNDRG/C324)
Terrorists may not be held by this, especially suicidal terrorists, of the kind that al Qaeda is attempting to cultivate. But I think, if I could leave you with one message, it would be this: that the search for terrorist atomic weapons would be of great benefit to the

if an atomic warhead goes off in Washington, say, in the current environment or anything like it, in the 24 hours that followed, a hundred million Muslims would die as U.S. nuclear bombs rained down on every conceivable military target in a dozen Muslim countries.
Muslim peoples of the world in addition to members, to people of the United States and Western Europe, because

THIS WILL ESCALATE TO MASS EXTINCTION VIA GLOBAL NUCLEAR WAR Mohamed Sid-Ahmed, Al-Ahram Weekly political analyst, 2004
[Al-Ahram Weekly, "Extinction!" 8/26, no. 705, http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/705/op5.htm]
What would be the consequences of a nuclear attack by terrorists? Even if it fails, it would further exacerbate the negative features of the new and frightening world in which we are now living. Societies would close in on themselves, police measures would be stepped up at the expense of human rights, tensions between civilisations and religions would rise and ethnic conflicts would proliferate. It would also speed up the arms race and develop the awareness that a different type of world order is imperative if humankind is to survive. But the still more critical scenario is if the attack succeeds. This could lead to a third world war, from which no one will emerge victorious. Unlike a conventional war which ends when one side triumphs over another, this war will be without winners and losers. When nuclear pollution infects the whole planet, we will all be losers.

State Failure
Latin American instability causes state failure - extinction Manwaring 5
Max G., Retired U.S. Army colonel and an Adjunct Professor of International Politics at Dickinson College, venezuela’s hugo chávez, bolivarian socialism, and asymmetric warfare, October 2005, pg. PUB628.pdf President Chávez also understands that the process leading to state failure is the most dangerous long-term security challenge facing the global community today. The argument in general is that failing and failed state status is the breeding ground for instability, criminality, insurgency, regional conflict, and terrorism. These conditions breed massive humanitarian disasters and major refugee flows. They can
host “evil” networks of all kinds, whether they involve criminal business enterprise, narco-trafficking, or some form of ideological crusade such as Bolivarianismo. More specifically, these conditions spawn all kinds of things people in general do not like such as murder, kidnapping, corruption, intimidation, and destruction of infrastructure. These means of coercion and persuasion can

spawn further human rights violations, torture, poverty, starvation, disease, the recruitment and use of child soldiers, trafficking in women and body parts, trafficking and proliferation of conventional weapons systems and WMD, genocide, ethnic cleansing, warlordism, and criminal anarchy. At the same time, these actions are usually unconfined and spill over into regional syndromes of poverty, destabilization, and conflict.62 Peru’s Sendero Luminoso calls
violent and destructive activities that facilitate the processes of state failure “armed propaganda.” Drug cartels operating throughout the Andean Ridge of South America and elsewhere call these activities “business incentives.” Chávez considers these actions to be steps that must be taken to bring about the political conditions necessary to establish Latin American socialism for the 21st century.63 Thus, in addition to helping to provide wider latitude to further their tactical and operational objectives, state and nonstate actors’ strategic efforts are aimed at progressively lessening a targeted regime’s credibility and capability in terms of its ability and willingness to govern and develop its national territory and society.

Chávez’s intent is to focus his primary attack politically and psychologically on selected Latin American governments’ ability and right to govern. In that context, he understands that popular
perceptions of corruption, disenfranchisement, poverty, and lack of upward mobility limit the right and the ability of a given regime to conduct the business of the state. Until a given populace generally perceives that its government is dealing with these and other basic issues of political, economic, and social injustice fairly and effectively, instability and the threat of subverting or destroying such a government are real.64 But failing and failed states simply do not go away. Virtually anyone can take advantage of such an unstable situation. The tendency is that the best motivated and best armed organization on the scene will control that instability. As a consequence, failing and failed states become dysfunctional states, rogue states, criminal states, narco-states, or new people’s democracies. In connection with the creation of new people’s democracies, one can rest assured that Chávez and his Bolivarian populist allies will be available to provide money, arms, and leadership at any given opportunity. And, of course, the

longer dysfunctional, rogue, criminal, and narco-states and people’s democracies persist, the more they and their associated problems endanger global security, peace, and prosperity.65

State failure causes global disease and WMD conflict Emmott ‘3,
Bill, Editor-in-Chief of The Economist, 2003, 20:21 Vision, pp. 265-266, 277-278 There are other self-serving reasons to be worried about inequality and its handmaiden, poverty. One is that a poorer country is more likely to have weak

political and social institutions, which are then more likely to collapse into chaos or civil war. That is especially likely when the country is poor in terms of the direct economic activity of its citizenry but
is nevertheless home to some valuable natural resources, such as the diamonds of Sierra Leone. Forces within, and forces from outside, are liable to fight to get their hands on those resources. Chaos and civil war are essentially local troubles that need not affect the rest of the world, but they are liable

to draw in neighbors, risking a wider regional conflict as countries or factions vie to exploit the vacuum left in the collapsing state. Poorer, unstable countries are also likely to harbor and to foster two other ills: disease and terrorism. Disease may well contribute to poverty rather than being a consequence of it, but it is also the case that a poor country [are] likely to lack the infrastructure as well as money

to be able to deal with epidemic diseases such as the human irumunodeficiency virus that causes AIDS, or Ebola, and those diseases might then be able to spread(.) across other borders. The danger of terrorism is more
obvious: discontented, otherwise hopeless people may wish to take out their sense of grievance on the luckier rich, and will be likely to find plenty of willing recruits for dangerous or even suicidal terrorist missions. The terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001 confirm this only indirectly, since the terrorists concerned were neither poor nor hopeless. But they and their followers did, it seems, feel that Islamic countries in general were poor and lacking in hope, following centuries of humiliation at the hands of the West. And the argument applies directly to Afghanistan: if that country had not been dirt-poor, it would have been unlikely to have acted as a host to the al-Qaeda terrorists. Rich countries can give rise to terrorism too, even without the separatist movements found in the Basque Country and Northern Ireland; Germany had its Baader-Meinhof gang in the 1970s, Italy its Red Brigades, and even America had the Symbionese Liberation Front. But they have not been numerous enough to pose a danger to their governments or to any other country. Poverty and despair act as a more powerful recruiting sergeant for terrorists than do mere alienation or beliefs in

countries which feel that they are unable to advance their living standards and sense of power by conventional economic means may be tempted to use military methods as a shortcut. As a general proposition, this argument is
anarchism. Other people worry about inequality because of a fear of war: the fear that unconvincing, for a poorer country is also often militarily weak, though that still made the Soviet-led Warsaw Pact countries a formidable enemy to NATO during the cold war. By and large, however, the rich will always be able to defeat poor countries in anything other than a guerrilla war—and such fighting methods may be common in civil wars or m wars of liberation, but they do not put other countries themselves in physical danger, except from terrorism. But in some circumstances this argument may hold good. North Korea, for example, has long used the threat of military attack either on its southern compatriot, or on Japan or the United States, as a means by which to blackmail the rich. Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 in order to grab its oil as well as merely to make a territorial point. Inequality, in other words, may

lead to an increase in the number of unpredictable deadly if any obtain

dictators— slightly euphemistically known as rogue states (even more euphemistically known, by America's State Department, as
"states of concern"). These rogues have become more dangerous as technology has advanced sufficiently to make long-range missiles cheap enough to buy and develop, and to use as a threat. They could become extremely the means to develop and deploy nuclear, chemical or

biological weapons.

Poverty
Poverty is the equivalent to a would-be thermonuclear war between the former-USSR and the US every 15 years.
James Gilligan, Department of Psychiatry Harvard Medical School, VIOLENCE: REFLECTIONS ON OUR DEADLIEST EPIDEMIC, 2000, p 195-196. The 14 to 18 million deaths a year cause by structural violence compare with about 100,000 deaths per year from armed conflict. Comparing this frequency of deaths from structural violence to the frequency of those caused by major military and political violence, such as World War II (an estimated 49 million military and civilian deaths, including those caused by genocide-or about eight million per year, 1935-1945), the Indonesian massacre of 1965-1966 (perhaps 575,000 deaths), the Vietnam war (possibly two million, 1954-1973), and even a hypothetical nuclear exchange between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R (232 million), it was clear that even war cannot begin to compare with structural violence, which continues year after year. In other word, every fifteen years, on the average, as many people die because of relative poverty as would be killed in a nuclear war that caused 232 million deaths; and every single year, two to three times as many people die from poverty throughout the world as were killed by the Nazi genocide of the Jews over a six-year period. This is, in effect, the equivalent of an ongoing, unending, in fact accelerating, thermonuclear war, or genocide, perpetrated on the weak and poor every year of every decade, throughout the world.

Global survival depends on ensuring Third World poverty alleviation—this is a moral and a practical imperative
Solo 92 (Executive Director of Cultural Survival, "Who Do We Think We Are," Cultural Studies
Quarterly, Spring, http://www.cs.org/publications/csq/csq-article.cfm?id=552) That questions is particularly potent now that the Cold War is over. In the Third World, centuries of colonialism and decades of superpower rivalry have left a damaging legacy. Southern countries and other peoples victimized by colonial expansion and its consequent political and economic systems are intensifying their calls for justice, not charity. The challenge is made even more difficult because a major export of
the developed world has been the concept of the nation state, with its emphasis on militarization and internal security. On the positive side, one lesson to be drawn from the collapse of communism is that grassroots politics can lead to revolutionary changes in governments and institutions of all kinds. In Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, new thinking, developed and embraced first by local actors, opened up political possibilities on an international scale. As the next millennium approaches, Cultural Survival hopes to take that lesson toward a second wave of political action that will help turn around relations between North and South, just as ordinary citizens helped reverse the tide of East-West relations. But while Western movements have focused on the weapons of war, the politics of the 1990s will center on a single interlocking agenda: human rights, the environment, and development. As its heart are some 600 million indigenous people.

Their fate is a pathway and litmus test of our progress toward a peaceful and sustainable world order . From the periphery of political, economic, and social power, they are moving to the center of world attention. Our survival depends on ensuring that no one, particularly the poorest of the poor, is thrown out of the canoe or viewed as dispensable. This is a moral and a practical imperative.

Ongoing global poverty outweighs nuclear war and genocide—only our impact evidence is comparative
Spina 00 (Stephanie Urso, Ph.D. candidate in social/personality psychology at the Graduate
School of the City University of New York, Smoke and Mirrors: The Hidden Context of Violence in Schools and Society, p. 201)

This sad fact is not limited to the United States. Globally, 18 million deaths a year are caused by structural violence, compared to 100,000 deaths per year from armed conflict. That is, approximately every five years, as many people die because of relative poverty as would be killed in a nuclear war that caused 232 million deaths, and every single year, two to three times as many people die from poverty throughout the world as were killed by the Nazi genocide of the Jews over a six-year period. This is, in effect, the equivalent of an ongoing, unending, in fact accelerating, thermonuclear war or genocide, perpetuated on the weak and the poor every year of every decade, throughout the world. (See James Gilligan, Violence: Reflections on a National Epidemic, New York: Vintage Books, 1997, 196).

We have a moral obligation to eliminate extreme poverty as it dehumanizes its victims
Sengendo 2008 [Ahmad Kawesa, Rector at University of Uganda] http://www.e
astsym.org/documents/ P1Kawesa_CentralityofSTI.pdf.
As Jack DeGioia of Georgetown University put it, ―The

moral challenge of our times is to eliminate extreme poverty.‖ Socio-economic transformation remains a mirage as long as the majority of our people continue to live in abject poverty. Poor people have no capacity to benefit from the great opportunities that advances in S&T as well as R&D may put on their door steps. Poverty is dehumanizing and cheats its victims of the minimum positive self-image and self-confidence necessary to face life’s challenges

While we as individuals may not be responsible for the totality of these circumstances, and while we may be powerless in some instances to change overarching problems, to continue with everyday life without recognizing the fundamentally unfair and immoral allocation of resources and taking actions to solve us dooms us to catastrophe
Pierik 02 (Roland, Tillburg University Law School + Visiting Scholar, Department of Philosophy
@ Columbia University, "Book review, forthcoming in the Leiden Journal of International Law," http://www.rolandpierik.nl/theory/Downloads/WPHR.pdf)
The chapters discuss a large variety of issues, but the central thought can be summarized as follows:

we, the governments and citizens of affluent democracies, have a negative duty not to uphold a global structure that violates human rights. Pogge’s position can be characterized as ‘moral institutional cosmopolitanism.’ Let me
elaborate this characterization by explaining the constituting parts. First, Pogge explicates a moral instead of legal notion of human rights (53). His defense is inspired by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, especially art. 25 − claiming that everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for health and well-being − and art. 28 − claiming that everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms of the UDHR can be fully realized. Secondly, Pogge understands human rights not in an interactional but in an institutional way: On the interactional understanding of human rights, governments and individuals have a responsibility not to violate human rights. On my institutional understanding, by contrast, their responsibility is to work for an institutional order and public culture that ensure that all members of society have secure access to the objects of their human rights. … By postulating a human right to X, one is asserting that any society or other social system, insofar as this is reasonably possible, ought to be so (re)organized that all its members have secure access to X . Pogge explicitly understands human rights in an institutional way: human rights are primarily claims against coercive social

Pogge’s defense is a cosmopolitan one, centering “on the fundamental needs and interests of human beings and all human beings,” and emphasizing “that every human being has a global stature as an ultimate unit of moral concern.” Pogge’s claim that we are not merely failing to help the global poor but actually harming them, needs an additional argument, establishing our
institutions, and secondarily claims against individuals that uphold (and benefit from) such institutions. Finally,

responsibility for their fate. Central in this argument is the existence of a global order, in which all
national governments participate, along with international and supranational institutions like the UN, EU, NATO, WTO, World Bank, and IMF.

To show why this global world order generates injustices Pogge presents three disjunctive arguments, addressing the adherents of three different strands of Western political thought. First, shared institutions. States are interconnected through a global network of market trade and diplomacy. This shared institutional global order is shaped by the better-off, and imposed on the worse-off. We impose a global institutional order that foreseeably and avoidably reproduces severe and widespread poverty. This order is unjust if there is a feasible institutional alternative under which such severe human rights deprivations would not persist. (199-201). Second, uncompensated exclusion. The better-off enjoy significant advantages in appropriating wealth from our planet, such as the use of a single natural resource base like crude oil. The worse-off are largely, and without compensation, excluded from the gains of this appropriation (201-203). Third violent history. The inequalities in the social starting positions of the better-off and the worseoff have emerged from a single historical process that was pervaded by massive, grievous wrongs, such as a history of conquest and colonization with oppression and enslavement (203204). Pogge concludes that poverty in developing countries cannot be seen as disconnected from our affluence. The existing global order, and the injustices it generates, implies that we violate a negative duty not to harm the global poor, that is, not to violate their basic human rights. This negative duty implies that Western governments should not impose an institutional order under which, foreseeably
and avoidably, individuals lack secure access to some of the objects of their human rights. Pogge criticizes the foreign policy of Western societies, and especially their policies that shaped the global order, for having pushed their self-interest to the extreme. He gives some examples: the negotiation of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (125) and the WTO-regime (15-19), and concludes that: Our new global economic order is so harsh on the global poor, then, because it is shaped in negotiations where our representatives ruthlessly exploit their vastly superior bargaining power and expertise, as well as any weakness, ignorance, or corruptibility they may find in their counterpart negotiators, to shape each agreement for our greatest benefit (20). His complaint against the WTO regime is not that it opens markets too much, but that it opens our markets not enough and thereby gains for us the benefits of free trade, while withholding them from the global poor (19). The idea that we might only have a humanitarian duty is thus beside the point. We are harming the global poor by imposing an unjust global order, in which Western societies close their markets by protectionist policies, massively subsidize the local agriculture, and introduce anti-dumping measures in many of the sectors where developing countries are best able to compete, like agriculture, textiles and clothing. The existing global institutional order is neither natural, nor God-given, but shaped and upheld by the more powerful governments and

The current global order produces a stable pattern of widespread malnutrition and starvation, and there are alternative regimes possible that would not produce similarly severe deprivations (176). It is the negative duty of Western governments to aim for a global order under which basic human rights are not violated, that is, a global order in which all individuals are able to meet their basic social and economic needs. Of course, national governments primarily focus on the interests of their own citizens, but they should not do so at the expense of gross human rights violations abroad. Indeed, they can improve the circumstances of the globally worst-off and meet the demands of justice without becoming badly-off themselves.
by actors they control such as the EU, NATO, WTO, OECD, World Bank, and IMF.

Furthermore, given this ethical responsibility, we have an infinite responsibility to act in the face of poverty. If rejecting the Aff is not necessary to prevent the disad impact, then the Aff is still the most morally preferable option
Gert 04 (Bernie, Prof of Philosophy @ Dartmouth, Common Morality: Deciding What to Do, pg.
69) This feature is often simply included as part of features 2 and 5, which are concerned with the harms and benefits that are caused, avoided, and prevented. But it is not merely the consequences of alternative policies that are morally relevant. An alternative action or policy may be morally preferable to the action being considered because it does not violate a moral rule. Paternalistic deception, which might be justified if there were no nonpaternalistic alternatives, is not justified if there is a preferable alternative, such as taking time to persuade citizens or patients rather than deceiving them. Explicit awareness of this feature may lead people to try to find out if there are any alternative actions that either would not involve a violation of a moral rule or would involve causing much less harm.

Poverty, not military adventurism, rogue nations, or terrorism, poses the greatest threat to US and global interests—we have a moral and legal obligation to eradicate it from society
Vear 04 (Jesse Leah, Co-coordinates POWER--Portland Organizing to Win Economic Rights,
"Abolishing Poverty: A Declaration of Economic Human Rights," http://www.peaceworkmagazine.org/pwork/0407/040704.htm)
In resisting empire, I share with all of you a common cause and a common urgency, yet having seen and experienced conditions of poverty lends my voice a special urgency today. For I may not know a whole lot about the US Space

I do know first hand about the immense human misery and suffering that plagues the surface of the earth down here below. And I know that it would take a pittance of what is spent on this nation's militaristic endeavors to end this human suffering and ensure a decent standard of living for every man, woman, and child. And I also know that while our nation
program and the role of weapons in space, but contemplates sending missions to Mars to probe for any signs of life, the leaders of this same nation couldn't care less about the lives right here on this planet - indeed the lives right here in our nation's own Capitol, in the shadow of the Washington Monument and the halls of Congress, lives shuddering with hunger and sickness and desperation. These are things I know all too well. I've heard about the "need" for an advanced missile defense system. I hear this kind of talk and I think to myself, yes, if only we could have some sort of defense system! Millions and millions of Americans cry out for security! For every war our nation wages across the globe, there is a war raging right here in our own society - a seemingly endless, silent war being waged against us - the most vulnerable, defenseless members of society. People like me. Yet no missile defense system will prevent our enemy from striking.

Our enemy is neither deterred by the world's largest army, with its overstuffed arsenal of missiles and bombs and tanks and warships, nor is it kept at bay by the legions of armed sentries patrolling our borders. Our enemy does not come in the form of foreign terrorists or so-called rogue nations. Armed with the mere stroke of a pen, our enemy comes in the form of years and years of national policies that would rather see us starve than invest even a portion of our nation's wealth in our welfare. Locked in the cross-hairs of domestic and foreign policies which intentionally put our bodies in harm's way, our terror is the terror of poverty - a terror boldly and callously proliferated by our own government. Surely one doesn't need the
surveillance powers of high-definition weapons-grade satellites to see the faces of the some 80 million poor people struggling just to survive in America; to see the worried faces of homeless mothers waiting to be added to the waiting list for non-existent public housing; to find the unemployment lines filled with parents who aren't eligible to see a doctor and who can't afford to get sick; to see the children stricken with preventable diseases in the midst of the world's best-equipped hospitals; to hear the rumble in the bellies of millions of hungry Americans whose only security is a bread line once a week; or to detect the crumbling of our nation's under-funded, under-staffed schools. Meanwhile, billions are spent waging wars and occupying countries that our school children can't even find on a map.

Surely it doesn't take a rocket scientist to detect the moral bankruptcy of a nation - by far the world's richest and most powerful - which disregards the basic human needs

of its own despairing people in favor of misguided military adventures that protect no one, whether in nations half-way across the globe, or in the outer reaches of our atmosphere. To see these things one needs neither a high-powered satellite nor a specialized degree. One needs only to open one's eyes and dare to see the reality before them. Yet even as you look you still might not see the millions of poor people in America. My face is only one of 80 million Americans who never get asked for in-depth television interviews or for our expert commentary regarding the state of the economy or the impact of our nation's policies. In addition to all the indignities suffered by poor people in America, we must suffer the further indignation of being disappeared - kept discretely hidden away from the eyes, ears, and conscience of the rest of society and the world. The existence of poverty in the richest country on earth cannot remain a secret for long. Americans, like the majority of the world's peoples, are compassionate, fair-minded people. When exposed, the moral hypocrisy of poverty in America cannot withstand the light of day any more than the moral hypocrisy of slavery or race or sex discrimination could. That's where the Poor People's Economic Human Rights Campaign comes in.

we are reaching out to the international community as well as the rest of US society to help us secure what are our most basic human rights, as outlined in International Law. According
With this campaign, to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, an International Treaty signed in 1948 by all UN member nations, including the United States,

all nations have a moral and legal obligation to ensure the basic needs and well-being of all their citizens. Among the rights outlined in the Declaration are the rights to food, housing, health care, jobs at living wages, and education. Over half a century after signing this document, despite huge economic gains and a vast productive capacity, the United States has sorely neglected its promise. In a land whose founding documents proclaim life, liberty, and justice for all, we must hold this nation to its promises. And so, armed only with the force of International law and
the force of our convictions, thousands of homeless, working poor, and unemployed families and individuals from all across this great nation are coming together to take part in this campaign and form what Dr. Martin Luther King called "a multi-racial

as Dr. King once said: "The curse of poverty has no justification in our age… The time has come for us to civilize ourselves by the total, direct, and immediate abolition of poverty."
nonviolent army of poor people." For

Growth
Growth reduces conflict, while downswings greatly increase risk of war
Paul Collier, director, Development Research Group at the World Bank; professor of economics at Oxford, 2000, in Greed and Grievance, ed. Berdal and Malone, pp. 97-98
The only result that supports the grievance approach to conflict is that a prior period of rapid

economic decline increases the risk of conflict. Each 5 percent of annual growth rate has about the same effect as a year of education for the population in reducing the risk of conflict. Thus, a society in which the economy is growing by 5 percent is around 40 percent safer than one that is declining by 5 percent, other things equal. Presumably, growth gives hope, whereas rapid decline may galvanize people into action. Inequality, whether measured in terms of income or
landownership, has no effect on the risk of conflict according to the data. This is, of course, surprising given the attention inequality has received as an explanation of conflict. The results cannot, however, be lightly dismissed. For example, the measures of inequality have proved to be significant in explaining economic growth and so are evidenfly not so noisy as to lack explanatory power. Nor is our result dependent upon a particular specification. Anke Hoeffler and I have experimented with well over a hundred variants of our core specification, and in none of these is inequality a significant cause of conflict. (By contrast, primary commodity exports are always significant.)

Growth is key to peaceful conflict resolution and prevention
Indra de Soysa, senior research associate at the International Peace Research Institute, 2000, in Greed and Grievance, ed. Berdal and Malone, p. 126
The question is, How can a country escape from resource dependence and manage to innovate?

Economic growth is vital because the raising of per capita income proxies innovative capabilities. Bringing about economic growth through development assistance is one obvious answer. Countries with higher per capita wealth are far less likely to suffer internal conflict and are more likely to exhibit strong democracy—which is widely seen as promoting peace and conflict resolution. Thus, renewed efforts at promoting economic growth and democratic institutions seem to be the best long-term strategy for creating what UNESCO has termed ―a culture of peace‖ in the developing world.

Growth solves international conflicts – interdependence key
Leonard Silk, Distinguished Professor of Economics at Pace University; Senior Fellow of the Brookings Institution, 1992 / 1993 Foreign Affairs
But slow growth in the world economy now makes the danger of a reversion to beggar-thyneighbor policies a real one. Some see the three major economic powers -- the United States, Germany and Japan -- riding in different directions

the interdependence resulting from economic integration has greatly reduced the effective autonomy of even large national economies. Nations have found that their policies are now less potent domestically, affect other countries more strongly and produce sharp and often unwelcome changes in the trade and payments balances and exchange rates that link them with others. n11 See Jeffrey E. Garten, A Cold Peace: America, Japan,
and threatening to pull the world economy apart. But

Germany, and the Struggle for Supremacy, a Twentieth Century Fund Book, Times Books, 1992. In this changed world, cooperation among the major economies in policymaking has become increasingly important. But there are no technical solutions to the economic problems the world is facing. What is most needed is the political will -- the will of the United States, Germany, Japan and other major industrial countries to deal more effectively with their own problems and the will of all the major developed

. The most important challenge for economic cooperation in the years ahead will be to keep the world economy growing at a vigorous and sustainable pace. With real economic growth the serious problems of world debt, unbalanced trade, currency disequilibrium and unemployment -- as well as the social, ethnic, racial and nationalist tensions and the violence to which they give rise -- can be contained, and progress made toward their solutions.
countries to work together for a common end

Economic interdependence prevents nuclear extinction. Copley News Service December 1, 1999
For decades, many children in America and other countries went to bed fearing annihilation by nuclear war. The specter of nuclear winter freezing the life out of planet Earth seemed very real. Activists protesting the World Trade Organization's meeting in Seattle apparently have forgotten that threat. The truth is that nations join together in groups like the WTO not just to further their own prosperity, but also to forestall conflict with other nations. In a way, our planet has traded in the threat of a worldwide nuclear war for the benefit of cooperative global economics. Some Seattle protesters clearly fancy themselves to
be in the mold of nuclear disarmament or anti-Vietnam War protesters of decades past. But they're not. They're special-interest activists, whether the cause is environmental, labor or paranoia about global government. Actually, most of the demonstrators in Seattle are very much unlike yesterday's peace activists, such as Beatle John Lennon or philosopher Bertrand Russell, the father of the nuclear disarmament movement, both of whom urged people and nations to work together rather than strive against each other. These and other war protesters would probably approve of 135 WTO nations sitting down peacefully to discuss economic issues that in the past might have been settled by bullets and bombs. As long as nations are trading peacefully, and their economies are built on exports to other countries, they have a major disincentive to wage war. That's why bringing China, a budding superpower, into the WTO is so important. As exports to the United States and the rest of the world feed Chinese prosperity, and that prosperity increases demand for the goods we produce, the threat of hostility diminishes. That's why bringing China, a budding superpower, into the WTO is so important. As exports to the United States and the rest of the world feed Chinese prosperity, and that prosperity increases demand for the goods we produce, the threat of hostility diminishes. Many anti-trade protesters in Seattle claim that only multinational corporations benefit from global trade, and that it's the everyday wage earners who get hurt. That's just plain wrong. First of all, it's not the military-industrial complex benefiting. It's U.S. companies that make high-tech goods. And those companies provide a growing number of jobs for Americans. In San Diego, many people have good jobs at Qualcomm, Solar Turbines and other companies for whom overseas markets are essential. In Seattle, many of the 100,000 people who work at Boeing would lose their livelihoods without world trade. Foreign trade today accounts for 30 percent of our gross domestic product. That's a lot of jobs for everyday workers. Growing global prosperity has helped counter the

specter of nuclear winter. Nations of the world are learning to live and work together, like the singers of anti-war songs once imagined. Those who care about world peace shouldn't be protesting world trade. They should be celebrating it.

Environment
Refer to environment section below

Spills Over
Science diplomacy creates cultural exchanges that spill over
Federoff, KAUST professor of life sciences and Biotechnology, ’08.
(Nina, 4/2/13, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-110hhrg41470/html/CHRG110hhrg41470.htm, Accessed 6/25/13, ARH)

Scientists have played an important role on the front-lines of U.S. diplomacy since the end of World War II. They have been the enablers of larger international diplomacy efforts, from the robust scientific exchange with China to renewed and strengthened relations with Egypt, India, and Pakistan-all started with the peaceful beachhead of scientific diplomacy. For instance, polls indicate that people in the Middle East generally view American S&T more favorably than other aspects of our society. This approving attitude provides for favorable forums to explain other aspects of American policies and actions. Our nation's citizens also benefit directly from S&T cooperation, as it provides our scientists and engineers with greater access to cutting-edge research and allows us to work across geographical boundaries to solve global problems. In addition, globalization has amplified the worldwide competition for ideas, science and engineering (S&E) talent, and leadership in turning new knowledge into real-world applications. Many nations are accelerating their investments in research and development, education, and infrastructure in order to drive sustained economic growth. To continue being a global leader in S&T, we must ensure that we have access to discoveries being made in every corner of the world. The National Science Foundation understands the global nature of scientific discovery, and the international character of knowledge creation and research activities are stressed in NSF's FY 2006-2011 Strategic Plan, Investing in America's Future. For more than 55 years, NSF has connected S&E researchers and educators in academic organizations, industry and informal science institutions, both nationally and internationally, to leverage intellectual capabilities. NSF has strengthened the Nation's collaborative advantage by leading or participating in key interagency initiatives as well as by developing innovative collaborations across all S&E disciplines.

Science engagement creates cooperation on unrelated issues EDWARD P. DJEREJIAN, 2011, Founding director of the James A. Baker III Institute for Public
Policy at Rice University, is a former U.S. ambassador to Syria and to Israel; Lane is a senior fellow in science and technology policy at the Baker Institute as well as the Malcolm Gillis University Professor and a professor of physics and astronomy at Rice University; Matthews is a fellow in science and technology policy at the Baker Institute and a lecturer for the Wiess School of Natural Sciences at Rice University. “Science, diplomacy and international collaboration” http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/Science-diplomacy-and-internationalcollaboration-1683250.php

As science diplomacy begins to be recognized around the world as a powerful diplomatic tool, the barriers to international scientific collaboration may be reduced or removed, which could lead to the lowering of barriers between nations on other pressing issues.

Cuba Key
Embargo hurts US – Latin American relations, the plan would signal a change benefitting the US’s relationship w/ the region White, Senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, 13
(Robert E., New York Times, 3/7/13, “After Chávez, a Chance to Rethink Relations With Cuba,” http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/08/opinion/after-chavez-hope-for-good-neighbors-in-latinamerica.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0, accessed 6/24/13, IC)
FOR most of our history, the

United States assumed that its security was inextricably linked to a partnership with Latin America. This legacy dates from the Monroe Doctrine, articulated in 1823, through the Rio pact, thepostwar treaty
that pledged the United States to come to the defense of its allies in Central and South America.¶ Yet for a half-century, our policies toward our southern neighbors have alternated between intervention and neglect, inappropriate meddling and missed opportunities. The death this week of President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela — who along with Fidel Castro of Cuba was perhaps the most vociferous critic of the United States among the political leaders of the Western Hemisphere in recent decades —

offers an opportunity to restore bonds with potential allies who share the American goal of prosperity.¶ Throughout his career, the autocratic Mr. Chávez used our embargo as a wedge with which to antagonize the United States and alienate its supporters. His fuel helped prop up the rule of Mr. Castro and his brother Raúl, Cuba’s current president. The embargo no longer serves any useful purpose (if it ever did at all); President Obama should end it, though it would mean overcoming powerful opposition from Cuban-American lawmakers in Congress.¶ An end to the Cuba embargo would send a powerful signal to all of Latin America that the United States wants a new, warmer relationship with democratic forces seeking social change throughout the Americas.¶ I joined the State Department as a Foreign Service officer in the 1950s and chose to serve in Latin America in
the 1960s. I was inspired by President John F. Kennedy’s creative response to the revolutionary fervor then sweeping Latin America. The 1959 Cuban revolution, led by the charismatic Fidel Castro, had inspired revolts against the cruel dictatorships and corrupt pseudodemocracies that had dominated the region since the end of Spanish and Portuguese rule in the 19th century.¶ Kennedy had a charisma of his own, and it captured the imaginations of leaders who wanted democratic change, not violent revolution.

Kennedy reacted to the threat of continental insurrection by creating the Alliance for Progress,
a kind of Marshall Plan for the hemisphere that was calculated to achieve the same kind of results that saved Western Europe from Communism. He pledged billions of dollars to this effort. In hindsight, it may have been overly ambitious, even naïve, but

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

Chávez was masterful at manipulating America’s antagonism toward Fidel Castro as a rhetorical stick with which to attack the United States as an imperialist aggressor, an enemy of progressive change, interested mainly in treating Latin America as a vassal continent, a source of cheap commodities and labor.¶ Like its predecessors, the Obama administration has given few signs that it has grasped the magnitude of these changes or cares about their consequences. After President Obama took office in 2009, Latin

America’s leading statesman at the time, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, then the president of Brazil, urged Mr. Obama to normalize relations with Cuba.¶ Lula, as he is universally known, correctly identified our Cuba policy as the chief stumbling block to renewed ties with Latin America, as it had been since the very early years of the
Castro regime.¶ After the failure of the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion, Washington set out to accomplish by stealth and economic strangulation what it had failed to do by frontal attack. But the clumsy mix of covert action and porous boycott succeeded primarily in bringing shame on the United States and turning Mr. Castro into a folk hero.¶ And even now, despite the relaxing of travel restrictions and Raúl Castro’s announcement that he will retire in 2018, the implacable hatred of many within the Cuban exile community continues. The fact that two of the three Cuban-American members of the Senate — Marco Rubio of Florida and Ted Cruz of Texas — are rising stars in the Republican Party complicates further the potential for a recalibration of Cuban-American relations. (The third member, Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, is the new chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, but his power has been weakened by a continuing ethics controversy.)¶ Are there any other examples in the history of diplomacy where the leaders of a small, weak nation can prevent a great power from acting in its own best interest merely by staying alive?¶ The

re-election of President Obama, and the death of Mr. Chávez, give America a chance to reassess the irrational hold on our imaginations that Fidel Castro has exerted for five decades. The president and his new secretary of state, John Kerry, should quietly reach out to Latin American leaders like President Juan Manuel Santos of Colombia and José Miguel Insulza, secretary general of the Organization of American States. The message should be simple: The president is prepared to show some flexibility on Cuba and asks your help.¶ Such a simple request could transform the Cuban issue from a bilateral problem into a multilateral challenge. It would then be up to Latin Americans to devise a policy that would help Cuba
achieve a sufficient measure of democratic change to justify its reintegration into a hemisphere composed entirely of elected governments.¶ If, however, our

present policy paralysis continues, we will soon see the emergence of two rival camps, the United States versus Latin America. While Washington would continue to enjoy friendly relations with individual countries like Brazil, Mexico and Colombia, the vision of Roosevelt and Kennedy of a hemisphere of partners cooperating in matters of common concern would be reduced to a historical footnote.

Plan is in concession to all of Latin America—even allies like Colombia and Mexico have condemned the embargo Ballvé, writer for the Progressive Media Project, 8 (Teo, NACLA, 12/30/08, “End the Embargo Against Cuba,” https://nacla.org/news/end-embargo-against-cuba, 6/24/13, IC)
“The embargo is a policy that hasn't worked in nearly 50 years,” Wayne Smith, the former head of Washington's diplomatic mission in Havana under the Carter administration, recently told the AP. “It's stupid, it's counterproductive and there is no international support for it.”¶ For 17 straight years, the 192-member U.N. General Assembly has overwhelmingly approved a nonbinding resolution condemning the U.S. embargo. Only the United States, Israel and Palau voted against the measure in October.¶ In the United States, the political tide is also turning against the embargo, which would require Congressional approval to lift.¶ Politicians have traditionally pandered to the Cuban exile community in Florida as a key — even decisive — voting bloc, giving Cuban-American hardliners essentially a veto over changes in U.S. policy. But these old guard, militant exiles, who generally left Cuba shortly after the Castro brothers declared victory, have found their influence waning.¶ A generational and demographic shift is under way in south Florida that changes the calculus.¶ A poll conducted by Florida International University a month after the presidential election shows a sea change in Cuban-American opinion. The poll revealed 55 percent of Cuban-American respondents favored ending the embargo, while 65 percent said they wanted Washington to re-establish diplomatic relations with Havana.¶ Lifting the embargo would dramatically improve Washington's ties with the rest of Latin America.¶ On December 8,

the heads of 15 Caribbean nations called on Obama to rescind the embargo: “The Caribbean community hopes that the transformational change which is under way in the United States will finally relegate that measure to history,” their statement said.¶ Then on December 17 in Brazil, the leaders of 33 Latin American countries, including conservative allies of Washington like Colombia and Mexico, convened for another gathering and unanimously called on Obama to drop the “unacceptable” embargo.¶ At that summit, Cuban President Raúl Castro even offered to release political prisoners as a gesture to pave the way for talks between Havana and Washington.¶ If Obama moves to lift the embargo, it would send a bold statement that his administration is serious about writing a truly new chapter in U.S. relations with Cuba — and the rest of Latin America.¶

Cuba is a key sticking point between US-Latin American relations, which are crucial to US economy and global problems Inter-American Dialogue, leading US center for policy analysis, exchange, and communication on issues in Western Hemisphere Affairs, 12 (4/2012, Inter-American Dialogue“REMAKING THE RELATIONSHIP: The United States and Latin America,” http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD2012PolicyReportFINAL.pdf, p. 2-3, accessed 6/24/13, IC)
In part as a result of these shifts, US-Latin American relations have grown ¶ more distant . The quality and intensity of ties have diminished . Most countries of the region view the United States as less and less relevant to their ¶ needs—and with declining capacity to propose and carry out strategies to ¶ deal with the issues that most concern them .¶ In the main, hemispheric relations are amicable . Open conflict is rare and, ¶ happily, the sharp antagonisms that marred relations in the past have subsided . But the US-Latin America relationship would profit from more vitality ¶ and direction . Shared interests are not pursued as vigorously as they should ¶ be, and opportunities for more fruitful engagement are being missed . Well developed ideas for reversing these disappointing trends are scarce Some enduring problems stand squarely in the way of partnership and ¶ effective cooperation . The inability of Washington to reform its broken ¶ immigration system is a constant source of friction between the United ¶ States and nearly every other country in the Americas . Yet US officials rarely ¶ refer to immigration as a foreign policy issue . Domestic policy debates on ¶ this issue disregard the United States’ hemispheric agenda as well as the ¶ interests of other nations .¶ Another chronic irritant is US drug policy, which most Latin Americans now ¶ believe makes their drug and crime problems worse . Secretary of State Hillary ¶ Clinton, while visiting Mexico, acknowledged that US anti-drug programs ¶ have not worked . Yet, despite growing calls and pressure from the region, the ¶ United States has shown little interest in exploring alternative approaches .¶ Similarly, Washington’s more than half-century embargo on Cuba, as well ¶ as other elements of United States’ Cuba policy, is strongly opposed by all ¶ other countries in the hemisphere . Indeed, the US position on these troublesome issues—immigration, drug policy, and Cuba—has set Washington ¶ against the consensus view of the hemisphere’s other 34 governments .¶ These issues stand as obstacles to further cooperation in the Americas . The ¶ United States and the nations of Latin America and the Caribbean need to ¶ resolve them in order to build more productive partnerships .¶ There are compelling reasons for the United States and Latin America

to ¶ pursue more robust ties .¶ Every country in the Americas would benefit from strengthened and ¶ expanded economic relations, with improved access to each other’s markets, investment capital, and energy resources . Even with its current economic problems, the United States’ $16trillion economy is a vital market ¶ and source of capital (including remittances) and technology for Latin ¶ America, and it could contribute more to the region’s economic performance . For its part, Latin America’s rising economies will inevitably become ¶ more and more crucial to the United States’ economic future .¶ The United States and many nations of Latin America and the Caribbean ¶ would also gain a great deal by more cooperation on such global matters ¶ as climate change, nuclear non-proliferation, and democracy and human ¶ rights . With a rapidly expanding US Hispanic population of more than 50 ¶ million, the cultural and demographic integration of the United States and ¶ Latin America is proceeding at an accelerating pace, setting a firmer basis ¶ for hemispheric partnership.

Plan appeases all of Latin America—they see foreign policy towards Cuba as symbolic of Latin American policy Goodman, reporter for Bloomberg News, 09 (Joshua, Bloomberg, 4/13/09, “Latin America to Push Obama on Cuba Embargo at Summit,” http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aLnOE1ib3E3Y, accessed 6/24/13, IC)
April 13 (Bloomberg) -- When Barack Obama arrives at the fifth Summit of the Americas this week, Cuba will be at the heart of the U.S. relationship with the rest of the hemisphere, exactly as it has been for half a century.¶ While Latin American leaders split on many issues, they agree that Obama should lift the 47-year-old U.S. trade embargo on Cuba. From Venezuelan socialist Hugo Chavez to Mexico’s pro-business Felipe Calderon, leaders view a change in policy toward Cuba as a starting point for reviving U.S. relations with the region, which are at their lowest point in two decades.¶ Obama, born six months before President John F. Kennedy imposed the embargo, isn’t prepared to support ending it. Instead, he’ll seek to satisfy the leaders at the April 17-19 summit in Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, with less ambitious steps disclosed by the administration today -- repealing restrictions on family visits and remittances imposed by former President George W. Bush.¶ That would mesh with his stated goal of changing the perception of “U.S. arrogance” that he attributed to his predecessor in his sole policy speech on the region last May.¶ “All of Latin America and the Caribbean are awaiting a change in policy toward Cuba,” Jose Miguel Insulza, Secretary General of the Washington-based Organization of American States, said in an interview. “They value what Obama has promised, but they want more.”¶ The policy changes unveiled today also include an expanded list of items that can be shipped to the island, and a plan to allow U.S. telecommunications companies to apply for licenses in Cuba.¶ Symbolically Important¶ Cuba, the only country in the hemisphere excluded from the 34-nation summit, is symbolically important to the region’s leaders, many of whom entered politics under military regimes and looked to Cuba and its longtime leader Fidel Castro, 82, for inspiration and support. Even though most countries shun the communist policies of Castro and his brother, now-President Raul Castro, the U.S. alone in the hemisphere rejects diplomatic and trade relations with the island.¶ “Cuba represents a 50-year policy failure in Latin America and that’s why it’s so important for Obama to address it now,” says Wayne Smith, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy in Washington, who headed the State Department’s Cuba interest section in Havana from 19791982. “Unless Obama wants to be booed off the stage, he better come with fresh ideas.”¶ The

U.S. president, 47, thinks it would be “unfortunate” if Cuba is the principal theme at the summit and would prefer the session focus instead on the economy, poverty and the environment, says Jeffrey Davidow, the White House’s top adviser for the meeting. Obama also understands that he can’t control the discussion and intends to deal with the other leaders as partners, Davidow told reporters on April 6.¶

US-Cuban Relations Key to US-Latin American Relations Sweig, Nelson and David Rockefeller Senior Fellow for Latin America Studies and Director for Latin America Studies, 13 (Julia, 6/23/13, Council Foreign Relaions, “Cuba After Communism”, http://www.cfr.org/cuba/cuba-after-communism/p30991?cid=rss-fullfeedcuba_after_communism062413&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3 A+cfr_main+(CFR.org+-+Main+Site+Feed), 6/27/13, AL)
In January, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry opened his confirmation hearing by celebrating his close collaboration with Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) in overcoming the legacy of war in order to restore U.S. relations with Vietnam. Yet both Kerry and Obama still seem to defer to the outdated conventional wisdom on Cuba, according to which Washington cannot change its failed policy so long as Cuban Americans in Congress continue to oppose doing so. Reality, however, is already changing. These legislators' constituents have started voting with their feet and checkbooks, traveling to the island and sending remittances to family there as never before. Several wealthy Cuban Americans, moreover, are now talking directly with Havana about large-scale future investments. As a Democrat who won nearly half of Florida's Cuban American vote in 2012, Obama

is in a better position than any of his geopolitical context in

predecessors to begin charting an end to the United States' 50-year-long embargo. The

Latin America provides another reason the U.S. government should make a serious shift on Cuba. For five years now, Obama has ignored Latin America's unanimous disapproval of Washington's position on Cuba. Rather
than perpetuate Havana's diplomatic isolation, U.S. policy embodies the imperial pretensions of a bygone era, contributing to Washington's own marginalization. Virtually all countries in the region have refused to attend another Summit of the Americas meeting if Cuba is not at the table. Cuba, in turn, currently

chairs the new Community of Latin American

and Caribbean States, which excludes Washington. The Obama administration has begun laying out what could
become a serious second-term agenda for Latin America focused on energy, jobs, social inclusion, and deepening integration in the Americas. But the

symbolism of Cuba across the region is such that the White House can

definitively lead U.S.–Latin American relations out of the Cold War and into the twenty-first century only by shifting its Cuba policy

Science Key
Science is the best engagement strategy EDWARD P. DJEREJIAN, 2011, Founding director of the James A. Baker III Institute for Public
Policy at Rice University, is a former U.S. ambassador to Syria and to Israel; Lane is a senior fellow in science and technology policy at the Baker Institute as well as the Malcolm Gillis University Professor and a professor of physics and astronomy at Rice University; Matthews is a fellow in science and technology policy at the Baker Institute and a lecturer for the Wiess School of Natural Sciences at Rice University. “Science, diplomacy and international collaboration” http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/Science-diplomacy-and-internationalcollaboration-1683250.php The very nature of scientific investigation encourages interactions between researchers, regardless of where they happen to live and work; hence, research collaborations spontaneously arise regardless of the political climate between host countries. These one-onone or small group contacts are sometimes one of the few avenues for communication between the United States and a particular country and can provide a platform for industrial partnerships, educational outreach and global community development. At its best, science diplomacy is a means to create opportunities for civic engagement in difficult political environments.

Solves for soft power Dehgan and Colglazier 2k12 - the science and technology adviser to the administrator of
the U.S. Agency for International Development; the science and technology adviser to the U.S. secretary of state (Alex and E. William, “Development Science and Science Diplomacy”, 12/7/2012, http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/perspective/2012/development-science-andscience-diplomacy) Cooperation on science, technology, and engineering around development challenges provides U.S. diplomats with a significant opportunity to leverage science as a tool of smart power. U.S. scientific expertise is highly regarded around the world, even in areas where U.S. popularity may be low. Despite fierce competition and rapidly increasing parity in science, technology, and engineering assets among nations, the United States remains predominant in most fields and is a world leader in education, research, and innovation. Scientific engagement serves U.S. interests to promote stability by empowering a traditional source of moderate leadership. Scientists frequently are the intelligentsia of society and play important roles as leaders in many developing countries. The values inherent in science—honesty, doubt, respect for evidence, transparency and openness, meritocracy, accountability, tolerance, and hunger for opposing points of view—are values that Americans cherish. They are also values that achieve political goals, such as improving governance, transparency, and the rule of law. Scientific engagement can also build long-term frameworks that reinforce and
support official relationships between the United States and other countries. Science diplomacy is not the relationship itself, but provides the scaffolding essential for the relationship to thrive.

The embargo hinders science diplomacy – lifting it encourages collaboration that solve for relations and other environmental impacts Pastrana et al., Sergio Jorge Pastrana is the Foreign Secretary of the Academia de Ciencias de
Cuba, Michael T. Clegg is the Foreign Secretary of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and

Donald Bren Professor of Biological Sciences, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the School of Biological Sciences, University of California, Irvine. 08 (Sergio Jorge, Michael T. Clegg, Science AAAS October 2008, “U.S. – Cuban Scientific Relations,” Vol. 322 no. 5900 p. 345, ACCESSED June 30, 2013, RJ) In a few years, the two oldest national academies of science in the world outside of Europe— those of the United States and Cuba—will celebrate their 150th anniversaries. Yet despite the proximity of both nations and many common scientific interests, the U.S. embargo on exchanges with Cuba, which began in 1961 and is now based on the 1996 U.S. Helms-Burton Act and subsequent regulations, has largely blocked scientific exchange. It's time to establish a new scientific relationship, not only to address shared challenges in health, climate, agriculture, and energy, but also to start building a framework for expanded cooperation. Restrictions on U.S.-Cuba scientific cooperation deprive both research communities of opportunities that could benefit our societies, as well as others in the hemisphere, particularly in the Caribbean. Cuba is scientifically proficient in disaster management and mitigation, vaccine production, and epidemiology. Cuban scientists could benefit from access to research facilities that are beyond the capabilities of any developing country, and the U.S. scientific community could benefit from high-quality science being done in Cuba. For example, Cuba typically sits in the path of hurricanes bound for the U.S. mainland that create great destruction, as was the case with Hurricane Katrina and again last month with Hurricane Ike. Cuban scientists and engineers have learned how to protect threatened populations and minimize damage. Despite the category 3 rating of Hurricane Ike when it struck Cuba, there was less loss of life after a 3-day pounding than that which occurred when it later struck Texas as a category 2 hurricane. Sharing knowledge in this area would benefit everybody. Another major example where scientific cooperation could save lives is Cuba's extensive research on tropical diseases, such as dengue fever. This viral disease is epidemic throughout the tropics, notably in the Americas, and one of the first recorded outbreaks occurred in Philadelphia in the 18th century. Today, one of the world's most outstanding research centers dedicated to dengue fever is in Cuba, and although it actively cooperates with Latin America and Africa, there is almost no interaction with U.S. scientists. Dengue fever presents a threat to the U.S. mainland, and sharing knowledge resources to counter outbreaks of the disease would be an investment in the health security of both peoples. Cuba has also made important strides in biotechnology, including the production of several important vaccines and monoclonal antibodies, and its research interests continue to expand in diverse fields, ranging from drug addiction treatment to the preservation of biodiversity. Cuban scientists are engaged in research cooperation with many countries, including the United Kingdom, Brazil, Mexico, China, and India. Yet there is no program of cooperation with any U.S. research institution. The value system of science— openness, shared communication, integrity, and a respect for evidence—provides a framework for open engagement and could encourage evidence-based approaches that cross from science into the social, economic, and political arenas. Beyond allowing for the mutual leveraging of knowledge and resources, scientific contacts could build important cultural and social links among peoples. A recent Council on Foreign Relations report argues that the United States needs to revamp its engagement with Latin America because it is no longer the only significant force in this hemisphere. U.S. policies that are seen as unfairly penalizing Cuba, including the imposition of trade limitations that extend into scientific relations, continue to undermine U.S. standing in the entire region, especially because neither Cuba nor any other Latin American country imposes such restrictions. As a start, we urge that the present license that permits restricted travel to Cuba by scientists, as dictated by the U.S. Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control, be expanded so as to allow direct cooperation in

research. At the same time, Cuba should favor increased scientific exchanges. Allowing scientists to fully engage will not only support progress in science, it may well favor positive interactions elsewhere to promote human well-being. The U.S. embargo on Cuba has hindered exchanges for the past 50 years. Let us celebrate our mutual anniversaries by starting a new era of scientific cooperation.

***Disease***

2AC Mods

Disease/AIDS
Cuban biotech solves cancer, AIDS, and tropical disease but US action is key – marketing and patents Starr 2004
[Douglas Starr. Codirector of the Center for Science and Medical Journalism at Boston University. “The Cuban Biotech Revolution.” December 2004. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.12/cuba.html] WD The end of the cold war was cruel to Cuba. The country's trading partners, denied Soviet largesse, dried up. Hard
cash ran low. What food the country could grow languished in the fields; trucks didn't have enough gasoline to bring the crops to market. And of course there

was the US embargo. What Cubans call "the Special Period" produced one notable success: pharmaceuticals. In the wake of the Soviet collapse, Cuba got so good at making knockoff drugs that a thriving industry took hold. Today the country is the largest medicine exporter in Latin America and has more than 50 nations on its client list. Cuban meds cost far less than their first-world counterparts, and Fidel Castro's government has helped China, Malaysia, India, and Iran set up their own factories: "south-to-south technology transfer." Yet at the same time as they were selling generics, the science-heroes of the Cuban Revolution were inventing. Castro made biotechnology one of the building blocks of the economy, and that has opened the door - just a crack - to intellectual property. To date his researchers have been granted more than 100 patents, 26 of them in the US. Now they're setting their sights on the markets of the West. After the 1959 revolution, Cuba made it a priority
to find new ways to care for a poor population; part of the solution was training doctors and researchers. Cuba currently exports thousands of doctors to impoverished countries and caters to an influx of "health tourists," mostly rich Africans and Latin Americans seeking cheap, high-quality care. In 1981, half a dozen Cuban scientists went to Finland to learn to synthesize the virus-fighting protein interferon. Castro sent them with money for a shopping spree. They brought back a lab's worth of equipment and took over a white stucco guesthouse in the Havana suburbs; a decade later, Cuba was the pharmacy of the Soviet bloc and third world. Most trade took the form of barter, and development experts estimate that by the early '90s the business was worth more than $700 million a year. "And then, almost from a Monday to a Tuesday," says Carlos Borroto, vice director of the Cuban Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (known as CIGB in Spanish), "the Soviet Union collapsed." Cuba lost all its credit, 80 percent of its foreign trade, and a third of its food imports. Faced

with economic calamity, Castro did something remarkable: He poured hundreds of millions of dollars into pharmaceuticals. No one knows how - Cuba's economy, with its secrecy and centralized structure, defies market analysis. One beneficiary was Concepcion Campa Huergo, president and director general of the Finlay Institute, a vaccine lab in Havana. She developed the world's first meningitis B vaccine, testing it by injecting herself and her children before giving it to
volunteers. "I remember one day telling Fidel that we needed a new ultracentrifuge, which costs about $70,000," Campa says. "After five minutes of listening he said, 'No. You'll need 10.'" Campa

and her colleagues still have to scrimp and scrounge. Labs are filled with gear from Europe, Japan, and Brazil. The occasional device from the US has traveled the "long way around" - through so many middlemen (and markups) that it may well have circled the globe. Scientists develop their own reagents, enzymes, tissue cultures, and virus lines. Each institute has its own production facility and conducts clinical trials through the state-run hospital system. Still, if pharma is to become an economic engine, Cuban researchers acknowledge that they'll have to join the international business community. South-to-south transfers simply don't raise enough cash. That's where things get complicated. Forty years after it began, Washington's embargo remains a punishing weapon. Not only are US companies banned from doing business with Cuba, but so are their foreign subsidiaries. No freighter that visits a Cuban port may dock in the US for the next six months. For a Cuban product to reach US companies, the makers have to prove a "compelling national interest" to the US Office of Foreign Assets Control. Consolidation in the drug industry has made things worse, says Ismael Clark, president of the Cuban Academy of Sciences. "You'd have a supplier for several years, and suddenly you'd get a letter from the company saying,

'We can't supply you anymore because our firm was bought by an American transnational.'"
The country has taken a few steps toward bridging the gap. The American drug company SmithKline Beecham (now part of a British transnational) got permission to license Campa's meningitis B vaccine in 1999. The terms of the deal are restrictive. SmithKline pays Cuba in products during clinical trials (now in Phase II in Belgium) and in cash only if the drug proves to be viable. In July, CancerVax, a California-based biotech company, got federal approval to test a Cuban vaccine that stimulates the immune system against lung cancer cells. CancerVax is the first US business to receive such approval. CancerVax staffers saw the research at an international

na�vet� remains the real obstacle to a Cuban biotech century. Fidel's pharmacists lack slick brochures and golden-tongued sales staff. Foreigners tend to find Cuba overly bureaucratic, especially when closing a deal. "They just don't get capitalism," a diplomat tells me over coffee in Boston. "The elite may watch American TV and read The Wall Street Journal on the Web, so they have a conversational familiarity. But on a fundamental level they don't get it and don't want to get it. They still think there's something immoral about profit." Borroto, of CIGB,
conference, and then spent two years lobbying Capitol Hill and Cuban-American interest groups. Still, remembers talking to colleagues about using patents to protect their expanding market. That was the moment Castro decided to pop into the lab. "What's all this about patents? You're sounding crazy!" he said. "We don't like patents, remember?" Borroto stood his ground. "Even

if you're giving medicine to the third world," he said, "you still need to protect yourself." Borroto knew he had to get better at the game. He sent his staff to Canada to get MBAs, to learn the language of
capitalism. Yet concepts like venture capital still escape him. "I can't understand how 80 percent of the biotech companies in the world make money without selling any products," he says. "How do they do this? Hopeness," he guesses, using a neologism to stress the absurdity. "They sell hopeness." Asked for an annual report - a basic necessity of international business - Agustin Lage, director of the Center for Molecular Immunology, merely says, "You know, we've actually been meaning to produce one." Then he smiles and shrugs. It's like Castro said: They

don't really like patents. They like medicine. Cuba's drug pipeline is most interesting for what it lacks: grand-slam moneymakers, cures for baldness or impotence or wrinkles. It's all cancer therapies, AIDS medications, and vaccines against tropical diseases. That's probably why US and European scientists have a soft spot for their Cuban counterparts. Everywhere north of the Florida Keys, once-magical biotech has become just another expression of venture-driven capitalism. Leave it to the Cubans to make it revolutionary again.

Pandemics outweigh – probability and loss of life. Zakaria 5 [Fareed, Editor of Newsweek International whose column appears in Newsweek,
Newsweek International and The Washington Post, “A Threat Worse than Terror,” 10-31, Newsweek, http://www.fareedzakaria.com/ARTICLES/newsweek/103105.html] A flu pandemic is the most dangerous threat the United States faces today," says Richard Falkenrath, who until recently served in the Bush administration as deputy Homeland Security adviser. "It's a bigger threat than terrorism. In fact it's bigger than anything I dealt with when I was in government." One makes a threat assessment on the basis of two factors: the probability of the event, and the loss of life if it happened. On both counts, a pandemic ranks higher than a major terror attack, even one involving weapons of mass destruction. A crude nuclear device would probably kill hundreds of thousands. A flu pandemic could easily kill millions. Whether this particular virus makes the final, fatal mutation that allows it to move from human to human, one day some virus will. The basic factor that is fueling this surge of viruses is China's
growth. (China is the natural habitat of the influenza virus.) As China develops, it urbanizes, and its forests and wetlands shrink. That forces migratory birds to gather closer together-and closer to human habitation--which increases the chances of a virus spreading from one species to the next. Also, growth means a huge rise in chicken consumption. Across thousands of homes in China every day, chickens are slaughtered in highly unhygienic ways. "Every day the chances that this virus or another such virus will move from one species to another grow," says Laurie Garrett, author of "The Coming Plague," who has been writing brilliantly on this topic for years. Nobody really disputes that we are badly unprepared for this threat. "If something like this pandemic were to happen today," says Falkenrath, "the government would be mostly an observer, not a manager." The government can't even give intelligent advice to its citizens because it doesn't actually know what to say. We don't know whether people should stay put, leave cities, stay home or go to the nearest hospital. During

the cold war, hundreds of people in government participated in dozens of crisis

simulations of nuclear wars, accidents and incidents. These "tabletop exercises" were conducted so that if and when a real crisis hit, policymakers would not be confronting critical decisions for the first time. No such expertise exists for today's deadliest threat.

AIDS COULD MUTATE AND GO AIRBORNE, RISKING EXTINCTION Tom Kerns November 23, 1999 "AIDS and Apocalyptics for Questioning Millennium Madness."
Lecture from Introduction to Medical Ethics course. http://www.bioethicscourse.info/aidsite/lec-millemad.html "Whatever else AIDS is, it's not just another disease." (Dr June Osborne, former member of the US Presidential
Commission on HIV/AIDS) Features that make AIDS unique: * High morbidity & mortality * Lifelong infectiousness * lengthy

the possibility of HIV "learning the tricks of airborne transmission: "We know that HIV is still evolving. Its global spread has meant there is far more HIV on earth today than ever before in history. What are the odds of its learning the tricks of airborne
asymptomatic stage * highly mutable virus Joshua Lederberg considers transmission? The short answer is "No one can be sure." ... [A]s time passes, and HIV seems settled in a certain groove, that is

it is hard to imagine a worse threat to humanity than an airborne variant of AIDS. No rule of nature contradicts such a possibility; the proliferation of AIDS cases with secondary pneumonia [and TB] multiplies the odds of such a mutant, as an analog to the emergence of pneumonic plague."
momentary reassurance in itself. However, given its other ugly attributes,

Tropical Diseases

Cooperation Solves
US-Cuba science cooperation is key to solve all tropical disease – more virulent strains of hepatitis, bird flu, H1N1, dengue fever, and others are coming in the status quo which means the plan is critical Discovery 2-11-13
*Discovery News, February 11, 2013, “Could Cuba Help U.S. Fight Tropical Diseases?” http://news.discovery.com/human/cuba-help-fight-tropical-diseases-dengue-fever.htm] WD When it comes to issues like the spread of infectious disease, increased collaboration with Cuba may just be good medicine. THE GIST U.S. scientists and doctors are looking to Cuba for help with infectious diseases. Cuban scientists are experts on diseases like dengue fever, which has become more common in the U.S. Political relations with the Communist country and recent shakeups in Congress may stand in the way of cross-country collaboration. In the wake of this month's Republican electoral shakeup in Congress, talk of lifting the U.S. travel ban to Communist Cuba is pretty much off the table. But President Barack Obama still has the executive power to ease the amount of red tape faced by U.S. medical researchers who can travel to the island. For some, such a move might awaken fears of radical socialism, but others say when it comes to issues like the spread of tropical and infectious disease from global warming, increased collaboration with a neighbor is just good medicine. "I think because of climate change, because some of these infectious diseases are coming through in epic forms, collaboration between all countries is more needed than ever," said Gail A. Reed, the International Director of MEDICC, an American non-profit organization working to enhance global health cooperation with Cuba. Hepatitis, chikungunya, bird flu and H1N1 are all diseases that concern U.S. epidemiologists. But dengue fever, the most common of mosquito-born illnesses, is one of the biggest. This summer, the Centers for Disease Control reported that five percent of residents in Key West, Fla. had been exposed to the deadly virus. Dengue was eradicated in the United States in the 1940s, with just a few cases creeping across the U.S.Mexico border in the 1980s. It is endemic to most of the Caribbean, but not to Cuba. In fact, strong research and preventative measures have won Havana's Pedro Kouri Cuban Tropical Medicine Institute special status as a World Health Organization Collaborating Center for Dengue Study and Control. "In that sense, U.S. scientists are very interested in collaborating with Cuba because they have a history of investigations and successful research not only into the impact but the viral origins," Reed said. That interest dates to before the 1959 Cuban Revolution that brought Fidel Castro to power. In 1889, the American Public Health Association requested that the United States government annex Cuba from Spain to protect Americans from Yellow Fever. Panic over the disease helped fuel the 1898 Spanish American War, says Pedro Orduñez, a Cuban doctor who has published extensively on U.S.-Cuba medical research in both Washington and Havana. "Health in Cuba is the icon of the revolution," noted Orduñez, explaining that Cuba's invention of a broad-based primary care system helped it assert its sovereign identity. That faltered during the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union, Cuba's main economic backer. Thousands of Cuban rafters set sail for Florida, and many of the Cubans who remained began to suffer epidemics such as optic neuropathy, a temporary blindness associated with certain nutritional deficiencies. As a result, the U.S. government loosened some U.S. travel

and trade restrictions on humanitarian aid. That, in turn, pried open collaborative doors a little further, allowing new organizations such as MEDICC to create U.S.-Cuba medical exchanges. In 2001, Cuba offered full-ride scholarships for up to 500 U.S. students at its Latin American Medical School, and the U.S. government obliged. Dr. Sitembile Sales, a 2010 U.S. graduate of the Latin American Medical School in Havana, is grateful both nations allowed her to access the Cuban government's medical scholarship. She says it gave her invaluable training for crises and epidemics anywhere. During her third year of medicine, she was thrown onto 24-hour hospital rounds for two dengue fever epidemics. "There were meetings with our professors saying this is war, we have an attack … there's no room for mistakes," she told Discovery News. "The good thing is that people never dropped like flies because we never let them get to that point." Obstacles still abound. Sales needed a special student license to travel to Cuba, and a general license that allows American professionals to conduct research there is not as general as it sounds. Researchers must scrutinize every aspect of their trip to make sure their spending and collaborative habits do not infringe upon U.S. sanctions. That means knowing what research equipment they can carry without a separate license, how much money they can spend in country and on what, how their work will be disseminated later, and under what specific contexts they can collaborate with or learn from the Cuban people. For example, researchers have to ask for a different license if they plan to attend a Cuba-sponsored science conference or workshop, and in Cuba, most events are government run. Obtaining a U.S. license for conferences or research equipment involves mounds of paperwork and an answer can take months. Interest groups say these factors slow down the process of participating in projects that would otherwise prove to be a quick and efficient way of obtaining important medical data or learning new methods for curbing an epidemic. Earlier this year, the U.S. Congress had seriously discussed a full lifting of the travel ban, but Cuban-American Congressmen expressed concerns about Americans fueling a tourism industry run by the Cuban government. Now researchers say more Republicans in Congress will further stifle that possibility, but note that Obama could still ease the licensing needed for more extensive medical research. To gauge the likelihood of that possibility, Discovery News reached out to the White House, as well as to Cuban American Congressmen Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., Robert Menendez, D-N.J., Lincoln Diaz-Balart, R-Fla. and Albio Sires, D-N.J. None responded. Jorge Bolaños, the Chief of Mission for the Cuban Interests Section in Washington, did offer Discovery News some thoughts following a lecture he gave at nearby Howard University. "We have no objection to any cooperation," he said, adding that his country was very proud of its ability to stave off epidemics through preventative strategies in spite of serious economic and material deficiencies. "If I'm waiting to get the flu shot, and if I don't go there (to the clinic) for the flu shot, they will go to my house… When you don't go to see the doctor, you suffer the tyranny of the doctor," he joked.

Cuban biotech solves cancer, AIDS, and tropical disease but US action is key – marketing and patents Starr 2004
[Douglas Starr. Codirector of the Center for Science and Medical Journalism at Boston University. “The Cuban Biotech Revolution.” December 2004. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.12/cuba.html] WD The end of the cold war was cruel to Cuba. The country's trading partners, denied Soviet largesse, dried up. Hard
cash ran low. What food the country could grow languished in the fields; trucks didn't have enough gasoline to bring the crops to market. And of course there

was the US embargo. What Cubans call "the Special Period" produced

one notable success: pharmaceuticals. In the wake of the Soviet collapse, Cuba got so good at making knockoff drugs that a thriving industry took hold. Today the country is the largest medicine exporter in Latin America and has more than 50 nations on its client list. Cuban meds cost far less than their first-world counterparts, and Fidel Castro's government has helped China, Malaysia, India, and Iran set up their own factories: "south-to-south technology transfer." Yet at the same time as they were selling generics, the science-heroes of the Cuban Revolution were inventing. Castro made biotechnology one of the building blocks of the economy, and that has opened the door - just a crack - to intellectual property. To date his researchers have been granted more than 100 patents, 26 of them in the US. Now they're setting their sights on the markets of the West. After the 1959 revolution, Cuba made it a priority
to find new ways to care for a poor population; part of the solution was training doctors and researchers. Cuba currently exports thousands of doctors to impoverished countries and caters to an influx of "health tourists," mostly rich Africans and Latin Americans seeking cheap, high-quality care. In 1981, half a dozen Cuban scientists went to Finland to learn to synthesize the virus-fighting protein interferon. Castro sent them with money for a shopping spree. They brought back a lab's worth of equipment and took over a white stucco guesthouse in the Havana suburbs; a decade later, Cuba was the pharmacy of the Soviet bloc and third world. Most trade took the form of barter, and development experts estimate that by the early '90s the business was worth more than $700 million a year. "And then, almost from a Monday to a Tuesday," says Carlos Borroto, vice director of the Cuban Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (known as CIGB in Spanish), "the Soviet Union collapsed." Cuba lost all its credit, 80 percent of its foreign trade, and a third of its food imports. Faced

with economic calamity, Castro did something remarkable: He poured hundreds of millions of dollars into pharmaceuticals. No one knows how - Cuba's economy, with its secrecy and centralized structure, defies market analysis. One beneficiary was Concepcion Campa Huergo, president and director general of the Finlay Institute, a vaccine lab in Havana. She developed the world's first meningitis B vaccine, testing it by injecting herself and her children before giving it to
volunteers. "I remember one day telling Fidel that we needed a new ultracentrifuge, which costs about $70,000," Campa says. "After five minutes of listening he said, 'No. You'll need 10.'" Campa

and her colleagues still have to scrimp and scrounge. Labs are filled with gear from Europe, Japan, and Brazil. The occasional device from the US has traveled the "long way around" - through so many middlemen (and markups) that it may well have circled the globe. Scientists develop their own reagents, enzymes, tissue cultures, and virus lines. Each institute has its own production facility and conducts clinical trials through the state-run hospital system. Still, if pharma is to become an economic engine, Cuban researchers acknowledge that they'll have to join the international business community. South-to-south transfers simply don't raise enough cash. That's where things get complicated. Forty years after it began, Washington's embargo remains a punishing weapon. Not only are US companies banned from doing business with Cuba, but so are their foreign subsidiaries. No freighter that visits a Cuban port may dock in the US for the next six months. For a Cuban product to reach US companies, the makers have to prove a "compelling national interest" to the US Office of Foreign Assets Control. Consolidation in the drug industry has made things worse, says Ismael Clark, president of the Cuban Academy of Sciences. "You'd have a supplier for several years, and suddenly you'd get a letter from the company saying, 'We can't supply you anymore because our firm was bought by an American transnational.'"
The country has taken a few steps toward bridging the gap. The American drug company SmithKline Beecham (now part of a British transnational) got permission to license Campa's meningitis B vaccine in 1999. The terms of the deal are restrictive. SmithKline pays Cuba in products during clinical trials (now in Phase II in Belgium) and in cash only if the drug proves to be viable. In July, CancerVax, a California-based biotech company, got federal approval to test a Cuban vaccine that stimulates the immune system against lung cancer cells. CancerVax is the first US business to receive such approval. CancerVax staffers saw the research at an international

na�vet� remains the real obstacle to a Cuban biotech century. Fidel's pharmacists lack slick brochures and golden-tongued sales staff. Foreigners tend to find Cuba overly bureaucratic, especially when closing a deal. "They just don't get capitalism," a diplomat tells me over coffee in Boston. "The elite may watch American TV and read The Wall Street Journal on the Web, so they have a conversational familiarity. But on a fundamental level they don't get it and don't want to get it. They still think there's something immoral about profit." Borroto, of CIGB,
conference, and then spent two years lobbying Capitol Hill and Cuban-American interest groups. Still, remembers talking to colleagues about using patents to protect their expanding market. That was the moment Castro decided to pop into the lab. "What's all this about patents? You're sounding crazy!" he said. "We don't like patents, remember?" Borroto stood his ground. "Even

if you're giving medicine to the third world," he said, "you still need to protect

yourself." Borroto knew he had to get better at the game. He sent his staff to Canada to get MBAs, to learn the language of
capitalism. Yet concepts like venture capital still escape him. "I can't understand how 80 percent of the biotech companies in the world make money without selling any products," he says. "How do they do this? Hopeness," he guesses, using a neologism to stress the absurdity. "They sell hopeness." Asked for an annual report - a basic necessity of international business - Agustin Lage, director of the Center for Molecular Immunology, merely says, "You know, we've actually been meaning to produce one." Then he smiles and shrugs. It's like Castro said: They

don't really like patents. They like medicine. Cuba's drug pipeline is most interesting for what it lacks: grand-slam moneymakers, cures for baldness or impotence or wrinkles. It's all cancer therapies, AIDS medications, and vaccines against tropical diseases. That's probably why US and European scientists have a soft spot for their Cuban counterparts. Everywhere north of the Florida Keys, once-magical biotech has become just another expression of venture-driven capitalism. Leave it to the Cubans to make it revolutionary again.

Cuban biotech key to Cuban economy and disease prevention but US restrictions hamper further development Wylie 2010
[Lana Wylie. Associate Professor at McMaster University in Canada, Writing for Canadian International Council. “Foreign Policy for Canada’s Tomorrow: Reassessing Canada’s Relationship with Cuba in an Era of Change.” October 2010. http://www.opencanada.org/wpcontent/uploads/2011/05/Reassessing-Canada%E2%80%99s-Relationship-with-Cuba-in-an-Eraof-Change-Lana-Wylie1.pdf] WD In particular, the biotechnology sector has the capability to be a major earner. 74 Biotechnology and related medical services are the two most promising areas of the Cuban economy, and by some economic analyses this sector is forecast to take over tourism as the country’s prime source of foreign exchange. According to some estimates, even by 2003, the health and medical research sector was bringing in approximately US$250 million, ranking in the top 10 areas of Cuban exports. Of the $250 million, health tourism raised US$40 million, and biotechnology, more than US$150 million. By 2007, Cuban biotechnology and medical products were Cuba’s second-highest export earner, with an estimated income of $350 million produced from the sale of these products abroad. 75 Furthermore, worldwide medical tourism is estimated to
grow to billions of dollars within the next couple of years, and Cuba is well positioned to be a global leader in this field and, as such, to claim much of that potential revenue. The

biotechnology sector benefits from an exceptionally welleducated population and a concerted effort by the state to support the industry even in times of great difficulty. Cuba is best known for its innovative vaccine research; it produces vaccines for everything from flu to lung cancer. Furthermore, Cuban scientists are conducting promising research in other areas of biotechnology and medical sciences. A conservative estimate indicates that Cuban scientific institutes have at least 100 products in their drug pipeline. Biotech
and pharmaceutical companies from many countries have invested in this sector through joint venture agreements. For example, Beckpharma, a British pharmaceutical company, is collaborating with Cuban research institutes to engineer drugs that Beckpharma will make available worldwide. 76 American

policy-makers have felt pressured to make an exception to the embargo in this area because of the ability of the Cubans to advance medical treatments for many diseases. 77 Indeed, given the advances in Cuban research, exceptions have already been made to the embargo in the area of biotechnology. In 2004 the California company CancerVax received
approval to develop three Cuban cancer drugs. Although CancerVax was required to pay Cuba in medicine or food, it was a historic deal since this was the first deal approved to develop drugs between a US biotech company and Cuba. 78

If Cuban biotechnology continues to produce successful medical treatments and pharmaceuticals, the pressure on American policy-makers to normalize relations will likely become even more intense. Cuba’s biotech sector could be a greater source of knowledge and innovation for Canadian researchers. In fact, some

academic connections have developed into partnerships. Researchers from the University of Ottawa and the University of Havana worked together on a vaccine for flu and meningitis, which was jointly patented by the universities in 1999. The opportunity for Canadian and Cuban scientists to come together without restrictions led to this successful collaboration. Certainly Canadian scientists, in comparison to their American counterparts, are well situated to engage in partnerships for the benefit of both communities. One Canadian company has begun to realize the potential in Cuban science. In 1995, an Ontario company, YM Biosciences, collaborated with the Center of Molecular Immunology (CIM) in Havana to commercialize cancer vaccines being developed by CIM. This collaboration has developed the therapeutic antibody to an agent that promotes tumour growth. Yet

companies like YM Biosciences recognize that Cuban ventures carry additional risks, most significantly because of opposition from the United States. David Allen, chief executive of the company, explains, “Developing a product that originates in Cuba is definitely a greater challenge than developing a product that originates elsewhere.” 79 Working with Cuban partners makes it difficult to market drugs in the United States and greatly complicates the already tricky process of gaining approval from the American Food and Drug Administration. Although there are
serious drawbacks to these projects, companies can overcome the hurdles. For example, the partnership between YM Biosciences and Cuba’s CIM was able to expand in 2004 to include the American corporation CancerVax. YM Biosciences was further encouraged by early signals from the Obama administration. In an April 2009 update for its investors, the company reported that “the

enlightened approach demonstrably being adopted toward Cuba matters, consistent with the stated position of senior members of the current US administration (including President Obama), holds out the prospect for positive consequences for our drug which will benefit both our stakeholders and cancer patients in the US.” 80

Cuba biotech solves disease but US law prevents international distribution and development Randal 2000
*Judith Randal. Writer for Journal of the National Cancer Institute. “Despite Embargo, Biotechnology in Cuba Thrives.” July 5, 2000. Volume 92, Issue 13. http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/92/13/1034.long] WD Cuba has been turning to biotechnology to earn foreign exchange. A part of its R&D effort, for example, is to develop generic versions of prescription drugs that can be sold to “niche markets”—principally poor countries—as soon as the patents on them expire. (Cuba, unlike China, honors foreign patents and
has its own Office for Intellectual Property.) The government plows the profits from this and other overseas sales of its biotechnology back into the R&D centers. But

by no means can every product of Cuban R&D be called “me-too,” as a vaccine from the Finlay Institute in Havana illustrates. It is the world’s only type B bacterial—i.e., meningococcal—meningitis vaccine, and since its introduction in 1989 (originally for domestic use), it has earned Cuba about US $40 million from sales to other countries, principally Brazil. Last year, this vaccine was licensed to SmithKline Beecham, which means that it may eventually also be available in the United States. The license, however, required special dispensations from the U.S. government, which are hard to get. At one point, for example, Merck & Co. officials met with President Fidel Castro to discuss AIDS research collaborations with Cuban scientists but dropped the idea when they found too many U.S. legal complications in the way. The effect of U.S. sanctions on Cuban biotechnology, in fact, can be more than bilateral. The country’s inability to buy directly from U.S. suppliers, for example, has driven some of its investigators to spend time in the better-equipped labs of European colleagues or to collaborate with them from afar, creating considerable sympathy for the Cubans’ plight in the process. Another example is the Center for Molecular Immunology (Spanish acronym
CIM), a part of Havana’s Western Scientific Pole and York Medical Inc. of Mississauga, Ontario, its joint venture partner. The center specializes in oncology and is headed by Augustin Lage, M.D., Ph.D., whose brother Carlos Lage is President Castro’s finance minister. CIM has in its R&D portfolio (among other things): MAbs—some radioactively labeled—that target one type of cancer or another for purposes of diagnosis or therapy; and a doubly recombinant vaccine that has shown promise for controlling advanced

non-small cell lung cancer and may be useful for certain other cancers as well. (See story below.) Under York Medical’s aegis, the vaccine and three versions of a CIM MAb are in clinical trials in Canada. David Allan, York Medical’s chief executive officer, is upbeat about these products—not least because Canadian regulatory authorities were sufficiently impressed by their performance in Cuba to issue the approvals that were a prerequisite for the trials. But Allan

also worries about the effect of the U.S. embargo on things Cuban no matter their benefits. He fears that “no drug firm doing business in the United States—and that includes multinationals—will risk trying to commercialize products that originated in Havana.” In sum, for all the prestige that scientists in Cuba enjoy at home, it is difficult for them to find a place in the international sun.

Disease Impacts
Pandemics outweigh – probability and loss of life. Zakaria 5 [Fareed, Editor of Newsweek International whose column appears in Newsweek,
Newsweek International and The Washington Post, “A Threat Worse than Terror,” 10-31, Newsweek, http://www.fareedzakaria.com/ARTICLES/newsweek/103105.html] A flu pandemic is the most dangerous threat the United States faces today," says Richard Falkenrath, who until recently served in the Bush administration as deputy Homeland Security adviser. "It's a bigger threat than terrorism. In fact it's bigger than anything I dealt with when I was in government." One makes a threat assessment on the basis of two factors: the probability of the event, and the loss of life if it happened. On both counts, a pandemic ranks higher than a major terror attack, even one involving weapons of mass destruction. A crude nuclear device would probably kill hundreds of thousands. A flu pandemic could easily kill millions. Whether this particular virus makes the final, fatal mutation that allows it to move from human to human, one day some virus will. The basic factor that is fueling this surge of viruses is China's
growth. (China is the natural habitat of the influenza virus.) As China develops, it urbanizes, and its forests and wetlands shrink. That forces migratory birds to gather closer together-and closer to human habitation--which increases the chances of a virus spreading from one species to the next. Also, growth means a huge rise in chicken consumption. Across thousands of homes in China every day, chickens are slaughtered in highly unhygienic ways. "Every day the chances that this virus or another such virus will move from one species to another grow," says Laurie Garrett, author of "The Coming Plague," who has been writing brilliantly on this topic for years. Nobody really disputes that we are badly unprepared for this threat. "If something like this pandemic were to happen today," says Falkenrath, "the government would be mostly an observer, not a manager." The government can't even give intelligent advice to its citizens because it doesn't actually know what to say. We don't know whether people should stay put, leave cities, stay home or go to the nearest hospital. During

the cold war, hundreds of people in government participated in dozens of crisis simulations of nuclear wars, accidents and incidents. These "tabletop exercises" were conducted so that if and when a real crisis hit, policymakers would not be confronting critical decisions for the first time. No such expertise exists for today's deadliest threat.

Disease spread will cause extinction. Steinbruner 98 Senior Fellow at Brookings Institution [John D., “Biological weapons: A plague
upon all houses,” Foreign Policy, Dec 22
It s a considerable comfort and undoubtedly a key to our survival that, so far, the main lines of defense against this threat have not depended on explicit policies or organized efforts. In the long course of evolution, the human body has developed physical barriers and a biochemical immune system whose sophistication and effectiveness exceed anything we could design or as yet even fully understand. But evolution is a sword that cuts both ways: New

diseases emerge, while old diseases mutate and adapt. Throughout history, there have been epidemics during which human immunity has broken down on an epic scale. An infectious agent believed to have been the plague bacterium killed an estimated 20 million
people over a four-year period in the fourteenth century, including nearly one-quarter of Western Europe's population at the time. Since its recognized appearance in 1981, some 20 variations of

the mv virus have infected an estimated 29.4 million worldwide, with 1.5 million

people currently dying of AIDS each year. Malaria, tuberculosis, and cholera --once thought to be under control--are now making a comeback. As we enter the twenty-first century, changing conditions have enhanced the potential for widespread contagion. The rapid growth rate of the total world population, the unprecedented freedom of movement
across international borders, and scientific advances that expand the capability for the deliberate manipulation of pathogens are all cause for worry that the problem might be greater in the future than it has ever been in the past. The threat of infectious pathogens is not just an

issue of public health, but a fundamental security problem for the species as a whole.

FAILURE TO CONTROL THE SPREAD OF AIDS TRIGGERS MUTATIONS THAT WILL KILL EVERYONE ON THE PLANET Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich, Professors of Population studies at Stanford University, THE POPULATION EXPLOSION, 1990, p. 147-8
Whether or not AIDS can be contained will depend primarily on how rapidly the spread of HIV can be slowed through public education and other measures, on when and if the medical community can find satisfactory preventatives or treatments, and to a large extent on luck. The virus has already shown itself to be highly mutable, and laboratory strains resistant to the one drug, AZT, that seems to slow its lethal course have already been reported." A virus that infects many millions of novel hosts, in this case people, might evolve new transmission characteristics. To do so, however, would almost certainly involve changes in its lethality. If, for instance, the virus became more common in the blood (permitting insects to transmit it readily), the very process would almost certainly make it more lethal. Unlike the current version of AIDS, which can take ten years or more to kill its victims, the new strain might cause death in days or weeks. Infected individuals then
would have less time to spread the virus to others, and there would be strong selection in favor of less lethal strains (as happened in the case of myxopatomis). What this would mean epidemiologically is not clear, but it could temporarily increase the transmission

If the ability of the AIDS virus to grow in the cells of the skin or the membranes of the mouth, the lungs, or the intestines were increased, the virus might be spread by casual contact or through eating contaminated food. But it is likely, as Temin points out, that acquiring those abilities would so change the virus that it no longer efficiently
rate and reduce life expectancy of infected persons until the system once again equilibrated. infected the kinds of cells it now does and so would no longer cause AIDS. In effect it would produce an entirely different disease. We hope Temin is correct but another Nobel laureate, Joshua Lederberg, is worried that a

relatively minor mutation could lead to the virus infecting a type of white blood cell commonly present in the lungs. If so, it might be transmissible through coughs.

AIDS COULD MUTATE AND GO AIRBORNE, RISKING EXTINCTION Tom Kerns November 23, 1999 "AIDS and Apocalyptics for Questioning Millennium Madness."
Lecture from Introduction to Medical Ethics course. http://www.bioethicscourse.info/aidsite/lec-millemad.html "Whatever else AIDS is, it's not just another disease." (Dr June Osborne, former member of the US Presidential
Commission on HIV/AIDS) Features that make AIDS unique: * High morbidity & mortality * Lifelong infectiousness * lengthy

the possibility of HIV "learning the tricks of airborne transmission: "We know that HIV is still evolving. Its global spread has meant there is far more HIV on earth today than ever before in history. What are the odds of its learning the tricks of airborne
asymptomatic stage * highly mutable virus Joshua Lederberg considers transmission? The short answer is "No one can be sure." ... [A]s time passes, and HIV seems settled in a certain groove, that is

it is hard to imagine a worse threat to humanity than an airborne variant of AIDS. No rule of nature contradicts such a possibility; the proliferation of AIDS cases with secondary pneumonia [and TB] multiplies the odds of such a mutant, as an analog to the emergence of pneumonic plague."
momentary reassurance in itself. However, given its other ugly attributes,

SUB-SAHARAN AFRICAN HIV KILLS MILLIONS, RISKS NEW MUTATIONS AND SECOND WAVE PANDEMICS Natalie Angier, science writer for The New York Times, 2001
*“CASE STUDY: GLOBALIZATION; LOCATION: EVERYWHERE; Together, in Sickness and in Health, p. online] A true understanding of that growing interconnectedness has to include the developing world, where most of the people on the planet live and where infectious diseases account for almost half the deaths each year. Half of
those deaths can be attributed to three "pedestrian" yet persistently devastating diseases: malaria, H.I.V./AIDS and tuberculosis. Malaria kills more than one million people annually, the overwhelming majority of them children in sub-Saharan Africa. Many millions of other people living in more than 90 countries suffer from malaria, sometimes contracting it repeatedly year after year. Though they don't die of the disease, the debility and cost are enormous. By one estimate, Africa's gross domestic product would be $100 billion greater today than it is if malaria had been eliminated. And the warming global climate is carrying those malaria-bearing mosquitoes north. So is the 2:43 out of Kinshasa: planes landing in Charles de Gaulle Airport have recently been found to be carrying more than a few nonpaying passengers, leading European airlines to step up their preflight extermination efforts. Sub-Saharan

Africa also has taken the most brutal jackhammering from the AIDS epidemic. Of the 35 million people living with H.I.V. or AIDS in the world, 25 million are in sub-Saharan Africa. Of the 5.4 million people who are newly
infected with the virus each year, 4 million live in sub-Saharan Africa. Helen Epstein, a former instructor at Makerere University School of Medicine in Uganda, wrote recently in The New York Review of Books that "the

AIDS epidemic in Africa may turn out to be the worst health crisis in the history of the human race." Thanks to the effectiveness of new drug regimens, Westerners have developed the false sense that AIDS is no longer a lethal disease. But apart from
the fact that nobody knows how long patients on the new drug regimens will survive before the virus finally outmutates the current armamentarium, these drugs

are expensive and difficult to take. ¶ Moreover, the AIDS epidemic in Africa is unlikely to remain confined to Africa: the strains of H.I.V. running rampant there, if left unchecked, are sure to gain novel malevolence that would allow them to spread elsewhere and overwhelm whatever resources we have devoted to defeating our Western-bred strains. And keep in mind that other highly populous countries like China and India
are just beginning to feel the brunt of the disease. There's a perversely poetic loopiness at work: a disease that presumably had its origins in Africa made its first angry mark in America, then exploded in Africa, and is now moving onward, outward and back again, cat's-cradle style. It's

not "Africa's" health crisis alone. The only sane response to the world's AIDS crisis remains prevention -- a response that hardly attracts an ounce of attention, let alone pounds, dollars or rubles. Last year, a
total of $165 million from all sources was devoted to AIDS prevention in sub-Saharan Africa, compared with the $2.5 billion estimated as necessary to do even a perfunctory job. "

***Biotech***

2AC Mods

Famine/Food Shortages
Biotechnology is key to avoid otherwise inevitable food shortages Ahmad 12 – Professor in the department of botany, University of Kashmir, India. (Parvaiz, “Biotechnology as an Aid for Crop
Improvement to Overcome Food Shortage”, 2012, http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-94-007-4116-4_9, HW)

World’s population has crossed 6.5 billion with majority of human beings living in developing or under developing countries. Clearly, food security in such countries will be a primary concern over the next few decades. However, options for increased food production to meet this population pressure are limited because most arable land is already under cultivation, and in many areas land use cannot be further intensified without a risk to the long-term productivity. Agricultural land use has been especially intense in recent years because of rapid urbanization and increasing environmental pollution. The ultimate need is to use newer technologies which could help us to curb this food insecurity. Biotechnology is globally recognized as a rapidly emerging, complex and far reaching new technology. It has revolutionized all the fields of life. Recent discoveries and technical innovations in the field of genomics and biotechnology are revealing the full complement of genes in crops, the ability to define genetic variation and use DNA markers to follow chromosome segments with known functions through breeding programmes are leading to new efficiencies in breeding. The ability to isolate and redesign genes and transfer them into different plants also offers the breeder solutions to several key limitations. The convergence of advances in biologygenomics, proteomics, bioinformatics and information technologies is driving the emergence of a new bio-economy. By the usage of this technology we have achieved remarkable success in increasing crop productivity, improving crop quality as well as overcoming food shortage. Additionally the
genetically engineered crops have shown a remarkable potential to tackle some of the world’s most challenging socioeconomic problems which are more prevalent in the developing world than in the industrialized nations.

Famine causes extinction George Plumb, Environmental Activist, “Was Malthus just off a few decades?” 5/18/2008,
http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AI D=/20080518/FEATURES05/805180310/1014/FEATURES05 Once again the world's food situation is bleak. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations, the price of wheat is more than 80 percent higher than a year ago, and corn prices are up by 25 percent. Global cereal stocks have fallen to their lowest level since 1982. Prices have gone so high that the United Nations World Food Program, which aims to feed 73 million people this year, reported it might have to reduce rations or the number of people it will

Food riots are happening in many countries and threaten to bring down some countries as starving people demand better from their government. However, this time the problem will not be so easy to solve. There are some 75 million more people to feed each year!
help. Consumption of meat and other high-quality foods — mainly in China and India — has boosted demand for grain for animal feed. Poor

harvests due to bad weather in this country and elsewhere have contributed. High energy prices are adding to the pressures as some arable land is converted from growing food crops to biofuel crops and making it more expensive to ship the food that is produced. According to Lester Brown, president of the World Policy Institute, "This troubling situation is unlike any the world has faced before. The challenge is not simply to deal with a temporary rise in grain prices, as in the past, but rather to quickly alter those trends whose cumulative effects collectively threaten the food security that is a hallmark of civilization. If food security cannot be restored quickly, social unrest and political instability will spread and the number of failing states will likely increase dramatically, threatening the very stability of civilization itself."

Food Prices
Biotech advancement is key to prevent food shortages and food prices - saves millions of lives Go 8 – Executive order of PhilStar, Philippines based news source. (Marianne, “Biotechnology pushed to ease food shortage”,
6/10/2008, http://www.philstar.com/headlines/66955/biotechnology-pushed-ease-food-shortage, HW) Agriculture Secretary Arthur Yap told delegates at an international agriculture conference in Italy that biotechnology

is key to the world’s quest for food security amid the current shortage in the global food supply and escalating food prices.¶ An agriculture official clarified that it was not a blanket endorsement of the use of genetically
modified organisms.¶ The Philippines also appealed to international donors to increase fund support for the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in Los Baños, Laguna, to improve agricultural productivity research.¶ In his statement at the recent Special Meeting on the Food Crisis convened by the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations, Ambassador to the UN Hilario Davide Jr. urged donor institutions to increase funding for the IRRI as part of the measures to curb the global food crisis.¶ Yap cited the program of the Department of Agriculture (DA) in the

Philippines that applied biotechnology to raise the quality and quantity of food crops through the development of varieties and seeds that are virus and pest-resistant which could survive dry spells and flash floods induced by climate change.¶ “Ultimately, biotechnology has evolved to be the hope in securing food for the world’s growing population,” Yap said last week during an international agricultural biotechnology meeting hosted by
the United States and Egypt at the sidelines of a three-day global food summit of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).¶ US Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer, Professor Magdy Madkour of the Ains Shams University of Egypt, United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Administrator Henrietta Fore, C.S. Karim of the Ministry of Agriculture of Bangladesh, Dr. Shivaji Pandey, director of the FAO Plant Protection Division, Minister Laurent Sedogo of the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Fisheries of Burkina Faso and Minister Hilary Onek of the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries of Uganda were among the panelists in the biotechnology forum.¶ The meeting was held in between sessions of the FAO-hosted High Level Conference on World Food Security in Rome which was attended by heads of states and other top government officials from over 40 countries plus representatives from multilateral financial institutions.¶ The conference was held to discuss strategies and initiatives that would squarely address the new challenges to global food security.¶ Yap pointed out that the

biotechnology revolution has benefited Philippine agriculture in terms of increasing “overall productivity through increased farm yields and competitive agricultural products that would translate into higher farmers’ income.”¶ He said “biotechnology is not the panacea to all our food security needs and economic development crusades.”¶ “We consider it (biotechnology) as one of the means to pursue agricultural modernization and achieve our national economic goals,” Yap said. Yap explained that the country’s policy includes measures to comply
with international standards on the safe use of genetically modified organism (GMO).¶ “We have enough protocol that comply with the United Nations policy on the safe use of GMO products. Be that as it may, we have enough non-GMO products right now that deliver bigger yields for our farmers so we want to focus on the propagation of these products first,” Yap said.¶ Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI) Director Joel Rudinas, however, clarified that biotechnology involves a wide range of operations ranging from tissue culture to genetic manipulation and the government’s policy is not a blanket endorsement of GMO.¶ Rudinas admitted that the government allows certain GMOs but subject to strict rules.¶ Any application for the use of GMO seeds has to undergo a long process by the BPI before commercial distribution.¶ Yap said the

DA has applied biotechnology to produce highvalue products from traditional crops such as rice, papaya, and coconut, improving carabao reproduction and upgrading the country’s livestock industry, boost fish production.¶ Davide. the
Philippines Permanent representative to the UN, urged the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the Internal Fund for Agricultural Development and development partners to donate more research funds for IRRI.¶ “The

research of IRRI, the world’s main repository of rice seeds as well as genetic and other information about rice—the crop that feeds nearly half of the peoples of the world—has been, unfortunately, tremendously slowed down because of cuts in funding for agricultural research,” he said.¶ The envoy cited the case of the brown plant hopper, a tiny fly that has caused havoc across East Asia.¶ “Damage to rice crops which has caused reduced production output would have been prevented if only IRRI’s budget for research had not been cut or reduced,” he said.¶ He cited IRRI reports that the brown plant hopper is multiplying by
the billions and chewing through rice paddies in East Asia, threatening the diets of many poor people.¶ Davide said China, the world’s biggest rice producer, has announced that it was struggling to control the rapid spread of these insects which could destroy as much as 20 percent of a harvest. ¶ Although no fewer than 14 new types of genetic resistance varieties of rice have been discovered, Davide said the budget cuts prevented IRRI from moving further to develop more hybrid rice varieties. ¶ “If

money is

available for research, IRRI can accomplish the task in four to seven years and save millions of people from hunger, from death,” he said

Food price hikes and shortages trigger global war. Stephen Hume, 4/16/2008. Senior writer for the Vancouver Sun. “World Food Crisis Threatens
Rich Nations (That's Us), Too,” Vancouver Sun, http://miami.indymedia.org/news/2008/04/10852.php
In Rome, Reuters

reported Jacques Diouf, head of the United Nations F ood and A griculture O rganization, warning that with 37 countries already in crisis, each day brings greater risk of global famine. "I'm surprised that I have not been summoned to the UN Security Council," Diouf said. "Naturally people won't be sitting dying of starvation, they will react." India's finance minister was more direct. "It is becoming starker by the day," Palaniappan Chidambaram said. "Unless we act fast for a global consensus on the price spiral, the social unrest induced by food prices in several countries will conflagrate into a global contagion, leaving no country -- developed or otherwise -- unscathed."

Bioterror
Biotechnology solves bioterror Bailey, Science Correspond for Reason Magazine, 1 [Ronald, award-winning science correspondent
for Reason magazine and Reason.com, where he writes a weekly science and technology column. Bailey is the author of the book Liberation Biology: The Moral and Scientific Case for the Biotech Revolution (Prometheus, 2005), and his work was featured in The Best American Science and Nature Writing 2004. In 2006, Bailey was shortlisted by the editors of Nature Biotechnology as one of the personalities who have made the "most significant contributions" to biotechnology in the last 10 years. 11/7/1, “The Best Biodefense,” Reason, http://reason.com/archives/2001/11/07/the-best-biodefense] But Cipro and other antibiotics are just a small part of the arsenal that could one day soon be deployed in defending America against biowarfare. Just consider

what’s in the pipeline now that could be used to protect Americans against infectious diseases, including bioterrorism. A Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Research Association survey found 137 new medicines for infectious diseases in drug company research and development pipelines, including 19 antibiotics and 42 vaccines. With regard to anthrax, instead of having to rush a sample to a lab where it takes hours or even days to culture, biotech companies have created test strips using antibody technologies that can confirm the presence of anthrax in 15 minutes or less, allowing decontamination and treatment to begin immediately. Similar test strips are being developed for the detection of smallpox as well. The biotech company EluSys Therapeutics is working on an exciting technique which would "implement instant immunity." EluSys joins two monoclonal antibodies chemically together so that they act
like biological double-sided tape. One antibody sticks to toxins, viruses, or bacteria while the other binds to human red blood cells. The red blood cells carry the pathogen or toxin to the liver for destruction and return unharmed to the normal blood circulation. In one test, the

EluSys treatment reduced the viral load in monkeys one million-fold in less than an hour. The technology could be applied to a number of bioterrorist threats, such as dengue fever, Ebola and Marburg viruses, and plague. Of course, the EluSys treatment would not just be useful for responding to bioterrorist attacks, but also could treat almost any infection or poisoning. Further down the development road are technologies that could rapidly analyze a pathogen’s DNA, and then guide the rapid synthesis of drugs like the ones being developed by EluSys that can bind, or disable, segments of DNA crucial to an infectious organism's survival. Again, this technology would be a great boon for treating infectious diseases and might be a permanent deterrent to future bioterrorist attacks. Seizing Bayer’s patent now wouldn’t just
cost that company and its stockholders a little bit of money (Bayer sold $1 billion in Cipro last year), but would reverberate throughout the pharmaceutical research and development industry. If governments begin to seize patents on the pretext of addressing alleged public health emergencies, the investment in research that would bring about new and effective treatments could dry up. Investors and pharmaceutical executives couldn’t justify putting $30 billion annually into already risky and uncertain research if they couldn’t be sure of earning enough profits to pay back their costs. Consider what happened during the Clinton health care fiasco, which threatened to impose price controls on prescription drugs in the early 1990s: Growth in research spending dropped off dramatically from 10 percent annually to about 2 percent per year. A

far more sensible and farsighted way to protect the American public from health threats, including bioterrorism, is to encourage further pharmaceutical research by respecting drug patents. In the final analysis, America’s best biodefense is a vital and profitable pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry.

That solves Extinction Steinbrenner, Brookings Institute Senior Fellow, 97
(John Steinbrenner, Senior Fellow – Brookings, Foreign Policy, 12-22-1997, Lexis, 6-31-13)

Although human pathogens are often lumped with nuclear explosives and lethal chemicals as potential weapons of mass destruction, there is an obvious, fundamentally important difference: Pathogens are alive, weapons are not. Nuclear and chemical weapons do not reproduce themselves and do not independently engage in adaptive behavior; pathogens do both of these things. That deceptively simple observation has immense implications. The use of a manufactured weapon is a singular event. Most of the
damage occurs immediately. The aftereffects, whatever they may be, decay rapidly over time and distance in a reasonably

predictable manner. Even

before a nuclear warhead is detonated, for instance, it is possible to estimate the extent of the subsequent damage and the likely level of radioactive fallout. Such predictability is an essential component for tactical military planning. The use of a pathogen, by contrast, is an extended process whose scope and timing cannot be precisely controlled. For most potential biological agents, the predominant drawback is that they would not act swiftly or decisively enough to be an effective weapon. But for a few pathogens - ones most likely to have a decisive effect and therefore the ones most likely to be contemplated for deliberately hostile use - the risk runs in the other direction. A lethal pathogen that could efficiently spread from one victim to another would be capable of initiating an intensifying cascade of disease that might ultimately threaten the entire world population. The 1918 influenza epidemic demonstrated the potential for a global contagion of this sort but not necessarily its outer limit.

Extensions

Cooperation Solves
US-Cuba science cooperation solves Cuban economy and biotech development Chen 2003
[Chen May Yee. Editorial Consultant at Straits Times in Singapore. Writing for Christian Science Monitor. “Cutting-edge biotech in old-world Cuba.” April 17, 2003. http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0417/p14s03-stct.html] WD
This crumbling, isolated throwback to a cold-war past is probably one of the last places you'd expect to find the sciences of the future. In Old Havana, wood-paneled pharmacies with crystal chandeliers and empty shelves attract more gawking tourists these days than customers. Food is so scarce that the government urges citizens to grow fruit and vegetables in small urban plots to supplement their diet. Yet

this struggling island nation is chipping away at a longtime US embargo with an unlikely tool: biotechnology. More than three years ago, Smith-Kline Beecham PLC - a charter member of the capitalist world's pharmaceutical sector - signed an agreement with Cuba's Finlay Institute to market the institute's vaccine against meningitis B - the world's first. Now called GlaxoSmithKline PLC, the second-biggest pharmaceutical com-pany in the world is running trials for the Cuban vaccine in Europe and Latin America. If those trials are successful, the company says it plans clinical trials in the US. For Cuba, the deal was a tiny crack in the door that might open up lucrative new markets for its biotechnology products. Besides earning the impoverished communist country much-needed dollars, it could help build new economic bridges with a world that has become a much lonelier place since the collapse of Cuba's old ally, the Soviet Union. "We have neither money nor time," says Concepcion Campa, the scientist who developed the
vaccine and the president of Finlay, Cuba's main research and manufacturing center for human vaccines. With GlaxoSmithKline, which holds a 7 percent share of the world pharmaceutical market, Cuba gains access to marketing heft and a vast commercial network. The

market for such a vaccine is "hundreds of millions of dollars," according to Moncef Slaoui, a senior vice president at GSK Biologicals, the Belgian-based vaccine division of GlaxoSmithKline. Cuba currently earns just $100 million a year from its total pharmaceutical and biotechnology exports. The official line on
science's value When meeting foreign visitors, Cuban officials like to quote something Fidel Castro said in 1960 just after he marched into power: "The future of our homeland must be that of men of science."

Ironically, the 42-year-old US trade embargo might actually have spurred the island's pursuit to science. Imposed in 1960 by President
Kennedy after Mr. Castro infuriated the US by nationalizing $1 billion worth of US-owned property in Cuba, the embargo remains in place decades later. Unable

to import some of the medicines it wanted, Cuba began making its own generic drugs through reverse engineering - piracy by another name. From there sprang a state
pharmaceutical industry and later, a biotechnology offshoot. Cuban officials say the country now produces 80 percent of the types of drugs and medicines used by its 11 million people, though the empty shelves in pharmacies suggest the actual shortfall in quantity may be greater. The healthcare strategy is straightforward: The government develops the drugs and vaccines according to the demands of Cubans. It then tests them and dispenses them across the population through a network of neighborhood family doctors, polyclinics, and hospitals. "Cuban

science does not produce as much in peer-reviewed Englishlanguage scientific journals as its size [would merit], but [there is] more input into social practice," the application of science in a real-world setting, says Sergio Jorge Pastrana, who handles international relations for the
142-year-old Cuban Academy of Sciences. In the early 1990s, when the economy's implosion got so bad that the average Cuban adult lost 20 pounds, the government continued to set aside 1.5 percent of gross national product each year for scientific research. A total of $1 billion between 1992 and 1996 went toward creating a no-frills, centralized version of Silicon Valley, the Western Havana Scientific Pole. In the mid-1990s, crippled by the economic crisis, Cuba sent its scientists to labs in Sweden, Spain, and Germany so they could continue working. Today, Cuba's economy is recovering, thanks to emergency liberalization measures that promote tourism and allow Cubans to start limited private businesses and hold and use the US dollar. At the Western Havana Scientific Pole, scientists at 52 institutes are researching vaccines and therapies for AIDS and Alzheimer's, among others. There

are some cooperation agreements - for product sales, joint ventures, contract manufacture and research - with entities in Latin America, China, Europe, the former Soviet Union, and Australia. Cuba has filed applications for 500 patents around the world. Embargo blocks biggest market But the biggest market has so far eluded it: Although the US has granted Cuba 24 patents, the

embargo has so far prevented it from selling any of the products in America. There is also some biotechnology research in agriculture, but it has not been commercialized, Cuban officials say,
partly for fear that genetically modified food crops might hurt that famed Cuban export - cigars. Stories of frustration abound.

Scientists have limited access to Western journals and can't always afford the latest equipment. They are often denied US visas for scientific exchange. One Finlay Institute scientist who
works with a mass spectrometer, a machine for analyzing biochemicals, says he can't get a US visa to attend conferences to discuss the cutting-edge technology. Another researcher shares his subscription to the journal Nature with 20 colleagues. They not the Cuban peso.

are also

abysmally paid, especially when compared with workers in the growing tourist industry, where cash registers ring with dollars,

Private Investment Solves
American restrictions prevent private investment in Cuban biotech research The Economist 2003
*The Economist. “Truly revolutionary: Cuba wants to profit from the biotechnology revolution.” November 27, 2003. http://www.economist.com/node/2249479] WD INTEREST in Cuba's unique brand of biotechnology has been growing since May 2002, when
America's undersecretary of state, John Bolton, said that the island was developing “a limited offensive biological warfare” programme. The Cubans vehemently denied this. Whatever the truth of that claim, one thing is clear:

Fidel Castro's scientists have been churning out an impressive line of genetically engineered products, from fast-growing fish to recombinant vaccines and cancer therapeutics. Cuba has spent over 20 years and a
reported $1 billion building up its biotech industry. Unfortunately, the industry has little to show for this effort in the way of sales or profits, largely because its marketing skills lag far behind its scientific prowess. This will not come as a shock to capitalists.

Biotechnology Havana, a big conference held in the Cuban capital this week, aimed to bring together scientists and businessmen as part of the country's renewed search for risk capital from abroad. There remain huge political obstacles to developing the industry's commercial potential, not least the fact that Cuba is still a socialist dictatorship. Many foreign firms are understandably deterred by the prospect of meddling government bureaucrats. Many others are also put off by America's Helms-Burton act, which could shut them out of American markets for doing business in Cuba. Yet so-called “receptor companies”, such as Canada's YM BioSciences (YMB),
which both develop and package Cuban products, have been busy agreeing joint-venture licences with some of Havana's leading biotech centres.

One of the most promising drugs promoted this week is a novel anti-cancer vaccine developed by YMB and Havana's Centre of Molecular Immunology. David Allan, boss of YMB, says that the drug is evidence of a Cuban ability to “think outside the box” in approaching cancer treatment. A big goal of this week's meeting was to dispel the belief that Cuban biotech has prospered by developing knock-off
versions of already patented drugs: a common complaint against the drugs industries of poorer countries. Cuban officials say their country enforces international protocols, such as the World Trade Organisation's Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights agreement. True, they admit, the

Cuban state does own the intellectual property embodied in the products of the country's biotech research institutes. But this, they say, is little different to the institutional ownership of patents in America by bodies such as university regents. The result in both cases, they say, can be good, affordable drugs. The United Nations has not been slow to jump on the bandwagon. In 2000, a World Health Organisation inspection approved Cuba's hepatitis B vaccine for use in the UN's vaccination campaign. Also included in Cuba's growing intellectual-property portfolio is the patent on a meningitis B vaccine, now undergoing further clinical trials with GlaxoSmithKline. Several other Canadian and European biotech firms have followed YMB's lead, licensing Cuban technology. Given the interest generated at Biotechnology Havana, many more such joint ventures may now be in the offing.

Cuba biotech limited
Cuba biotech is restricted from the global market. Starr July 01, 2013-the codirector of the Center for Science and Medical Journalism and a
professor of journalism at Boston University.“THE CUBAN BIOTECH REVOLUTION” http://nylatinojournal.com/home/business_economics/med_biotech/the_cuban_biotech_revol ution.html)KG
Faced with economic calamity, Castro

did something remarkable: He poured hundreds of millions of

dollars into pharmaceuticals. No one knows how - Cuba"s economy, with its secrecy and centralized structure,
defies market analysis. One beneficiary was Concepcion Campa Huergo, president and director general of the Finlay Institute, a vaccine lab in Havana. She developed the world's first meningitis B vaccine, testing it by injecting herself and her children before giving it to volunteers. "I remember one day telling Fidel that we needed a new ultracentrifuge, which costs about $70,000," Campa says. "After five minutes of listening he said, 'No. You"ll need 10.'" Campa and her colleagues still have to scrimp and scrounge. Labs are filled with gear from Europe, Japan, and Brazil. The occasional device from the US has traveled the "long way around" - through so many middlemen (and markups) that it may well have circled the globe. Scientists develop their own reagents, enzymes, tissue cultures, and virus lines. Each institute has its own production facility and conducts clinical trials through the state-run hospital system. The Center of Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, La Habana, Cuba. Photo: Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs Still, if pharma is to become an economic engine, Cuban researchers acknowledge that they"ll have to join the international business community. South-to-south complicated. Forty

transfers simply don"t raise enough cash. That's where things get years after it began, Washington's embargo remains a punishing weapon. Not only are US companies banned from doing business with Cuba, but so are their foreign subsidiaries. No freighter that visits a Cuban port may dock in the US for the next six months. For a Cuban product to reach US companies, the makers have to prove a "compelling national interest" to the US Office of Foreign Assets Control. Consolidation in the drug industry has made things worse, says Ismael Clark, president of the Cuban Academy of Sciences. "You"d have a supplier for several years, and suddenly you"d get a letter from the company saying, "We can"t supply you anymore because our firm was bought by an American transnational."" The country has taken a few steps toward bridging
the gap. The American drug company SmithKline Beecham (now part of a British transnational) got permission to license Campa's meningitis B vaccine in 1999. The terms of the deal are restrictive. SmithKline pays Cuba in products during clinical trials (now in Phase II in Belgium) and in cash only if the drug proves to be viable. In July, CancerVax, a

Californiabased biotech company, got federal approval to test a Cuban vaccine that stimulates the immune system against lung cancer cells. CancerVax is the first US business to receive such approval. CancerVax staffers saw the research at an international conference, and then spent two years lobbying Capitol Hill and Cuban-American interest groups. Still, naïveté remains the real obstacle to a Cuban biotech century. Fidel's pharmacists lack slick brochures and goldentongued sales staff. Foreigners tend to find Cuba overly bureaucratic, especially when closing a deal. "They just don't get capitalism," a diplomat tells me over coffee in Boston. "The elite may watch American TV and read The
Wall Street Journal on the Web, so they have a conversational familiarity. But on a fundamental level they don't get it and don't want to get it. They still think there's something immoral about profit." Borroto, of CIGB, remembers talking to colleagues about using patents to protect their expanding market. That was the moment Castro decided to pop into the lab. "What's all this about patents? You"re sounding crazy!" he said. "We don"t like patents, remember?" Borroto stood his ground. "Even if you"re giving medicine to the third world," he said, "you still need to protect yourself." Borroto knew he had to get better at the game. He sent his staff to Canada to get MBAs, to learn the language of capitalism. Yet concepts like venture capital still escape him. "I can"t understand how 80 percent of the biotech companies in the world make money without selling any products," he says. "How do they do this? Hopeness," he guesses, using a neologism to stress the absurdity. "They sell hopeness." Asked for an annual report - a basic necessity of international business- Agustin Lage, director of the Center for Molecular Immunology, merely says, "You know, we"ve actually been meaning to produce one." Then he smiles and shrugs. It's like Castro said: They don"t really like patents. They

like medicine. Cuba's drug pipeline is most interesting for what it lacks: grand-slam moneymakers, cures for baldness, impotence, or wrinkles. It's all cancer therapies, AIDS medications, and vaccines against tropical diseases.

Ag Biotech k2 Famine
Biotechnology advances are key to solve mass starvation causing food shortages Leader-Post 8 – Top selling and award winning Canadian newspaper. (LP, “Biotechnology needed to solve food shortage,
says CEO”, 9/25/2008, http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/news/story.html?id=5b5c45c8-6ae5-4ac1-8992-270658d71ac8, HW)

More genetically modified crops must be developed if agricultural producers are to meet the challenge of global food shortages and climate change , a Biotech Week event was told Thursday.¶ “Technology prevented mass starvation in the 20th Century,’’ said David Dennis, CEO of Performance Plants Inc., which operates plant biotechnology facilities in Kingston, Ont., Saskatoon and New York.¶ “Technology will solve the problems of the 21st Century, I believe,’’ added Dennis, a former Queen’s University plant scientist, who founded PPI in 1995.¶ Dennis said the global agriculture industry is facing a number of challenges, namely water shortages, climate change and yield volatility that threaten to cause large-scale crop failures and mass starvation . ¶ Agriculture biotechnology -- genetically modifying plants to improve their productivity, size and resistance to drought and disease -- could provide the solution to these challenges, he added.¶ For
example, PPI has used gene-modification technology to improve crop yields in corn, canola and soybeans by 15 to 25 per cent by improving their drought resistance.¶ GM technology

has also been used to help protect crops from heat stress and use water more efficiently, as well as increase biomass and carbohydrate content for biofuels crops.¶ Contrary to popular misconception, GM-modified crops have “no negative impacts’’ on the quality, safety or quantity of the food they produce, Dennis added.¶ “The technology works under a lot of conditions. There appears to be no negative impact of the technology at all.”¶ Daren Coppock, CEO of the National Association of Wheat Growers in the U.S., said widespread production of GM-modified wheat could help offset the steadily declining acreage of cropland sown to wheat in the U.S. ¶ “Seven of
the last 10 years, we’ve consumed more wheat locally (in the U.S.) than we’ve produced. You just can’t keep doing that without having a market response.’’¶ Corn and soybeans are moving west and north into traditional wheat-growing areas in the U.S., pushing wheat acres to 30-year lows, Coppock said.¶ “Even

under the most optimistic scenario, (one expert) does not see wheat acres exceeding 50 million when it used to be almost 80 (million).”¶ The need to improve crop yields is another “compelling case for biotechnology,” Coppock added. While wheat yields
have remained “flat” at around 40 bushels per acre, corn yields have been expanding four times faster -- thanks to biotechnology, he said.¶ “The

longer we wait to deal with this problem, the bigger the hole we’ve dug for ourselves. That’s why there’s a sense of urgency by our producers to get this (biotechnology) ball rolling as soon as we can.’’¶ But even if GM-modified wheat varieties were approved tomorrow, it would take 10
years to get them into production, he added.¶ “Our board has set a goal of a 20-per-cent yield increase in 10 years, with the fundamental assumption that biotech commercialization is part of that answer. We won’t get there without it.’’

Biotech advancement is key to prevent food shortages and food prices - saves millions of lives Go 8 – Executive order of PhilStar, Philippines based news source. (Marianne, “Biotechnology pushed to ease food shortage”,
6/10/2008, http://www.philstar.com/headlines/66955/biotechnology-pushed-ease-food-shortage, HW) Agriculture Secretary Arthur Yap told delegates at an international agriculture conference in Italy that biotechnology

is key to the world’s quest for food security amid the current shortage in the global food supply and escalating food prices.¶ An agriculture official clarified that it was not a blanket endorsement of the use of genetically
modified organisms.¶ The Philippines also appealed to international donors to increase fund support for the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in Los Baños, Laguna, to improve agricultural productivity research.¶ In his statement at the recent Special Meeting on the Food Crisis convened by the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations, Ambassador to the UN Hilario Davide Jr. urged donor institutions to increase funding for the IRRI as part of the measures to curb the global food crisis.¶ Yap cited the program of the Department of Agriculture (DA) in the

Philippines that applied biotechnology to raise the quality and quantity of food crops through the development of varieties and seeds that are

virus and pest-resistant which could survive dry spells and flash floods induced by climate change.¶ “Ultimately, biotechnology has evolved to be the hope in securing food for the world’s growing population,” Yap said last week during an international agricultural biotechnology meeting hosted by
the United States and Egypt at the sidelines of a three-day global food summit of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).¶ US Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer, Professor Magdy Madkour of the Ains Shams University of Egypt, United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Administrator Henrietta Fore, C.S. Karim of the Ministry of Agriculture of Bangladesh, Dr. Shivaji Pandey, director of the FAO Plant Protection Division, Minister Laurent Sedogo of the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Fisheries of Burkina Faso and Minister Hilary Onek of the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries of Uganda were among the panelists in the biotechnology forum.¶ The meeting was held in between sessions of the FAO-hosted High Level Conference on World Food Security in Rome which was attended by heads of states and other top government officials from over 40 countries plus representatives from multilateral financial institutions.¶ The conference was held to discuss strategies and initiatives that would squarely address the new challenges to global food security.¶ Yap pointed out that the

biotechnology revolution has benefited Philippine agriculture in terms of increasing “overall productivity through increased farm yields and competitive agricultural products that would translate into higher farmers’ income.”¶ He said “biotechnology is not the panacea to all our food security needs and economic development crusades.”¶ “We consider it (biotechnology) as one of the means to pursue agricultural modernization and achieve our national economic goals,” Yap said. Yap explained that the country’s policy includes measures to comply
with international standards on the safe use of genetically modified organism (GMO).¶ “We have enough protocol that comply with the United Nations policy on the safe use of GMO products. Be that as it may, we have enough non-GMO products right now that deliver bigger yields for our farmers so we want to focus on the propagation of these products first,” Yap said.¶ Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI) Director Joel Rudinas, however, clarified that biotechnology involves a wide range of operations ranging from tissue culture to genetic manipulation and the government’s policy is not a blanket endorsement of GMO.¶ Rudinas admitted that the government allows certain GMOs but subject to strict rules.¶ Any application for the use of GMO seeds has to undergo a long process by the BPI before commercial distribution.¶ Yap said the

DA has applied biotechnology to produce highvalue products from traditional crops such as rice, papaya, and coconut, improving carabao reproduction and upgrading the country’s livestock industry, boost fish production.¶ Davide. the
Philippines Permanent representative to the UN, urged the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the Internal Fund for Agricultural Development and development partners to donate more research funds for IRRI.¶ “The

research of IRRI, the world’s main repository of rice seeds as well as genetic and other information about rice—the crop that feeds nearly half of the peoples of the world—has been, unfortunately, tremendously slowed down because of cuts in funding for agricultural research,” he said.¶ The envoy cited the case of the brown plant hopper, a tiny fly that has caused havoc across East Asia.¶ “Damage to rice crops which has caused reduced production output would have been prevented if only IRRI’s budget for research had not been cut or reduced,” he said.¶ He cited IRRI reports that the brown plant hopper is multiplying by
the billions and chewing through rice paddies in East Asia, threatening the diets of many poor people.¶ Davide said China, the world’s biggest rice producer, has announced that it was struggling to control the rapid spread of these insects which could destroy as much as 20 percent of a harvest. ¶ Although no fewer than 14 new types of genetic resistance varieties of rice have been discovered, Davide said the budget cuts prevented IRRI from moving further to develop more hybrid rice varieties. ¶ “If

money is available for research, IRRI can accomplish the task in four to seven years and save millions of people from hunger, from death,” he said

Biotechnology is key to avoid otherwise inevitable food shortages Ahmad 12 – Professor in the department of botany, University of Kashmir, India. (Parvaiz, “Biotechnology as an Aid for Crop
Improvement to Overcome Food Shortage”, 2012, http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-94-007-4116-4_9, HW)

World’s population has crossed 6.5 billion with majority of human beings living in developing or under developing countries. Clearly, food security in such countries will be a primary concern over the next few decades. However, options for increased food production to meet this population pressure are limited because most arable land is already under cultivation, and in many areas land use cannot be further intensified without a risk to the long-term productivity. Agricultural land use has been especially intense in recent years because of rapid urbanization and increasing environmental pollution. The ultimate need is to use newer technologies which could help us to curb this food insecurity. Biotechnology is globally recognized as a rapidly emerging, complex and far reaching new technology. It has revolutionized all the fields of life. Recent discoveries

and technical innovations in the field of genomics and biotechnology are revealing the full complement of genes in crops, the ability to define genetic variation and use DNA markers to follow chromosome segments with known functions through breeding programmes are leading to new efficiencies in breeding. The ability to isolate and redesign genes and transfer them into different plants also offers the breeder solutions to several key limitations. The convergence of advances in biologygenomics, proteomics, bioinformatics and information technologies is driving the emergence of a new bio-economy. By the usage of this technology we have achieved remarkable success in increasing crop productivity, improving crop quality as well as overcoming food shortage. Additionally the
genetically engineered crops have shown a remarkable potential to tackle some of the world’s most challenging socioeconomic problems which are more prevalent in the developing world than in the industrialized nations.

Cuban agricultural biotech is uniquely good – best technology and zero corporate interference Global Research News 12 – center for research on globalization. (GRN, “The Achievements of Cuba’s “Ecological
Agriculture””, 12/26/2012, http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-achievements-of-cubas-ecological-agriculture/5316868, HW) All over the world, and especially in Latin America, the

island’s agroecological production levels and the associated research efforts along with innovative farmer organizational schemes have been observed with great interest. No other country in the world has achieved this level of success with a form of agriculture that uses the ecological services of biodiversity and reduces food miles, energy use, and effectively closes local production and consumption cycles. Cuba has invested millions in biotechnological research and development for agriculture through its Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (CIGB) and a network of institutions across the country. Cuban biotechnology is free from corporate control and intellectual property-right regimes that exist in other countries. Cuban biotechnologists affirm that their biosafety system sets strict biological and environmental security norms. Given this autonomy and advantages biotechnological innovations could efficiently be applied to solve problems such as viral crop diseases or drought tolerance for which agroecological solutions are not yet available. In2009 the CIGB planted in Yagüajay, Sancti Spiritus, three hectares of genetically
modified corn (transgenic corn FR-Bt1) on an experimental basis. This variety is supposed to suppress populations of the damaging larval stage of the “palomilla del maíz” moth (Spodoptera frugiperda, also known as the fall armyworm). By 2009 a total of 6,000 hectares were planted with the transgenic (also referred to as genetically modified, or GM) variety across several provinces. From an agroecological perspective it is perplexing that the first transgenic variety to be tested in Cuba is Bt corn, given that in the island there are so many biological control alternatives to regulate lepidopteran pests. The

diversity of local maize varieties include some that exhibit moderate-to-high levels of pest resistance, offering significant opportunities to increase yields with conventional plant breeding and known agroecological management strategies.
Many centers for multiplication of insect parasites and pathogens (CREEs, Centros de Reproducción de Entomófagos y Entomopatógenos) produce Bacillus thuringiensis (a microbial insecticide) and Trichogramma (small wasps), both highly effective against moths such as the palomilla. In addition, mixing corn with other crops such as beans or sweet potatoes in polycultures produces significantly less pest attack than maize grown in monocultures. This also increases the land equivalent ratio (growing more total crops in a given area of land) and protects the soil.

Biotech crop engineering is safe and gives huge crop yield increases – need to do it as soon as possible Tohir 11 – Leading science writer, Jakarta Post. (Winarno, “Food shortages and biotechnology
solution”, 3/7/11, http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2011/03/07/food-shortages-and-biotechnology-solution.html, HW) However, the practical reality is that biotechnological

applications have the potential to dramatically increase both crop yields and resistance to plant diseases like downy mildew. Can you imagine planting rice that may only need to be watered once a month? Or planting corn without having to worry about plant diseases threatening your crops during the rainy season? Well, these are

now real possibilities through biotechnology. ¶ Apart from the definition, people want to know how
biotechnology works and, in particular, how high-tech applications can produce food that is perfectly fit for human consumption.¶ A

key value of biotechnological applications lies in the creation of transgenic crops — crops that have been genetically engineered to contain genes from more than one plant — that are resistant to pests and extreme climate. These offer a whole range of benefits — increased yields, higher quality
crops, and less pesticide use, which in turn reduces the possibility of environmental damage, among others.¶ Basically,

biotechnology could help the government meet its targets for self sufficiency in food production, increase competition in the agriculture sector, and improve farmers’ welfare. ¶ Any worries about product safety can be debunked with no reported health issues by the USmade soybeans that are genetically engineered and consumed in our daily lives. The technology also allows bioscientists to determine which plant genes will be incorporated into crops. This means that any kind of religious norms will be duly observed. ¶ Likewise, there should be no fears of the domination of the sector by large multinationals. There is a huge
opportunity for our own people to develop these technologies and product innovation. ¶ For users, the government should make financial support available for farmers and entrepreneurs who choose to adopt biotechnological solutions. The

advantages of biotechnology represent a strong case for the adoption of technologies created by the industry. As a means of safeguarding the welfare of our nation, we need to begin the implementation of the best practical biotechnology solutions sooner rather than later.

US Ag Biotech Fails
US agricultural biotech industry is dominated by Monsanto – destroys innovation and yields Wilcox 6/8/13 - served as a director of Kaiser since July 2006. Mr. Wilcox has been an active investor in, on the board of
directors of, or an executive consultant for, a number of metals and energy companies since 2005. From June 2005 to December 2011, Mr. Wilcox served as Chief Executive Officer of Summit Power Alternative Resources. (Brett, “Monsanto: Destroying American Agriculture One Crop At A Time”, http://www.runningthecountry.com/monsanto-and-usda-destroying-american-agriculture-onecrop-at-a-time/#.Udjr7zs3tPI, HW)

U.S. wheat farmers are holding Monsanto responsible for creating and patenting a product that is so toxic to farmers’ financial health that its mere presence on a single U.S. farm results in consumer rejection and consequent decreased value for all wheat on every farm in the U.S.A. 1¶ What product could possibly produce such devastating financial losses? Monsanto’s Roundup resistant, genetically modified wheat.¶ Naturally, Monsanto sees itself as the victim in this outrageous situation, even suggesting
that villainous souls may have intentionally planted Monsanto patented wheat to “sabotage” Monsanto. 2¶ There’s frightening irony in the fact that Monsanto created genetically modified wheat with the intent of selling it to farmers, and after that same wheat shows up in a farmer’s field, Monsanto suggests that saboteurs are out to destroy Monsanto.¶ This

isn’t the first time

farmers have had to bear the cost of irresponsible biotechnology giants.¶ “The 2000 release of Aventis
SA’s StarLink corn cost as much as $288 million in lost revenue and a yearlong drop in the grain’s price, according to a 2008 report by the Government Accountability Office. The

2006 release of Bayer AG’s Liberty Link rice cost as much as $1.29 billion in lost exports, food recalls and other expenses, the GAO said, citing an environmental advocacy group. Bayer in 2011 agreed to pay $750 million to about 11,000 U.S. rice farmers who sued
the company.” 3¶ Once again, there is frightening irony in Monsanto’s demeaning use of the phrase “tractor-chasing lawyers” to describe farmers who seek legitimate compensation due to real financial losses farmers have and will experience due to Monsan to’s unwanted transgenic wheat.¶ Dr. Mercola states, “Monsanto

employs an arsenal of private investigators and agents who secretly videotape farmers, snatch crop samples from their land and even fly helicopters overhead to spy — all to catch farmers saving or sharing seeds. As of 2005 Monsanto had 75 employees and a $10-million budget solely to investigate and prosecute farmers for patent infringement.” 4¶ Some of the farmers Monsanto sues for patent violation didn’t want and didn’t
buy Monsanto seeds at all. Rather, Monsanto’s seed or pollen contaminated their farms. That fact doesn’t deter Monsanto from suing these farmers. 4¶ Suing farmers is a lucrative revenue source for Monsanto. As of November 28, 2012, Monsanto has raked in $23,675,820.99 from farmers. But that figure doesn’t include Monsanto’s gains from confidential, out-ofcourt settlements. According to Center For Food Safety, “Farmers have paid Monsanto an estimated $85,653,601 to $160,594,230 in

In light of Monsanto’s allegation of potential “sabotage” in the case of their genetically modified wheat, one has to wonder how they came up with such an idea. Do Monsanto investigators spread Monsanto seeds while trespassing on farmers’ property? Do Monsanto investigators get paid on commission? Do they earn a percentage on court victories?¶ There’s more irony in the fact that while Monsanto claims no responsibility for the Monsanto wheat found in Oregon, Monsanto is currently conducting open-field GM wheat testing in Hawaii and North Dakota. 6¶ Of course that means Monsanto is actively planning to unleash yet another version or versions of GM wheat—wheat that will once again result in lost market share for U.S. farmers. 7 Five million Brazilian
settlements of these seed piracy matters.” 5¶ farmers have sued Monsanto, and yet Monsanto continues to cram its unwanted products down the throats of the world. 9¶ Of course, there’s nothing ironic about any of this; it’s

just business as usual at Monsanto.

Current US agricultural biotech leader Monsanto hurts crop yields and exports Dreibus 5/30/13 – reporter for Bloomberg news. (Tony, “Wheat Falls as Japan Suspends U.S. Imports on Biotech Crop
Find”, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-30/wheat-drops-as-global-crop-outlook-counters-u-s-planting-delays.html, HW)

Wheat in Chicago fell, headed for the biggest monthly loss since February, after Japan suspended imports from the U.S., where the government discovered an unapproved,

genetically modified strain growing in an Oregon field.¶ Japan, the biggest buyer of U.S. wheat behind Mexico, suspended imports of western-white wheat and feed wheat from the U.S., said Hiromi Iwahama, the director for grain trade and operation at the agriculture ministry. Scientists said the rogue wheat in Oregon was a strain tested from 1998 to 2005 by Monsanto Co. (MON), the world’s top seedmaker. Japan also canceled a purchase of 24,926 metric tons of white wheat.¶ The finding may hurt U.S. export prospects at a time when the U.S. Department of Agriculture is expecting record global production, boosted by a 48 percent increase in Russian output and a 40 percent gain from Ukraine. Exports from the U.S. probably will fall 9.8 percent to 25.2 million tons in the year that starts on June 1, according to the USDA.¶ “This is not something we need to see when exports are suffering anyway,” Darrell Holaday, the
president of Advanced Market Concepts in Wamego, Kansas, said in a telephone interview. “It’s a negative story during a negative export time, and if the Black Sea keeps getting rain it’s going to be a tough, competitive wheat market.”¶ Wheat futures for July delivery fell 0.6 percent to settle at $6.9875 a bushel at 1:15 p.m. on the Chicago Board of Trade. The price is down 4.4 percent this month, partly because the USDA on May 10 forecast global growers would harvest 701.1 million tons.¶ Import Estimate¶ Japan

is

Asia’s largest wheat buyer after Indonesia, with imports forecast at 5.89 million tons in the 2012-2013 season, little changed from the previous period, according to the London-based International Grains Council.¶
Japan imported 5.62 million tons of milling wheat last fiscal year, of which 3.26 million tons, or 58 percent, were from the U.S. Canada was the second-largest supplier to Japan, with 1.32 million tons, while Australia was the third with 1.03 million. Japan

imported 867,000 tons of western-white wheat from the U.S. in the year ended March 31, data from the Agriculture Ministry showed.¶ “If there really are major concerns and Japan continues to cancel and
buy elsewhere, that could weigh on Chicago,” said Paul Gaffet, an analyst at Offre & Demande Agricole in Bourges, France, which advises 5,000 farmers on crop sales.¶ The USDA said yesterday it was investigating how the unapproved seeds were growing nine years after St. Louis-based Monsanto ended its wheat program.

Terminal !’s

Famine Impact
Food insecurity causes global instability, war, and billions of deaths, threatening extinction. Winnail, Ph.D., M.P.H, FROM THE WORLD AHEAD, September-October 1996,
http://www.kurtsaxon.com/foods004.htm "No other economic indicator is more politically sensitive that rising food prices.... Food prices spiraling out of control could trigger not only economic instability but widespread political upheavals"-- even wars. The chaotic weather conditions we have been experiencing appear to be related
As a result grain prices are the highest on record. Worldwatch Institute's president, Lester Brown, writes, to global warming caused by the release of pollutants into the earth's atmosphere. A recent article entitled "Heading for Apocalypse?" suggests the effects of global warming--and its side effects of increasingly severe droughts, floods and storms-could be catastrophic, especially for agriculture. The unpredictable shifts in temperature and rainfall will pose an increased risk of hunger and famine for many of the world's poor. With

world food stores dwindling, grain production leveling off and a string of bad harvests around the world, the next couple of years will be critical. Agricultural experts suggest it will take two bumper crops in a row to bring supplies back up to normal. However, poor harvests in 1996 and 1997 could create severe food shortages and push millions over the edge. Is it possible we are only one or two harvests away from a global disaster? Is there any significance to
what is happening today? Where is it all leading? What does the future hold? The clear implication is that things will get worse

Wars, famine and disease will affect the lives of billions of people! Although famines have occurred at various times in the past, the new famines will happen during a time of unprecedented global stress--times that have no parallel in recorded history--at a time when the total destruction of humanity would be possible! Is
before they get better. it merely a coincidence that we are seeing a growing menace of famine on a global scale at a time when the world is facing the

These are pushing the world's resources to its limits! The world has never before faced such an ominous series of potential global crises at the same time! However, droughts and shrinking grain
threat of a resurgence of new and old epidemic diseases, and the demands of an exploding population? stores are not the only threats to world food supplies. According to the U.N.'s studies, all 17 major fishing areas in the world have either reached or exceeded their natural limits. In fact, nine of these areas are in serious decline. The realization that we may be facing a shortage of food from both oceanic and land-based sources is a troubling one . It's troubling because seafood-the world's leading source of animal protein--could be depleted quite rapidly. In the early 1970s, the Peruvian anchovy catch--

If this happens on a global scale, we will be in deep trouble. This precarious situation is also without historical precedent!
the largest in the world--collapsed from 12 million tons to 2 million in just three years from overfishing.

Famine causes extinction George Plumb, Environmental Activist, “Was Malthus just off a few decades?” 5/18/2008,
http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AI D=/20080518/FEATURES05/805180310/1014/FEATURES05 Once again the world's food situation is bleak. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations, the price of wheat is more than 80 percent higher than a year ago, and corn prices are up by 25 percent. Global cereal stocks have fallen to their lowest level since 1982. Prices have gone so high that the United Nations World Food Program, which aims to feed 73 million people this year, reported it might have to reduce rations or the number of people it will

Food riots are happening in many countries and threaten to bring down some countries as starving people demand better from their government. However, this time the problem will not be so easy to solve. There are some 75 million more people to feed each year!
help. Consumption of meat and other high-quality foods — mainly in China and India — has boosted demand for grain for animal feed. Poor

harvests due to bad weather in this country and elsewhere have contributed. High energy prices are adding to the pressures as some arable land is converted from growing food crops to biofuel crops and making it more expensive to ship the food that is produced. According to Lester Brown, president of the World Policy Institute, "This troubling situation is

unlike any the world has faced before. The challenge is not simply to deal with a temporary rise in grain prices, as in the past, but rather to quickly alter those trends whose cumulative effects collectively threaten the food security that is a hallmark of civilization. If food security cannot be restored quickly, social unrest and political instability will spread and the number of failing states will likely increase dramatically, threatening the very stability of civilization itself."

World War III results as countries use weapons to fight for food Calvin 1998 (William H.; Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences – University of
Washington) January "The Great Climate Flip-Flop" Atlantic Monthly 281:1 EBSCO The population-crash scenario is surely the most appalling. Plummeting crop yields would cause some powerful countries to try to take over their neighbors or distant lands – if only because their armies, unpaid and lacking food, would go marauding, both at home and across the borders. The better-organized countries would attempt to use their armies, before they fell apart entirely, to take over countries with significant remaining resources, driving out or starving their inhabitants if not using modern weapons to accomplish the same end: eliminating competitors for the remaining food. This would be a worldwide problem – and could lead to a Third World War – but Europe's vulnerability is particularly easy to
analyze. The last abrupt cooling, the Younger Dryas, drastically altered Europe's climate as far east as Ukraine. Present-day Europe has more than 650 million people. It has excellent soils, and largely grows its own food. It could no longer do so if it lost the extra warming from the North Atlantic.

Billions will die Tampa Tribune 96
Tampa Tribune, 1-20-96
On a global scale, food supplies - measured by stockpiles of grain - are not abundant. In 1995, world production failed to meet

said Per Pinstrup-Andersen, director of the International Food Policy Research Institute in Washington, D.C. As a result, grain stockpiles fell from an average of 17
demand for the third consecutive year, percent of annual consumption in 1994-1995 to 13 percent at the end of the 1995-1996 season, he said. That's troubling, Pinstrup-Andersen noted, since 13 percent is well below the 17 percent the United Nations considers essential to provide a margin of safety in world food security. During the food crisis of the early 1970s, world grain stocks were at 15 percent. "Even

if they are merely blips, higher international prices can hurt poor countries that import a significant portion of their food," he said. "Rising prices can also quickly put food out of reach of the 1.1 billion people in the developing world who live on a dollar a day or less." He
also said many people in low-income countries already spend more than half of their income on food.

Bioterror Impact
Biotechnology solves bioterror Bailey, Science Correspond for Reason Magazine, 1 [Ronald, award-winning science correspondent
for Reason magazine and Reason.com, where he writes a weekly science and technology column. Bailey is the author of the book Liberation Biology: The Moral and Scientific Case for the Biotech Revolution (Prometheus, 2005), and his work was featured in The Best American Science and Nature Writing 2004. In 2006, Bailey was shortlisted by the editors of Nature Biotechnology as one of the personalities who have made the "most significant contributions" to biotechnology in the last 10 years. 11/7/1, “The Best Biodefense,” Reason, http://reason.com/archives/2001/11/07/the-best-biodefense] But Cipro and other antibiotics are just a small part of the arsenal that could one day soon be deployed in defending America against biowarfare. Just consider

what’s in the pipeline now that could be used to protect Americans against infectious diseases, including bioterrorism. A Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Research Association survey found 137 new medicines for infectious diseases in drug company research and development pipelines, including 19 antibiotics and 42 vaccines. With regard to anthrax, instead of having to rush a sample to a lab where it takes hours or even days to culture, biotech companies have created test strips using antibody technologies that can confirm the presence of anthrax in 15 minutes or less, allowing decontamination and treatment to begin immediately. Similar test strips are being developed for the detection of smallpox as well. The biotech company EluSys Therapeutics is working on an exciting technique which would "implement instant immunity." EluSys joins two monoclonal antibodies chemically together so that they act
like biological double-sided tape. One antibody sticks to toxins, viruses, or bacteria while the other binds to human red blood cells. The red blood cells carry the pathogen or toxin to the liver for destruction and return unharmed to the normal blood circulation. In one test, the

EluSys treatment reduced the viral load in monkeys one million-fold in less than an hour. The technology could be applied to a number of bioterrorist threats, such as dengue fever, Ebola and Marburg viruses, and plague. Of course, the EluSys treatment would not just be useful for responding to bioterrorist attacks, but also could treat almost any infection or poisoning. Further down the development road are technologies that could rapidly analyze a pathogen’s DNA, and then guide the rapid synthesis of drugs like the ones being developed by EluSys that can bind, or disable, segments of DNA crucial to an infectious organism's survival. Again, this technology would be a great boon for treating infectious diseases and might be a permanent deterrent to future bioterrorist attacks. Seizing Bayer’s patent now wouldn’t just
cost that company and its stockholders a little bit of money (Bayer sold $1 billion in Cipro last year), but would reverberate throughout the pharmaceutical research and development industry. If governments begin to seize patents on the pretext of addressing alleged public health emergencies, the investment in research that would bring about new and effective treatments could dry up. Investors and pharmaceutical executives couldn’t justify putting $30 billion annually into already risky and uncertain research if they couldn’t be sure of earning enough profits to pay back their costs. Consider what happened during the Clinton health care fiasco, which threatened to impose price controls on prescription drugs in the early 1990s: Growth in research spending dropped off dramatically from 10 percent annually to about 2 percent per year. A

far more sensible and farsighted way to protect the American public from health threats, including bioterrorism, is to encourage further pharmaceutical research by respecting drug patents. In the final analysis, America’s best biodefense is a vital and profitable pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry.

That solves Extinction Steinbrenner, Brookings Institute Senior Fellow, 97
(John Steinbrenner, Senior Fellow – Brookings, Foreign Policy, 12-22-1997, Lexis, 6-31-13)

Although human pathogens are often lumped with nuclear explosives and lethal chemicals as potential weapons of mass destruction, there is an obvious, fundamentally important difference: Pathogens are alive, weapons are not. Nuclear and chemical weapons do not reproduce themselves and do not independently engage in adaptive behavior; pathogens do both of these things. That deceptively simple observation has immense implications. The use of a manufactured weapon is a singular event. Most of the
damage occurs immediately. The aftereffects, whatever they may be, decay rapidly over time and distance in a reasonably

predictable manner. Even

before a nuclear warhead is detonated, for instance, it is possible to estimate the extent of the subsequent damage and the likely level of radioactive fallout. Such predictability is an essential component for tactical military planning. The use of a pathogen, by contrast, is an extended process whose scope and timing cannot be precisely controlled. For most potential biological agents, the predominant drawback is that they would not act swiftly or decisively enough to be an effective weapon. But for a few pathogens - ones most likely to have a decisive effect and therefore the ones most likely to be contemplated for deliberately hostile use - the risk runs in the other direction. A lethal pathogen that could efficiently spread from one victim to another would be capable of initiating an intensifying cascade of disease that might ultimately threaten the entire world population. The 1918 influenza epidemic demonstrated the potential for a global contagion of this sort but not necessarily its outer limit.

***Environment***

2AC Mods

Oil Spills – Econ
A Cuban oil spill causes economic decline, undermines the oil industry, and destroys the environment – conventional safeguards aren’t in place Bert and Clayton 12
[Captain Melissa Bert, USCG, 2011-2012 Military Fellow, U.S.Coast Guard, and Blake Clayton, Fellow for Energy and National Security, Council on Foreign Relations, March 2012, “Addressing the Risk of a Cuban Oil Spill,” http://www.cfr.org/cuba/addressing-risk-cuban-oil-spill/p27515] WD The imminent drilling of Cuba's first offshore oil well raises the prospect of a large-scale oil spill in Cuban waters washing onto U.S. shores. Washington should anticipate this possibility by implementing policies that would help both countries' governments stem and clean up an oil spill effectively. These policies should ensure that both the U.S. government and the domestic oil industry are operationally and financially ready to deal with any spill that threatens U.S. waters. These policies should be as minimally disruptive as possible to the country's broader Cuba strategy. The Problem A Chinese-built semisubmersible oil rig leased by Repsol, a Spanish oil company, arrived in Cuban waters in January 2012 to drill Cuba's first exploratory offshore oil well. Early estimates suggest that Cuban offshore oil and natural gas reserves are substantial—somewhere between five billion and twenty billion barrels of oil and upward of eight billion cubic feet of natural gas. Although the United States typically welcomes greater volumes of crude oil coming from countries that are not members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), a surge in Cuban oil production would complicate the United States' decades-old effort to economically isolate the Castro regime. Deepwater drilling off the Cuban coast also poses a threat to the United States. The exploratory well is seventy miles off the Florida coast and lies at a depth of 5,800 feet. The failed Macondo well that triggered the calamitous Deepwater Horizon oil spill in April 2010 had broadly similar features, situated forty-eight miles from shore and approximately five thousand feet below sea level. A spill off Florida's coast could ravage the state's $57 billion per year tourism industry . Washington cannot count on the technical know-how of Cuba's unseasoned oil industry to address a spill on its own. Oil industry experts doubt that it has a strong understanding of how to prevent an offshore oil spill or stem a deep-water well blowout. Moreover, the site where the first wells will be drilled is a tough one for even seasoned response teams to operate in. Unlike the calm Gulf of Mexico, the surface currents in the area where Repsol will be drilling move at a brisk three to four knots, which would bring oil from Cuba's offshore wells to the Florida coast within six to ten days. Skimming or burning the oil may not be feasible in such fastmoving water. The most, and possibly only, effective method to respond to a spill would be surface and subsurface dispersants. If dispersants are not applied close to the source within four days after a spill, uncontained oil cannot be dispersed, burnt, or skimmed, which would render standard response technologies like containment booms ineffective. Repsol has been forthcoming in disclosing its spill response plans to U.S. authorities and allowing them to inspect the drilling rig, but the Russian and Chinese companies that are already negotiating with Cuba to lease acreage might not be as cooperative. Had Repsol not volunteered to have the Cuba-bound drilling rig examined by the U.S. Coast Guard and Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement to certify that it met international standards, Washington would have had little legal recourse. The complexity of U.S.-Cuba relations since the 1962 trade embargo

complicates even limited efforts to put in place a spill response plan. Under U.S. law and with few exceptions, American companies cannot assist the Cuban government or provide equipment to foreign companies operating in Cuban territory. Shortfalls in U.S. federal regulations governing commercial liability for oil spills pose a further problem. The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) does not protect U.S. citizens and property against damages stemming from a blown-out wellhead outside of U.S. territory. In the case of Deepwater Horizon, BP was liable despite being a foreign company because it was operating within the United States. Were any of the wells that Repsol drills to go haywire, the cost of funding a response would fall to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF), which is woefully undercapitalized. OPA 90 limits the OSLTF from paying out more than $50 million in a fiscal year on oil removal costs, subject to a few exceptions, and requires congressional appropriation to pay out more than $150 million. The Way Forward As a first step, the United States should discuss contingency planning for a Cuban oil spill at the regular multiparty talks it holds with Mexico, the Bahamas, Cuba, and others per the Cartagena Convention. The Caribbean Island Oil Pollution Response and Cooperation Plan provides an operational framework under which the United States and Cuba can jointly develop systems for identifying and reporting an oil spill, implement a means of restricting the spread of oil, and identify resources to respond to a spill. Washington should also instruct the U.S. Coast Guard to conduct basic spill response coordination with its counterparts in Cuba. The United States already has operational agreements in place with Mexico, Canada, and several countries in the Caribbean that call for routine exercises, emergency response coordination, and communication protocols. It should strike an agreement with Cuba that is substantively similar but narrower in scope, limited to basic spill-oriented advance coordination and communication. Before that step can be taken, U.S. lawmakers may need to amend the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992 to allow for limited, spill-related coordination and communication with the Cuban government. Next, President Barack Obama should issue an export-only industry-wide general license for oil spill response in Cuban waters, effective immediately. Issuing that license does not require congressional authorization. The license should allow offshore oil companies to do vital spill response work in Cuban territory, such as capping a well or drilling a relief well. Oil service companies, such as Halliburton, should be included in the authorization. Finally, Congress should alter existing oil spill compensation policy. Lawmakers should amend OPA 90 to ensure there is a responsible party for oil spills from a foreign offshore unit that pollutes or threatens to pollute U.S. waters, like there is for vessels. Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Congressman David Rivera (R-FL) have sponsored such legislation. Lawmakers should eliminate the requirement for the Coast Guard to obtain congressional approval on expenditures above $150 million for spills of national significance (as defined by the National Response Plan). And President Obama should appoint a commission to determine the appropriate limit of liability cap under OPA 90, balancing the need to compensate victims with the desire to retain strict liability for polluters. There are two other, less essential measures U.S. lawmakers may consider that would enable the country to respond more adeptly to a spill. Installing an early-response system based on acoustic, geophysical, or other technologies in the Straits of Florida would immediately alert the U.S. Coast Guard about a well blowout or other unusual activity. The U.S. Department of Energy should find out from Repsol about the characteristics of Cuban crude oil, which would help U.S. authorities predict how the oil would spread in the case of a well blowout. Defending U.S. Interests An oil well blowout in Cuban waters would almost certainly require a U.S. response. Without changes in current U.S. law, however, that response would undoubtedly come far more slowly than is desirable. The Coast Guard would be barred from deploying highly experienced manpower, specially designed booms, skimming equipment and vessels, and dispersants. U.S. offshore gas and oil companies

would also be barred from using well-capping stacks, remotely operated submersibles, and other vital technologies. Although a handful of U.S. spill responders hold licenses to work with Repsol, their licenses do not extend to well capping or relief drilling. The result of a slow response to a Cuban oil spill would be greater, perhaps catastrophic, economic and environmental damage to Florida and the Southeast. Efforts to rewrite current law and policy toward Cuba, and encouraging cooperation with its government, could antagonize groups opposed to improved relations with the Castro regime. They might protest any decision allowing U.S. federal agencies to assist Cuba or letting U.S. companies operate in Cuban territory. However, taking sensible steps to prepare for a potential accident at an oil well in Cuban waters would not break new ground or materially alter broader U.S. policy toward Cuba. For years, Washington has worked with Havana on issues of mutual concern. The United States routinely coordinates with Cuba on search and rescue operations in the Straits of Florida as well as to combat illicit drug trafficking and migrant smuggling. During the hurricane season, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) provides Cuba with information on Caribbean storms. The recommendations proposed here are narrowly tailored to the specific challenges that a Cuban oil spill poses to the United States. They would not help the Cuban economy or military. What they would do is protect U.S. territory and property from a potential danger emanating from Cuba. Cuba will drill for oil in its territorial waters with or without the blessing of the United States. Defending against a potential oil spill requires a modicum of advance coordination and preparation with the Cuban government, which need not go beyond spill-related matters. Without taking these precautions, the United States risks a second Deepwater Horizon, this time from Cuba.

Economic decline causes war – diversionary theory and empirical evidence Royal 10
[Jedediah Royal, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of Defense, 2010, “Economic Integration, Economic Signaling and the Problem of Economic Crises,” in Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives, ed. Goldsmith and Brauer, p. 213-215] WD Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict. Political science literature has contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and defence behaviour of interdependent states. Research in this vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable contributions follow. First, on the systemic level, Pollins (2008) advances Modelski and Thompson's (1996) work on leadership cycle theory, finding that 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 power (see also Gilpin. 1981) that leads to uncertainty about power balances, increasing the risk of miscalculation (Feaver, 1995). Alternatively, even a relatively certain redistribution of power could lead to a permissive environment for conflict as a rising power may seek to challenge a declining power (Werner. 1999). Separately, Pollins (1996) also shows that global economic cycles combined with parallel leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict among major, medium and small powers, although he suggests that the causes and connections between global economic conditions and security conditions remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic level, Copeland's (1996, 2000) theory of trade expectations suggests that 'future expectation of trade' is a significant variable in understanding economic conditions and security behaviour of states. He argues that

interdependent states are likely to gain pacific benefits from trade so long as they have an optimistic view of future trade relations. However, if the expectations of future trade decline, particularly for difficult to replace items such as energy resources, the likelihood for conflict increases, as states will be inclined to use force to gain access to those resources . Crises could potentially be the trigger for decreased trade expectations either on its own or because it triggers protectionist moves by interdependent states.4 Third, others have considered the link between economic decline and external armed conflict at a national level. Blomberg and Hess (2002) find a strong correlation between internal conflict and external conflict, particularly during periods of economic downturn. They write: The linkages between internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and mutually reinforcing. Economic conflict tends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favour. Moreover, the presence of a recession tends to amplify the extent to which international and external conflicts self-reinforce each other. (Blomberg & Hess, 2002. p. 89) Economic decline has also been linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blomberg, Hess, & Weerapana, 2004), which has the capacity to spill across borders and lead to external tensions. Furthermore, crises generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government. “Diversionary theory" suggests that, 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), DeRouen (1995). and Blomberg, Hess, and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing that economic decline and use of force are at least indirectly correlated. Gelpi (1997), Miller (1999), and Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that the tendency towards diversionary tactics are greater for democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from office due to lack of domestic support. DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence showing that periods of weak economic performance in the United States, and thus weak Presidential popularity, are statistically linked to an increase in the use of force. In summary, recent economic scholarship positively correlates economic integration with an increase in the frequency of economic crises, whereas political science scholarship links economic decline with external conflict at systemic, dyadic and national levels.5 This implied connection between integration, crises and armed conflict has not featured prominently in the economic-security debate and deserves more attention. This observation is not contradictory to other perspectives that link economic interdependence with a decrease in the likelihood of external conflict, such as those mentioned in the first paragraph of this chapter. Those studies tend to focus on dyadic interdependence instead of global interdependence and do not specifically consider the occurrence of and conditions created by economic crises. As such, the view presented here should be considered ancillary to those views.

BioD
The U.S. and Cuba share biodiversity and must work together to save species close to extinction Boom 08.14.2012 (Brian is the director of the Caribbean Biodiversity Program, “Biodiversity
without Borders” http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/article/2012/biodiversity-withoutborders)KG The ever-increasing challenges to the biodiversity shared by Cuba and the United States provide the opportunity and the need for the two nations to take an enhanced collaborative, bilateral approach to addressing shared issues. Cuba lies a mere ninety miles south of the U.S. state of Florida, and the two countries’ territorial waters meet in the Gulf of Mexico and the Straits of Florida. Cuba and the United States thus share much biodiversity—ranging from varied populations of organisms to diverse aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Native species migrate, exotic species invade, disease-causing species disperse, and rare species go extinct in the face of growing habitat modification. The living components of this shared environment are dynamically impacted, sometimes unpredictably so, by natural or man-made environmental disasters. Nature does not respect political boundaries nor do such potential disasters as oil spills, toxic releases, hurricanes, and tropical storms. Such events provide the sine qua non for greater bilateral cooperation. Thousands of species of animals migrate between the two nations. Cuba provides key wintering habitats for 284 bird species that breed in the United States, such as black-and-white warblers. Many insects also migrate between the United States and Cuba, including the monarch butterfly. Fishes, such as the Atlantic bluefin tuna, swim through both Cuban and U.S. waters, while turtles, such as the hawksbill, share Cuban and U.S. marine habitats. Mammals, such as the Florida manatee, also swim between U.S. and Cuban waters. Cuba and the United States share forty-nine animal species and eight plant species that are categorized as Globally Threatened by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN). Because only a small fraction of the world’s plants and animals have been assessed by the IUCN criteria, the actual number of threatened species that are shared by Cuba and the United States is certainly much larger. Even with what is known already, there exists a strong imperative for the two countries to cooperate on monitoring and protecting the threatened species for which they are joint stewards, including the West Indian walnut, the
American crocodile, and the West Indian whistling duck.

BioD loss leads to extinction Coyne and Hoekstra ‘7 - jerry coyne is a professor in the department of ecology and evolution at the university of
chicago. Hopi e. Hoekstra is john l. Loeb associate professor in the department of organismic and evolutionary biology at harvard university and curator of mammals at harvard's museum of comparative zoology. ,“diversity lost as we head towards a lonely planet“, weekend australian, november 10, lexis

Extinction exacerbates global warming: by burning rainforests, we're not only polluting the atmosphere with carbon dioxide (a greenhouse gas) but destroying the plants that can remove this gas from the air. Conversely, global warming increases extinction, directly (killing corals) and indirectly (destroying the habitats of Arctic and Antarctic animals). As extinction increases, then, so does global warming, which in turn causes more extinction and so on, into a downward spiral of destruction. Why, exactly, should we care? Let's start with the most celebrated case: rainforests. Their loss will worsen global warming, raising temperatures, melting icecaps and flooding coastal cities. And, as the forest habitat shrinks, so begins the inevitable contact between organisms that have not evolved together, a scenario played out many times and one that is never good. Dreadful diseases have successfully jumped species boundaries, with humans as prime recipients . We have got AIDS from apes, severe acute respiratory syndrome from civets and Ebola from fruit bats. Additional worldwide plagues from unknown microbes are a real possibility. But it isn't just the destruction of the rainforests that
should trouble us. Healthy ecosystems the world over provide hidden services such as waste disposal, nutrient cycling, soil

formation, water purification and oxygen production. Such services are best rendered by ecosystems that are diverse. Yet,

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

to these developments, soils will erode and become unproductive which, along with temperature change, will diminish agricultural yields. Meanwhile, with increased pollution and run-off, as well as reduced forest cover, ecosystems will no longer be able to purify water, and a shortage of clean water spells disaster. In many ways, oceans are the most vulnerable areas of all. As overfishing eliminates important predators, while polluted
and warming waters kill off phytoplankton, the intricate aquatic food web could collapse from both sides. Fish, on which so many humans depend, will be a fond memory. As phytoplankton vanish, so does the ability of the oceans to absorb carbon dioxide and produce oxygen. (Half of the oxygen we breathe is made by phytoplankton, with the rest coming from land plants.) Species extinction is also imperilling coral reefs, a big problem since these reefs have more than recreational value: they provide tremendous amounts of food for human populations and buffer coastlines against erosion. Indeed, the global value of hidden services provided by ecosystems -- those services, such as waste disposal, that aren't bought and sold in the marketplace -- has been estimated to be as much as $US50thousand billion ($53.8 thousand billion) a year, roughly equal to the gross domestic product of all countries combined. And that doesn't include tangible goods such as fish and timber. Life

as we know it would be impossible if ecosystems collapsed. Yet that is where we're heading if species extinction continues at its present pace. Extinction also has a huge impact on medicine. Who really cares if, say, a worm in the remote swamps of French Guiana becomes extinct? Well, those who suffer from cardiovascular disease. The recent discovery of a rare South American leech has led to the isolation of a powerful enzyme that, unlike other anticoagulants, not only prevents blood from clotting but also dissolves existing clots. And it's not just this species of
worm: its wriggly relatives have evolved other biomedically valuable proteins, including antistatin (a potential anti-cancer agent), decorsin and ornatin (platelet aggregation inhibitors) and hirudin (another anticoagulant). Plants, too, are pharmaceutical goldmines. The bark of trees, for example, has given us quinine (the first cure for malaria), taxol (a drug that is highly effective against ovarian and breast cancer) and aspirin. More

than one-quarter of the medicines on our pharmacy shelves were originally derived from plants. The sap of the Madagascar periwinkle contains more than 70 useful alkaloids, including vincristine, a powerful anti-cancer drug that saved the life of one of our friends. Of the roughly 250,000 plant species on Earth, fewer than 5 per cent have been screened for pharmaceutical properties. Who knows what life-saving drugs remain to be discovered? Given present extinction rates,
it's estimated that we're losing one valuable drug every two years. Our arguments so far have tacitly assumed that species are worth saving only in proportion to their economic value and their effects on our quality of life, an attitude that is strongly ingrained, especially in Americans. That is why conservationists always base their case on an economic calculus. But we biologists know in our hearts that there are deeper and equally compelling reasons to worry about the loss of biodiversity: namely, morality and intellectual values that transcend pecuniary interests. What, for example, gives us the right to destroy other creatures? And what could be more thrilling than looking around us, seeing that we are surrounded by our evolutionary cousins and realising that we all got here by the same simple process of natural selection? To biologists, and potentially everyone else, apprehending the genetic kinship and common origin of all species is a spiritual experience, not necessarily religious but spiritual nonetheless, for it stirs the soul. But whether or not one is moved by such concerns, it is certain that our future is bleak if we do nothing to stem this sixth extinction.

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

Ocean BioD
US - Cuba cooperation would help solve for growing threats to ocean biodiversity Luxner 09-- Larry Luxner is news editor of The Washington Diplomat and editor of CubaNews. His specialty is Latin America
and the Middle East, and he's written more than 2,000 articles for publications ranging from National Journal to Saudi Aramco World. (“Experts urge joint US-Cuba marine conservation effort”—5/2009 http://www.luxner.com/cgibin/view_article.cgi?articleID=1751) Saltwater fish, migratory birds,

turtles and marine mammals couldn’t care less about the political differences that separate the United States and Cuba. But all could benefit from an improvement in bilateral ties and scientific cooperation, say experts meeting Apr. 28 at the Brookings
Institution in Washington. Some 80 people attended the event, titled “A New Era for U.S.-Cuba Relations on Marine and Coastal Resources Conservation.” At the seminar, 10 experts outlined a new path for the United States and Cuba to protect diverse marine resources in the Gulf of Mexico, the Caribbean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean. “ Cuba

is slowly coming into the 21st

century, and as it does, it’ll have to deal with tourism, nickel mining, crumbling buildings and pollution in Havana Bay. All of these things must be addressed before it’s too late,” said Vicki Huddleston, a Brookings foreign policy fellow who headed the U.S. Interests Section in Havana from 1999 to 2002. “There is nothing else the U.S. can do that really makes sense, other than to have a long-range, strategic vision of a policy of critical and constructive engagement,” she said, pointing out that if Cuba were removed from
the State Department terrorist list, various types of computers and high-tech equipment useful in environmental and coastal protection could be exported to Cuba. The meeting, organized by the Environmental Defense Fund, came only two weeks after President Obama eased travel restrictions on Cuban-Americans and announced plans to revisit U.S. policy on Cuba. EDF has asked that environmental protection be among the top priorities in future Cuban policy for the administration. “The

U.S. and Cuba share many ecological resources, but the countries have different ways of managing them ,” said EDF senior attorney Dan Whittle. “More information ex-change among academics, scientists and conservation groups will help both countries do a better job of managing coastal and marine re-sources. The sooner we work together, the sooner we’ll see benefits for the people, environment and economy in both countries.” Whittle added that expanded scientific and management cooperation can help address the growing threats to coral reefs, ocean fish populations, habitats for migratory birds and biodiversity . “For the last nine years, I’ve been asked what Cuba is doing to
protect the environment. In my opinion, they’re making great progress,” he said. “Like any country, the challenge to protect the environment during times of economic crisis is tremendous.” In 1994, Cuba’s National Assembly established its first-ever cabinetlevel ministry for the environment. More recently, it has begun looking into alternative energy sources. “Cuba is experiencing an energy revolution. They’re dependent on Venezuela, but very much in the thick of an effort to become more energy-independent. Part of that equation is more wind, more solar, more biomass.” Whittle said that over the last 14 months, EDF staffers have joined Cuban scientists at the University of Matanzas to exploit ocean energy. “Our team has been working on how to do it right,” he said. “We’re also evaluating the impact of oil and gas exploration, sharing our research with Cuban colleagues. This cooperative research is one example of how people in both countries benefit. We would like to facilitate more and more of this kind of joint research. It’s important to de-link our political position towards Cuba from our environmental policies.” David Hermann, chief of the State Department’s Office of Ocean and Polar Affairs, stressed the “extreme vulnerability” of the Caribbean to climate change and other environmental challenges. “We are committed to the region and its security,” he said, adding that “EPA is trying to start a Latin American Federation of Coasts and Estuaries through our national estuary in San Juan, Puerto Rico. And if things work out the way we’re hoping they will, it’s something that potentially Cuba could participate in.” Under

current U.S. law, travel for American scientists to Cuba is extremely limited, and the State Department rarely grants Cuban scientists visas to conduct research or attend professional meeting in the United States. “ An important first step toward managing our shared marine resources would be to greatly increase the flow of information and expertise between the two countries ,” said Huddleston. Added
Dr. Douglas Rader, chief oceans scientist at EDF: “I have only a single message today: that we cannot get marine conservation right, especially in the southeastern U.S., without factoring in Cuba. “Many Americans are aware of the dramatic beauty of this island and its unbelievable biodiversity — whether you like birds, manatees, lizards or even snails — but fewer Americans are aware of the

dramatic linkages between our place and that place.” Even without a lifting of the embargo, the Obama administration has the authority to institute far-reaching cooperation with Cuba on joint marine environmental projects. “There

is essentially no limit to the conservation activities in Cuba that President Obama can authorize, whether they take the form of government-to-government initiatives or the authorization of American NGO projects in that country,” said Bob Muse, a Wash-ington attorney specializing in Cuba issues. “It is hard to think of a more constructive use of the president’s foreign-affairs prerogative than the preservation of the marine environment the United States shares with Cuba.” A leading national nonprofit organization, EDF
represents more than 500,000 members. Since 1967, EDF has linked science, economics, law and innovative private-sector partnerships to solve key environmental problems.

Ocean biodiversity loss causes extinction Craig 03
*Robin Kundis, Attorneys’ Title Insurance Fund Professor at Florida State University College of Law and leading environmental law scholar, Winter 2003, “Taking Steps Toward Marine Wilderness Protection? Fishing and Coral Reef Marine Reserves in Florida and Hawaii,” Lexis+ WD The world’s oceans contain many resources and provide many services that humans consider valuable. “Occupying more than seventy percent of the Earth’s surface and ninety-five percent of the biosphere,” oceans provide food; marketable goods such as shells, aquarium fish, and pharmaceuticals; life support processes , including carbon sequestration, nutrient cycling, and weather mechanics; and quality of life, both aesthetic and economic, for millions of people worldwide. Indeed, it is difficult to overstate the importance of the ocean to humanity’s wellbeing: “The ocean is the cradle of life on our planet, and it remains the axis of existence, the locus of planetary biodiversity, and the engine of the chemical and hydrological cycles that create and maintain our atmosphere and climate.” Ocean and coastal ecosystem services have been calculated to be worth over twenty billion dollars per year, worldwide. In addition, many people assign heritage and existence value to the ocean and its creatures, viewing the world’s seas as a common legacy to be passed on relatively intact to future generations. (It continues...) More generally , “ocean ecosystems play a major role in the global geochemical cycling of all the elements that represent the basic building blocks of living organisms , carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorous, and sulfur, as well as other less abundant but necessary elements”. In a very real and direct sense, therefore, human degradation of marine ecosystems impairs the planet’s ability to support life. Maintaining biodiversity is often critical to maintaining the functions of marine ecosystems. Current evidence shows that, in general, an ecosystem’s ability to keep functioning in the face of disturbance is strongly dependent on its biodiversity, “indicating that more diverse ecosystems are more stable. (It continues...) We may not know much about the sea, but we do know this much: If we kill the ocean we kill ourselves, and we will take most of the biosphere with us . The Black Sea is almost dead, 863 its once-complex and productive ecosystem almost entirely replaced by a monoculture of comb jellies, "starving out fish and dolphins, emptying fishermen's nets, and converting the web of life into brainless, wraith-like blobs of jelly." 864 Mo re importantly, the Black Sea is not necessarily unique.

Coral Reefs
US-Cuba cooperation key to protect coral reefs SFTS January 16, 2013 (Sailors for the Sea educates and engages the boating community in the
worldwide protection of the oceans. “PROTECTING CUBA'S ABUNDANT CORAL REEFS” http://sailorsforthesea.org/About-Sailors-for-the-Sea/Press-Releases/Protecting-CubasAbundant-Coral-Reefs.aspx) As noted in the essay, "Although many of the world's best-known reefs face destruction in the face of global warming and other threats, large portions of the Gardens of the Queen remain remarkably healthy. Relative isolation from human influence helps make Cuba's coral reefs unique. Protecting these ecosystems - and species that rely on them - requires careful collaboration. Well-designed MPAs, combined with innovative fisheries management, are the foundation for both sustainable commercial and recreational fisheries and a thriving ecotourism sector." With only the narrow Florida Straits separating Cuba and the United States, both countries understand the importance of collaborating on marine conservation and fisheries management. Cubans realize that the long-term value of maintaining healthy coral reefs is higher than the short-term profits that may come from tourism development, unless tourism and conservation are well balanced. The Cuban National Center for Protected Areas has set an ambitious target of designating 25 percent of their coastal waters in MPAs. Already 10-15 percent are officially approved as MPAs. Setting aside critical habitat for the many species that live among the coastal waters and coral reefs is the first step. MPAs are an important conservation tool but they are most effective when combined with other fishery management tools - community-based fishery cooperatives or territorial user rights for fishing (TURFs). Together they incentivize fishermen to rebuild and sustain fish stocks. The combination of protected areas and sound fishery management that motivates fishermen to help protect the parks and fish populations is critical. Most fishermen and local residents around the Gardens of the Queens support tighter restrictions on fishing and understand that the greater investment in science within the park has resulted in improved fisheries management in recent years.

Coral reefs sustain biodiversity Bird 96 Oceanic Research Group, Jonathan, Coral Reefs: Rainforests of the Sea (Script), http://www.oceanicresearch.org/education/films/crrainspt.html - ML
The larger marine creatures -- like whales, dolphins, and sharks -- get most of the attention. But some of the tiniest animals in the sea may be the most remarkable -- and most essential for supporting marine life. Within the world's oceans, the greatest variety of life is found on amazing living structures called coral reefs. These fragile reefs play a critical role in sustaining a thriving ocean habitat, especially in tropical oceans. They also provide many benefits to humans as well. Yet, coral reefs are built by tiny animals, each smaller than a pencil eraser.

BioD loss leads to extinction Coyne and Hoekstra ‘7 - jerry coyne is a professor in the department of ecology and evolution at the university of
chicago. Hopi e. Hoekstra is john l. Loeb associate professor in the department of organismic and evolutionary biology at harvard university and curator of mammals at harvard's museum of comparative zoology. ,“diversity lost as we head towards a lonely planet“, weekend australian, november 10, lexis

Extinction exacerbates global warming: by burning rainforests, we're not only polluting the atmosphere with carbon dioxide (a greenhouse gas) but destroying the plants that can remove this gas from the air. Conversely, global warming

increases extinction, directly (killing corals) and indirectly (destroying the habitats of Arctic and Antarctic animals). As extinction increases, then, so does global warming, which in turn causes more extinction and so on, into a downward spiral of destruction. Why, exactly, should we care? Let's start with the most celebrated case: rainforests. Their loss will worsen global warming, raising temperatures, melting icecaps and flooding coastal cities. And, as the forest habitat shrinks, so begins the inevitable contact between organisms that have not evolved together, a scenario played out many times and one that is never good. Dreadful diseases have successfully jumped species boundaries, with humans as prime recipients . We have got AIDS from apes, severe acute respiratory syndrome from civets and Ebola from fruit bats. Additional worldwide plagues from unknown microbes are a real possibility. But it isn't just the destruction of the rainforests that
should trouble us. Healthy ecosystems the world over provide hidden services such as waste disposal, nutrient cycling, soil formation, water purification and oxygen production. Such services are best rendered by ecosystems that are diverse. Yet,

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

to these developments, soils will erode and become unproductive which, along with temperature change, will diminish agricultural yields. Meanwhile, with increased pollution and run-off, as well as reduced forest cover, ecosystems will no longer be able to purify water, and a shortage of clean water spells disaster. In many ways, oceans are the most vulnerable areas of all. As overfishing eliminates important predators, while polluted
and warming waters kill off phytoplankton, the intricate aquatic food web could collapse from both sides. Fish, on which so many humans depend, will be a fond memory. As phytoplankton vanish, so does the ability of the oceans to absorb carbon dioxide and produce oxygen. (Half of the oxygen we breathe is made by phytoplankton, with the rest coming from land plants.) Species extinction is also imperilling coral reefs, a big problem since these reefs have more than recreational value: they provide tremendous amounts of food for human populations and buffer coastlines against erosion. Indeed, the global value of hidden services provided by ecosystems -- those services, such as waste disposal, that aren't bought and sold in the marketplace -- has been estimated to be as much as $US50thousand billion ($53.8 thousand billion) a year, roughly equal to the gross domestic product of all countries combined. And that doesn't include tangible goods such as fish and timber. Life

as we know it would be impossible if ecosystems collapsed. Yet that is where we're heading if species extinction continues at its present pace. Extinction also has a huge impact on medicine. Who really cares if, say, a worm in the remote swamps of French Guiana becomes extinct? Well, those who suffer from cardiovascular disease. The recent discovery of a rare South American leech has led to the isolation of a powerful enzyme that, unlike other anticoagulants, not only prevents blood from clotting but also dissolves existing clots. And it's not just this species of
worm: its wriggly relatives have evolved other biomedically valuable proteins, including antistatin (a potential anti-cancer agent), decorsin and ornatin (platelet aggregation inhibitors) and hirudin (another anticoagulant). Plants, too, are pharmaceutical goldmines. The bark of trees, for example, has given us quinine (the first cure for malaria), taxol (a drug that is highly effective against ovarian and breast cancer) and aspirin. More

than one-quarter of the medicines on our pharmacy shelves were originally derived from plants. The sap of the Madagascar periwinkle contains more than 70 useful alkaloids, including vincristine, a powerful anti-cancer drug that saved the life of one of our friends. Of the roughly 250,000 plant species on Earth, fewer than 5 per cent have been screened for pharmaceutical properties. Who knows what life-saving drugs remain to be discovered? Given present extinction rates,
it's estimated that we're losing one valuable drug every two years. Our arguments so far have tacitly assumed that species are worth saving only in proportion to their economic value and their effects on our quality of life, an attitude that is strongly ingrained, especially in Americans. That is why conservationists always base their case on an economic calculus. But we biologists know in our hearts that there are deeper and equally compelling reasons to worry about the loss of biodiversity: namely, morality and intellectual values that transcend pecuniary interests. What, for example, gives us the right to destroy other creatures? And what could be more thrilling than looking around us, seeing that we are surrounded by our evolutionary cousins and realising that we all got here by the same simple process of natural selection? To biologists, and potentially everyone else, apprehending the genetic kinship and common origin of all species is a spiritual experience, not necessarily religious but spiritual nonetheless, for it stirs the soul. But whether or not one is moved by such concerns, it is certain that our future is bleak if we do nothing to stem this sixth extinction.

We are creating a world in which exotic diseases flourish but natural medicinal cures are lost; a world in which carbon waste accumulates while food sources dwindle; a world of sweltering heat, failing crops and impure water. In the end, we must accept the possibility that we are not immune to extinction. Or, if we survive, perhaps only a few of us will remain, scratching out a grubby

existence on a devastated planet. Global warming will seem like a secondary problem when humanity finally faces the consequences of what we have done to nature; not just another Great Dying, but perhaps the greatest dying of them all.

Extensions

Brink
Biodiversity loss on the brink- but it’s not inevitable. Now is key. Adrain Bishop, Journalist and editor for over 25 years, and owner of Yellow Online Media. May 2, 2012. “Biodiversity loss from species extinctions may rival pollution and climate change
impacts” Earth Times. http://www.earthtimes.org/nature/biodiversity-loss-species-extinctiontop-driver-global-change/1960/ Species extinction and loss of biodiversity could be as devastating for the earth as climate change and air pollution. That's the finding of a new study by a group of scientists from nine countries. The research aims
for the first time to comprehensively compare the consequences of biodiversity loss with other possible environmental issues caused by humans. Ecologist and University of Michigan assistant professor, Bradley Cardinale, who helped write the study, says, "Loss

of biological diversity due to species extinctions is going to have major impacts on our planet, and we better prepare ourselves to deal with them. These extinctions may well rank as one of the top five drivers of global change." The study, which suggests that more moves must be made to strengthen biodiversity at all levels, has just been published online in the Nature journal. Research conducted over
the last 20 years has showed that production increases in ecosystems with the widest biodiversity. This raised worries that

today's high extinction rates from harvesting increases, habitat reduction and other environmental issues, could affect vital issues such as food production, pure water and a stable climate. But until this study, it had been difficult to separate the effects due to the loss of biodiversity against problems caused by human activity. Lead author of the research, David Hooper, a Western Washington University biologist, says it had been believed that the effects of biodiversity were minor, but the findings of the new study suggests that future species loss has as big an effect on reducing plant production as global warming and pollution. The international team took data from 192 published studies and experimental to compare how different worldwide environmental factors affected the growth of plants and how fungi and bacteria attacked dead plants. They found that in places were species loss was
low, affecting up to 20% of local plant species, there was a negligible impact on plant growth in the ecosystem and in species diversity. In areas with 21-40% extinction, plant growth was expected to fall by between 5-10%, which is equivalent to the likely

In the highest levels of species loss, from 41-60%, the impact would be similar to major factors of environmental change, including pollution of the ozone, acid decay of forests and pollution of nutrients
impact of global warming and rising ultraviolet radiation caused by major ozone reduction.

Coop k2 BioD
The U.S. and Cuba share biodiversity and must work together to save species close to extinction Boom 08.14.2012 (Brian is the director of the Caribbean Biodiversity Program, “Biodiversity
without Borders” http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/article/2012/biodiversity-withoutborders)KG The ever-increasing challenges to the biodiversity shared by Cuba and the United States provide the opportunity and the need for the two nations to take an enhanced collaborative, bilateral approach to addressing shared issues. Cuba lies a mere ninety miles south of the U.S. state of Florida, and the two countries’ territorial waters meet in the Gulf of Mexico and the Straits of Florida. Cuba and the United States thus share much biodiversity—ranging from varied populations of organisms to diverse aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Native species migrate, exotic species invade, disease-causing species disperse, and rare species go extinct in the face of growing habitat modification. The living components of this shared environment are dynamically impacted, sometimes unpredictably so, by natural or man-made environmental disasters. Nature does not respect political boundaries nor do such potential disasters as oil spills, toxic releases, hurricanes, and tropical storms. Such events provide the sine qua non for greater bilateral cooperation. Thousands of species of animals migrate between the two nations. Cuba provides key wintering habitats for 284 bird species that breed in the United States, such as black-and-white warblers. Many insects also migrate between the United States and Cuba, including the monarch butterfly. Fishes, such as the Atlantic bluefin tuna, swim through both Cuban and U.S. waters, while turtles, such as the hawksbill, share Cuban and U.S. marine habitats. Mammals, such as the Florida manatee, also swim between U.S. and Cuban waters. Cuba and the United States share forty-nine animal species and eight plant species that are categorized as Globally Threatened by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN). Because only a small fraction of the world’s plants and animals have been assessed by the IUCN criteria, the actual number of threatened species that are shared by Cuba and the United States is certainly much larger. Even with what is known already, there exists a strong imperative for the two countries to cooperate on monitoring and protecting the threatened species for which they are joint stewards, including the West Indian walnut, the American crocodile, and the West Indian whistling duck.

US-Cuba cooperation key to protect biodiversity Hamburg 09 (Steve, Chief Scientist & Environmental Defense Fund, May 28, “A New Era for
U.S.-Cuba Relations on Marine and Coastal Resources Conservation”, http://www.brookings.edu/events/2009/04/28-cuba-environment, LE) Active scientific and management cooperation is needed to address the growing threats to Cuba’s biodiversity including coral reefs, migratory bird habitats, marine mammals and turtles, and biodiversity shared throughout the region. Greater communication and collaboration among scientists, conservation professionals and government agencies could benefit both the United States and Cuba, as well as the shared ecosystems that link both nations.

US-Cuban cooperation needed to help with biodiversity Boom 08.14.2012 (Brian is the director of the Caribbean Biodiversity Program, “Biodiversity
without Borders” http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/article/2012/biodiversity-without-borders) Both Cuban and U.S. environmental scientists are aware of the shared urgent and emerging environmental challenges outlined in the previous sections. However, many scientists on both sides of the Florida Straits remain frustrated that more cannot be done to identify, study, and solve these challenges in a collaborative fashion. On the other hand, there is increasingly a palpable sense among environmental scientists in both Cuba and the United States that the opportunities for bilateral collaboration are poised to expand. This was underscored by an April 2009 panel
discussion on U.S.-Cuba relations concerning marine and coastal resources conservation hosted by the Brookings Institution and the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). Among many notable elements of that event was the participation of U.S. government representatives (NOAA and the Department of State), which was a real breakthrough in expanding this discussion in the United States beyond the NGO community.

The plan is key to improving biodiversity Boom 08.14.2012 (Brian is the director of the Caribbean Biodiversity Program, “Biodiversity
without Borders” http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/article/2012/biodiversity-without-borders) Nature knows no boundaries, and given the number and scale of environmental problems shared by Cuba and the United States, combined with the multitude of impediments to finding joint solutions to these problems, the best way to enhance environmental cooperation between the two countries would be through the establishment of a bilateral agreement on this theme. The ecological stakes are too high for Cuba and the United States to rely on anything short of a government-to-government accord to formalize, catalyze, and facilitate cooperation on environmental problems of mutual concern.
Various models for such an agreement exist: the United States has joint statements on environmental cooperation with Spain and Italy, an agreement on air quality with Canada, and a memorandum of understanding on environmental protection with India, among others. Such a bilateral agreement could logically take advantage of the collective experiences of the U.S.-based environmental NGO community in conducting collaborative initiatives with Cuban counterparts over many years and, in some cases, decades. The

focus of such a bilateral agreement should be on helping to facilitate the activities by NGOs that are currently underway and encouraging new initiatives by NGOs in consultation with and the approval of Cuban authorities. The elements of such an agreement should take into account the difficulties mentioned
above and the following considerations:

Coop k2 ocean bioD
US-Cuban waters provide critical habitats for a variety of species, and active cooperation is key to preserve ocean biodiversity Hamburg 09 (Steve, Chief Scientist & Environmental Defense Fund, May 28, “A New Era for
U.S.-Cuba Relations on Marine and Coastal Resources Conservation”, http://www.brookings.edu/events/2009/04/28-cuba-environment, LE) Cuba sits at the convergence of the Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico. Its coastal waters are dense with islets, keys and reefs that provide critical habitats and spawning grounds for a rich array of fish, endangered sea turtles, manatees and other marine life. Preserving Cuba’s biodiversity is critically important to the natural resources and economies of coastal communities in the United States and other neighboring countries. Active scientific and management cooperation is needed to address the growing threats to Cuba’s biodiversity including coral reefs, migratory bird habitats, marine mammals and turtles, and biodiversity shared throughout the region. Greater communication and collaboration among scientists, conservation professionals and government agencies could benefit both the United States and Cuba, as well as the shared ecosystems that link both nations. On April 28, the Brookings Institution and the Environmental Defense Fund hosted a discussion on U.S.-Cuba relations on marine and coastal resources conservation. Steve Hamburg, chief scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund, offered introductory remarks. Brookings Visiting Fellow Vicki Huddleston, former head of the U.S. Interests Section in Havana, gave the keynote address. Scott Edwards of the Environmental Defense Fund moderated a discussion featuring a panel of experts. After the program, the panelists took audience questions.

Bilateral cooperation would help solve for growing threats to ocean biodiversity Luxner 09-- Larry Luxner is news editor of The Washington Diplomat and editor of CubaNews. His specialty is Latin America
and the Middle East, and he's written more than 2,000 articles for publications ranging from National Journal to Saudi Aramco World. (“Experts urge joint US-Cuba marine conservation effort”—5/2009 http://www.luxner.com/cgibin/view_article.cgi?articleID=1751) Saltwater fish, migratory birds,

turtles and marine mammals couldn’t care less about the political differences that separate the United States and Cuba. But all could benefit from an improvement in bilateral ties and scientific cooperation, say experts meeting Apr. 28 at the Brookings
Institution in Washington. Some 80 people attended the event, titled “A New Era for U.S.-Cuba Relations on Marine and Coastal Resources Conservation.” At the seminar, 10 experts outlined a new path for the United States and Cuba to protect diverse marine resources in the Gulf of Mexico, the Caribbean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean. “ Cuba

is slowly coming into the 21st

century, and as it does, it’ll have to deal with tourism, nickel mining, crumbling buildings and pollution in Havana Bay. All of these things must be addressed before it’s too late,” said Vicki Huddleston, a Brookings foreign policy fellow who headed the U.S. Interests Section in Havana from 1999 to 2002. “There is nothing else the U.S. can do that really makes sense, other than to have a long-range, strategic vision of a policy of critical and constructive engagement,” she said, pointing out that if Cuba were removed from
the State Department terrorist list, various types of computers and high-tech equipment useful in environmental and coastal protection could be exported to Cuba. The meeting, organized by the Environmental Defense Fund, came only two weeks after President Obama eased travel restrictions on Cuban-Americans and announced plans to revisit U.S. policy on Cuba. EDF has asked that environmental protection be among the top priorities in future Cuban policy for the administration. “The

U.S. and Cuba share many ecological resources, but the countries have different ways of managing them ,” said EDF senior attorney Dan Whittle. “More information ex-change among academics, scientists and

conservation groups will help both countries do a better job of managing coastal and marine re-sources. The sooner we work together, the sooner we’ll see benefits for the people, environment and economy in both countries.” Whittle added that expanded scientific and management cooperation can help address the growing threats to coral reefs, ocean fish populations, habitats for migratory birds and biodiversity . “For the last nine years, I’ve been asked what Cuba is doing to
protect the environment. In my opinion, they’re making great progress,” he said. “Like any country, the challenge to protect the environment during times of economic crisis is tremendous.” In 1994, Cuba’s National Assembly established its first-ever cabinetlevel ministry for the environment. More recently, it has begun looking into alternative energy sources. “Cuba is experiencing an energy revolution. They’re dependent on Venezuela, but very much in the thick of an effort to become more energy-independent. Part of that equation is more wind, more solar, more biomass.” Whittle said that over the last 14 months, EDF staffers have joined Cuban scientists at the University of Matanzas to exploit ocean energy. “Our team has been working on how to do it right,” he said. “We’re also evaluating the impact of oil and gas exploration, sharing our research with Cuban colleagues. This cooperative research is one example of how people in both countries benefit. We would like to facilitate more and more of this kind of joint research. It’s important to de-link our political position towards Cuba from our environmental policies.” David Hermann, chief of the State Department’s Office of Ocean and Polar Affairs, stressed the “extreme vulnerability” of the Caribbean to climate change and other environmental challenges. “We are committed to the region and its security,” he said, adding that “EPA is trying to start a Latin American Federation of Coasts and Estuaries through our national estuary in San Juan, Puerto Rico. And if things work out the way we’re hoping they will, it’s something that potentially Cuba could participate in.” Under

current U.S. law, travel for American scientists to Cuba is extremely limited, and the State Department rarely grants Cuban scientists visas to conduct research or attend professional meeting in the United States. “ An important first step toward managing our shared marine resources would be to greatly increase the flow of information and expertise between the two countries ,” said Huddleston. Added
Dr. Douglas Rader, chief oceans scientist at EDF: “I have only a single message today: that we cannot get marine conservation right, especially in the southeastern U.S., without factoring in Cuba. “Many Americans are aware of the dramatic beauty of this island and its unbelievable biodiversity — whether you like birds, manatees, lizards or even snails — but fewer Americans are aware of the dramatic linkages between our place and that place.” Even without a lifting of the embargo, the Obama administration has the authority to institute far-reaching cooperation with Cuba on joint marine environmental projects. “There

is essentially no limit to the conservation activities in Cuba that President Obama can authorize, whether they take the form of government-to-government initiatives or the authorization of American NGO projects in that country,” said Bob Muse, a Wash-ington attorney specializing in Cuba issues. “It is hard to think of a more constructive use of the president’s foreign-affairs prerogative than the preservation of the marine environment the United States shares with Cuba.” A leading national nonprofit organization, EDF
represents more than 500,000 members. Since 1967, EDF has linked science, economics, law and innovative private-sector partnerships to solve key environmental problems.

Coop k2 Oil Spills
U.S. Cuban scientific diplomacy’s key- oil spills Pinon and Muse 2010 (Jorge and Robert, Cuban Research institute at Florida international
University and former president of Amoco oil Latin America and attorney on US Cuba legal issues, “Coping with the Next Oil Spill: Why U.S.-Cuba Environmental Cooperation is Critical”, May, http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2010/5/18%20oil%20spill%20cuba% 20pinon/0518_oil_spill_cuba_pinon.pdf, LE) As Cuba continues to develop its deepwater oil and natural gas reserves, the consequence to the United states of a similar mishap occurring in Cuban waters moves from the theoretical to the actual. The sobering fact that a Cuban spill could foul hundreds of miles of American coastline and do profound harm to important marine habitats demands cooperative and proactive planning by Washington and Havana to minimize or avoid such a calamity. Also important is the planning necessary to prevent and, if necessary, respond to incidents arising from this country’s oil industry that, through the action of currents and wind, threaten Cuban waters and shorelines. Its current policies foreclose the ability to respond effectively to future oil disasters—whether that disaster is caused by companies at work in Cuban waters, or is the result of companies operating in U.s. waters.

Coop k2 Coral Reefs
US-Cuba cooperation key to protect coral reefs SFTS January 16, 2013 (Sailors for the Sea educates and engages the boating community in the
worldwide protection of the oceans. “PROTECTING CUBA'S ABUNDANT CORAL REEFS” http://sailorsforthesea.org/About-Sailors-for-the-Sea/Press-Releases/Protecting-CubasAbundant-Coral-Reefs.aspx) As noted in the essay, "Although many of the world's best-known reefs face destruction in the face of global warming and other threats, large portions of the Gardens of the Queen remain remarkably healthy. Relative isolation from human influence helps make Cuba's coral reefs unique. Protecting these ecosystems - and species that rely on them - requires careful collaboration. Well-designed MPAs, combined with innovative fisheries management, are the foundation for both sustainable commercial and recreational fisheries and a thriving ecotourism sector." With only the narrow Florida Straits separating Cuba and the United States, both countries understand the importance of collaborating on marine conservation and fisheries management. Cubans realize that the long-term value of maintaining healthy coral reefs is higher than the short-term profits that may come from tourism development, unless tourism and conservation are well balanced. The Cuban National Center for Protected Areas has set an ambitious target of designating 25 percent of their coastal waters in MPAs. Already 10-15 percent are officially approved as MPAs. Setting aside critical habitat for the many species that live among the coastal waters and coral reefs is the first step. MPAs are an important conservation tool but they are most effective when combined with other fishery management tools - community-based fishery cooperatives or territorial user rights for fishing (TURFs). Together they incentivize fishermen to rebuild and sustain fish stocks. The combination of protected areas and sound fishery management that motivates fishermen to help protect the parks and fish populations is critical. Most fishermen and local residents around the Gardens of the Queens support tighter restrictions on fishing and understand that the greater investment in science within the park has resulted in improved fisheries management in recent years.

US and Cuban marine cooperation is key to saving coral reefs Lempinen 12 AAA (American Association of the Advancement of Science), Edward, Oceans, Wealth, Health – U.S. Researchers Explore Potential Collaboration with Cuban Colleagues, http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2012/0501cuba.shtml ML
Coral reefs in much of the Caribbean have sustained significant damage from human activity— over-fishing, climate change, oil spills, and other pollution. But off of Cuba’s coasts, says marine scientist Nancy Knowlton, the reefs have been less exposed to development, and they’re in better health.¶ Knowlton is the Sant Chair for Marine Science at Smithsonian Institution and senior scientist emeritus at Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute. She’s worked in fields of marine biodiversity and ecology; coral reefs are her specialty. Save for a cruise that stopped in Guantanamo, she’d never been to Cuba, but on her visit in December, she was deeply impressed with opportunities for research in the Cuban reefs and by the marine science already underway there.¶ “There are amazing habitats, much less impacted by

people than most places in Caribbean, in terms of over-fishing and that sort of thing,” she said. “And there’s a large community of marine biologists there, many with shared interest in biodiversity and conservation.”¶ For Knowlton, the Cuban reefs are like “a window in time,” allowing researchers a view of what healthy reefs looked like in an era past. “They give you a baseline as to what a healthy fish community should look like,” she explained. And that gives greater insight into other Caribbean reefs where damage is more pronounced.¶ “So there are a lot of things to learn from Cuban marine scientists,” she said. “And there are a lot of reasons for Cubans to come here, or for Cubans to come and work at the Smithsonian. There’s a huge potential for interchange because there are so many shared interests.”

Oil Response k2 Econ
A Cuban oil spill causes economic decline, undermines the oil industry, and destroys the environment – conventional safeguards aren’t in place Bert and Clayton 12
[Captain Melissa Bert, USCG, 2011-2012 Military Fellow, U.S.Coast Guard, and Blake Clayton, Fellow for Energy and National Security, Council on Foreign Relations, March 2012, “Addressing the Risk of a Cuban Oil Spill,” http://www.cfr.org/cuba/addressing-risk-cuban-oil-spill/p27515] WD The imminent drilling of Cuba's first offshore oil well raises the prospect of a large-scale oil spill in Cuban waters washing onto U.S. shores. Washington should anticipate this possibility by implementing policies that would help both countries' governments stem and clean up an oil spill effectively. These policies should ensure that both the U.S. government and the domestic oil industry are operationally and financially ready to deal with any spill that threatens U.S. waters. These policies should be as minimally disruptive as possible to the country's broader Cuba strategy. The Problem A Chinese-built semisubmersible oil rig leased by Repsol, a Spanish oil company, arrived in Cuban waters in January 2012 to drill Cuba's first exploratory offshore oil well. Early estimates suggest that Cuban offshore oil and natural gas reserves are substantial—somewhere between five billion and twenty billion barrels of oil and upward of eight billion cubic feet of natural gas. Although the United States typically welcomes greater volumes of crude oil coming from countries that are not members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), a surge in Cuban oil production would complicate the United States' decades-old effort to economically isolate the Castro regime. Deepwater drilling off the Cuban coast also poses a threat to the United States. The exploratory well is seventy miles off the Florida coast and lies at a depth of 5,800 feet. The failed Macondo well that triggered the calamitous Deepwater Horizon oil spill in April 2010 had broadly similar features, situated forty-eight miles from shore and approximately five thousand feet below sea level. A spill off Florida's coast could ravage the state's $57 billion per year tourism industry. Washington cannot count on the technical know-how of Cuba's unseasoned oil industry to address a spill on its own. Oil industry experts doubt that it has a strong understanding of how to prevent an offshore oil spill or stem a deep-water well blowout. Moreover, the site where the first wells will be drilled is a tough one for even seasoned response teams to operate in. Unlike the calm Gulf of Mexico, the surface currents in the area where Repsol will be drilling move at a brisk three to four knots, which would bring oil from Cuba's offshore wells to the Florida coast within six to ten days. Skimming or burning the oil may not be feasible in such fastmoving water. The most, and possibly only, effective method to respond to a spill would be surface and subsurface dispersants. If dispersants are not applied close to the source within four days after a spill, uncontained oil cannot be dispersed, burnt, or skimmed, which would render standard response technologies like containment booms ineffective. Repsol has been forthcoming in disclosing its spill response plans to U.S. authorities and allowing them to inspect the drilling rig, but the Russian and Chinese companies that are already negotiating with Cuba to lease acreage might not be as cooperative. Had Repsol not volunteered to have the Cuba-bound drilling rig examined by the U.S. Coast Guard and Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement to certify that it met international standards, Washington would have had little legal recourse. The complexity of U.S.-Cuba relations since the 1962 trade embargo

complicates even limited efforts to put in place a spill response plan. Under U.S. law and with few exceptions, American companies cannot assist the Cuban government or provide equipment to foreign companies operating in Cuban territory. Shortfalls in U.S. federal regulations governing commercial liability for oil spills pose a further problem. The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) does not protect U.S. citizens and property against damages stemming from a blown-out wellhead outside of U.S. territory. In the case of Deepwater Horizon, BP was liable despite being a foreign company because it was operating within the United States. Were any of the wells that Repsol drills to go haywire, the cost of funding a response would fall to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF), which is woefully undercapitalized. OPA 90 limits the OSLTF from paying out more than $50 million in a fiscal year on oil removal costs, subject to a few exceptions, and requires congressional appropriation to pay out more than $150 million. The Way Forward As a first step, the United States should discuss contingency planning for a Cuban oil spill at the regular multiparty talks it holds with Mexico, the Bahamas, Cuba, and others per the Cartagena Convention. The Caribbean Island Oil Pollution Response and Cooperation Plan provides an operational framework under which the United States and Cuba can jointly develop systems for identifying and reporting an oil spill, implement a means of restricting the spread of oil, and identify resources to respond to a spill. Washington should also instruct the U.S. Coast Guard to conduct basic spill response coordination with its counterparts in Cuba. The United States already has operational agreements in place with Mexico, Canada, and several countries in the Caribbean that call for routine exercises, emergency response coordination, and communication protocols. It should strike an agreement with Cuba that is substantively similar but narrower in scope, limited to basic spill-oriented advance coordination and communication. Before that step can be taken, U.S. lawmakers may need to amend the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992 to allow for limited, spill-related coordination and communication with the Cuban government. Next, President Barack Obama should issue an export-only industry-wide general license for oil spill response in Cuban waters, effective immediately. Issuing that license does not require congressional authorization. The license should allow offshore oil companies to do vital spill response work in Cuban territory, such as capping a well or drilling a relief well. Oil service companies, such as Halliburton, should be included in the authorization. Finally, Congress should alter existing oil spill compensation policy. Lawmakers should amend OPA 90 to ensure there is a responsible party for oil spills from a foreign offshore unit that pollutes or threatens to pollute U.S. waters, like there is for vessels. Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Congressman David Rivera (R-FL) have sponsored such legislation. Lawmakers should eliminate the requirement for the Coast Guard to obtain congressional approval on expenditures above $150 million for spills of national significance (as defined by the National Response Plan). And President Obama should appoint a commission to determine the appropriate limit of liability cap under OPA 90, balancing the need to compensate victims with the desire to retain strict liability for polluters. There are two other, less essential measures U.S. lawmakers may consider that would enable the country to respond more adeptly to a spill. Installing an early-response system based on acoustic, geophysical, or other technologies in the Straits of Florida would immediately alert the U.S. Coast Guard about a well blowout or other unusual activity. The U.S. Department of Energy should find out from Repsol about the characteristics of Cuban crude oil, which would help U.S. authorities predict how the oil would spread in the case of a well blowout. Defending U.S. Interests An oil well blowout in Cuban waters would almost certainly require a U.S. response. Without changes in current U.S. law, however, that response would undoubtedly come far more slowly than is desirable. The Coast Guard would be barred from deploying highly experienced manpower, specially designed booms, skimming equipment and vessels, and dispersants. U.S. offshore gas and oil companies

would also be barred from using well-capping stacks, remotely operated submersibles, and other vital technologies. Although a handful of U.S. spill responders hold licenses to work with Repsol, their licenses do not extend to well capping or relief drilling. The result of a slow response to a Cuban oil spill would be greater, perhaps catastrophic, economic and environmental damage to Florida and the Southeast. Efforts to rewrite current law and policy toward Cuba, and encouraging cooperation with its government, could antagonize groups opposed to improved relations with the Castro regime. They might protest any decision allowing U.S. federal agencies to assist Cuba or letting U.S. companies operate in Cuban territory. However, taking sensible steps to prepare for a potential accident at an oil well in Cuban waters would not break new ground or materially alter broader U.S. policy toward Cuba. For years, Washington has worked with Havana on issues of mutual concern. The United States routinely coordinates with Cuba on search and rescue operations in the Straits of Florida as well as to combat illicit drug trafficking and migrant smuggling. During the hurricane season, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) provides Cuba with information on Caribbean storms. The recommendations proposed here are narrowly tailored to the specific challenges that a Cuban oil spill poses to the United States. They would not help the Cuban economy or military. What they would do is protect U.S. territory and property from a potential danger emanating from Cuba. Cuba will drill for oil in its territorial waters with or without the blessing of the United States. Defending against a potential oil spill requires a modicum of advance coordination and preparation with the Cuban government, which need not go beyond spill-related matters. Without taking these precautions, the United States risks a second Deepwater Horizon, this time from Cuba.

A coordinated response to an oil spill will be key to mitigate its economic impact – Deepwater Horizon proves Di Natale 10
[Marisa Di Natale, director at Moody's Analytics and former economist at the Bureau of Labor Statistics, July 21, 2010, “The Economic Impact of the Gulf Oil Spill,” http://www.economy.com/dismal/article_free.asp?cid=191641&src] WD Even under a pessimistic scenario, economic damage from the Gulf of Mexico oil leak will be confined to adjacent regions. As with most natural disasters, the oil leak's effect on the broader U.S. economy will be negligible. The Gulf region’s oil and gas production industry is threatened by the moratorium on new drilling. Thousands of cleanup jobs will help offset losses in tourism, fishing, and oil and gas production. Though the full environmental and economic consequences of the Deepwater Horizon oil leak will not be known for some time, a study by Moody’s Analytics estimates that nearly $1.2 billion in output and 17,000 jobs will be lost in the Gulf Coast states by the end of this year. Even so, the spill's national economic impact is likely to be negligible. The accident's environmental costs will certainly be large, but the effect on national GDP, income and employment will be minimal. The output loss across the five Gulf Coast states amounts to less than 0.1% of national GDP. Fishing and tourism The greatest direct impact thus far is being felt by the Gulf Coast’s sizable fishing and aquaculture industry, especially in Louisiana. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has closed about 80,000 square miles of the Gulf to fishing, mostly along the Louisiana coastline,

though the closure extends as far east as Panama City FL. At least one Louisiana beach has been closed to swimmers and fishermen, and several Alabama and Florida Panhandle beaches are advising swimmers of the presence of tar balls and oil sheens, though the beaches remain open. In response to the disaster, President Obama signed an executive order that places a six-month moratorium on new deepwater oil drilling. This order affects about 33 rigs in the Gulf of Mexico, most of them off the coast of Houma LA. The Gulf economy The economic impact of the oil spill will be concentrated in Gulf Coast communities. Of the five states affected—Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi and Florida—the two hardest hit are Louisiana, with its heavy dependence on fishing, aquaculture and oil extraction, and Florida, with its tourist industry. The metro areas and counties that line the shores of the Gulf are already bearing the brunt. Yet these areas account for only 3% of national GDP and employment, so broad macroeconomic effects are unlikely, at least in the near term. The outlook for beach tourism along the Gulf Coast has fluctuated amid uncertainty about the volume and reach of the spill. While advance bookings initially fell, there is some evidence that tourists are making last-minute decisions to vacation in areas perceived as clear of oil. This could mitigate some of the damage to Florida’s and Alabama’s tourism industries. The thousands of workers assisting with the cleanup, along with the media deluge along the Gulf Coast, will also offset some of the losses incurred by hotel operators, restaurateurs and retailers. Louisiana's pain The impact on Louisiana’s fishing and aquaculture industries is difficult to gauge, yet the industry accounts for less than 1% of that state’s total output. Most federal Gulf waters closed to fishing are off the coast of southern Louisiana in the Houma and New Orleans metropolitan areas, where most of the state's shrimp and oyster harvesting is concentrated. Neither industry had yet fully recovered from the devastation wrought by hurricanes Katrina and Rita several years ago. Even before the leak, catches were still well below their 2004 levels. To put the potential impact into perspective, the hurricanes of 2005 cut the Gulf shrimp catch by a third and the oyster catch by a quarter, measured by weight. While the hurricanes caused some pollution that affected fishing, oyster beds and coastal nurseries, the potential pollution from the oil leak is far greater. With oil reaching the coastal breeding areas for marine life, the industry could face years of disruption. Drilling moratorium BP recently estimated that more than 6,000 locally owned and operated boats were deployed to help with oil cleanup and containment. The company's payments to local commercial and charter fishermen will mitigate lost income from the closure of fishing and shrimping waters, at least temporarily. Louisiana’s economy could feel a larger impact from the administration's six-month moratorium on new offshore drilling. Oil and gas infrastructure accounts for a large share of the state’s GDP—up to 20% in some Gulf Coast metro areas. Though the number of jobs directly associated with the oil and gas industry is not enormous, many thousands depend indirectly on this industry. Manufacturing, transportation, and professional/technical service jobs associated with oil drilling are at risk if the moratorium stays in effect through early November, as ordered. Adjusting the forecast The Moody’s Analytics forecasts for the Gulf Coast economies have been adjusted to incorporate assumptions about the impact of the oil leak. Adjustments at the state level were small, mainly because the oil leak will affect only a handful of metro areas and counties in each state. The spill's biggest impacts are likely to be recorded in the third and fourth quarters of 2010. Florida and Mississippi are expected to suffer net declines in employment during the third quarter. No changes have been made to the Alabama forecast, since damage there seems to be limited to one county (Baldwin), which is not in a metro area and accounts for a tiny share of the state’s overall jobs and output. Though forecast changes at the state level were relatively minor, some metro areas will see a significant impact. On the Florida Panhandle, the Crestview, Pensacola and Panama City metro areas, along with Tampa, were adjusted to reflect declining consumer confidence and

cancellations by vacationers. Losses would be much greater if not for increased bookings from cleanup and containment workers and journalists. News reports indicate BP has hired several hundred cleanup workers along the Panhandle, and these additions are factored into the forecast.

Terminal !’s

Marine BioD
Ocean biodiversity loss causes extinction Craig 03
*Robin Kundis, Attorneys’ Title Insurance Fund Professor at Florida State University College of Law and leading environmental law scholar, Winter 2003, “Taking Steps Toward Marine Wilderness Protection? Fishing and Coral Reef Marine Reserves in Florida and Hawaii,” Lexis+ WD The world’s oceans contain many resources and provide many services that humans consider valuable. “Occupying more than seventy percent of the Earth’s surface and ninety-five percent of the biosphere,” oceans provide food; marketable goods such as shells, aquarium fish, and pharmaceuticals; life support processes , including carbon sequestration, nutrient cycling, and weather mechanics; and quality of life, both aesthetic and economic, for millions of people worldwide. Indeed, it is difficult to overstate the importance of the ocean to humanity’s wellbeing: “The ocean is the cradle of life on our planet, and it remains the axis of existence, the locus of planetary biodiversity, and the engine of the chemical and hydrological cycles that create and maintain our atmosphere and climate.” Ocean and coastal ecosystem services have been calculated to be worth over twenty billion dollars per year, worldwide. In addition, many people assign heritage and existence value to the ocean and its creatures, viewing the world’s seas as a common legacy to be passed on relatively intact to future generations. (It continues...) More generally , “ocean ecosystems play a major role in the global geochemical cycling of all the elements that represent the basic building blocks of living organisms , carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorous, and sulfur, as well as other less abundant but necessary elements”. In a very real and direct sense, therefore, human degradation of marine ecosystems impairs the planet’s ability to support life. Maintaining biodiversity is often critical to maintaining the functions of marine ecosystems. Current evidence shows that, in general, an ecosystem’s ability to keep functioning in the face of disturbance is strongly dependent on its biodiversity , “indicating that more diverse ecosystems are more stable. (It continues...) We may not know much about the sea, but we do know this much: If we kill the ocean we kill ourselves, and we will take most of the biosphere with us . The Black Sea is almost dead, 863 its once-complex and productive ecosystem almost entirely replaced by a monoculture of comb jellies, "starving out fish and dolphins, emptying fishermen's nets, and converting the web of life into brainless, wraith-like blobs of jelly." 864 Mo re importantly, the Black Sea is not necessarily unique.

LOSS OF MARINE BIODIVERSITY CAUSES EXTINCTION Agardy 1
[Tundi, internationally renowned expert on marine conservation, specializing in marine protected areas and coastal planning and previous senior director for the Global Marine Program at Conservation International a global environmental organization; Copyright 2001 WGBH Educational Foundation and Clear Blue Sky Productions Inc., http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/extinction/massext/statement_01.html]
Many marine ecologists would agree we are indeed facing an extinction crisis. This may surprise those who view the seas as vast and immutable -- the one great constant in an ever-changing world. But while there are remote ocean areas that remain relatively pristine, most

coastal areas have undergone a radical human-induced transformation in the last 100 years. The marine extinction crisis is not as widely

grasped as the crises in tropical forests and other terrestrial biomes. Though the number of marine extinctions is small, this is due to our state of knowledge. First, the bulk of marine species are undiscovered -- we are losing species before we even know of them. Second, the species label itself does not work well for marine organisms -- here unique populations are at risk, not

entire species (the U.S. placing certain runs of salmon on the endangered species list exemplifies this). As with species extinction, the

devastation of genetically unique populations is an irreversible biodiversity loss. Marine biodiversity is reduced by both over-exploitation of living resources and the much more insidious and dangerous loss of habitat. Nearly three-

quarters of the world's commercially fished stocks are overharvested and at risk. At the same time, habitat loss is a chronic and much more acute problem, with grave consequences for marine life and the entire biosphere. The most ecologically essential habitats -- estuaries, wetlands, shallow water seagrasses, and coral reefs -- are most threatened. Thirty percent of the world's mangrove forests and nearly half the world's coral reefs have been lost due to direct habitat destruction. Many of the remaining critical marine habitats are indirectly degraded by pollution, freshwater diversion, and climate change. As

human population pressures grow, essential ecological services and species are affected, leading to conditions in which the planet's vital organs can serve neither nature nor us.

BioD
BioD loss leads to extinction Coyne and Hoekstra ‘7 - jerry coyne is a professor in the department of ecology and evolution at the university of
chicago. Hopi e. Hoekstra is john l. Loeb associate professor in the department of organismic and evolutionary biology at harvard university and curator of mammals at harvard's museum of comparative zoology. ,“diversity lost as we head towards a lonely planet“, weekend australian, november 10, lexis

Extinction exacerbates global warming: by burning rainforests, we're not only polluting the atmosphere with carbon dioxide (a greenhouse gas) but destroying the plants that can remove this gas from the air. Conversely, global warming increases extinction, directly (killing corals) and indirectly (destroying the habitats of Arctic and Antarctic animals). As extinction increases, then, so does global warming, which in turn causes more extinction and so on, into a downward spiral of destruction. Why, exactly, should we care? Let's start with the most celebrated case: rainforests. Their loss will worsen global warming, raising temperatures, melting icecaps and flooding coastal cities. And, as the forest habitat shrinks, so begins the inevitable contact between organisms that have not evolved together, a scenario played out many times and one that is never good. Dreadful diseases have successfully jumped species boundaries, with humans as prime recipients . We have got AIDS from apes, severe acute respiratory syndrome from civets and Ebola from fruit bats. Additional worldwide plagues from unknown microbes are a real possibility. But it isn't just the destruction of the rainforests that
should trouble us. Healthy ecosystems the world over provide hidden services such as waste disposal, nutrient cycling, soil formation, water purification and oxygen production. Such services are best rendered by ecosystems that are diverse. Yet,

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

to these developments, soils will erode and become unproductive which, along with temperature change, will diminish agricultural yields. Meanwhile, with increased pollution and run-off, as well as reduced forest cover, ecosystems will no longer be able to purify water, and a shortage of clean water spells disaster. In many ways, oceans are the most vulnerable areas of all. As overfishing eliminates important predators, while polluted
and warming waters kill off phytoplankton, the intricate aquatic food web could collapse from both sides. Fish, on which so many humans depend, will be a fond memory. As phytoplankton vanish, so does the ability of the oceans to absorb carbon dioxide and produce oxygen. (Half of the oxygen we breathe is made by phytoplankton, with the rest coming from land plants.) Species extinction is also imperilling coral reefs, a big problem since these reefs have more than recreational value: they provide tremendous amounts of food for human populations and buffer coastlines against erosion. Indeed, the global value of hidden services provided by ecosystems -- those services, such as waste disposal, that aren't bought and sold in the marketplace -- has been estimated to be as much as $US50thousand billion ($53.8 thousand billion) a year, roughly equal to the gross domestic product of all countries combined. And that doesn't include tangible goods such as fish and timber. Life

as we know it would be impossible if ecosystems collapsed. Yet that is where we're heading if species extinction continues at its present pace. Extinction also has a huge impact on medicine. Who really cares if, say, a worm in the remote swamps of French Guiana becomes extinct? Well, those who suffer from cardiovascular disease. The recent discovery of a rare South American leech has led to the isolation of a powerful enzyme that, unlike other anticoagulants, not only prevents blood from clotting but also dissolves existing clots. And it's not just this species of
worm: its wriggly relatives have evolved other biomedically valuable proteins, including antistatin (a potential anti-cancer agent), decorsin and ornatin (platelet aggregation inhibitors) and hirudin (another anticoagulant). Plants, too, are pharmaceutical goldmines. The bark of trees, for example, has given us quinine (the first cure for malaria), taxol (a drug that is highly effective against ovarian and breast cancer) and aspirin. More

than one-quarter of the medicines on our pharmacy shelves were originally derived from plants. The sap of the Madagascar periwinkle contains more than 70 useful alkaloids, including vincristine, a powerful anti-cancer drug that saved the life of one of our friends. Of the roughly 250,000 plant species on Earth, fewer than 5 per cent have been screened for pharmaceutical properties. Who knows what life-saving drugs remain to be discovered? Given present extinction rates,
it's estimated that we're losing one valuable drug every two years. Our arguments so far have tacitly assumed that species are worth saving only in proportion to their economic value and their effects on our quality of life, an attitude that is strongly ingrained, especially in Americans. That is why conservationists always base their case on an economic calculus. But we biologists know in our

hearts that there are deeper and equally compelling reasons to worry about the loss of biodiversity: namely, morality and intellectual values that transcend pecuniary interests. What, for example, gives us the right to destroy other creatures? And what could be more thrilling than looking around us, seeing that we are surrounded by our evolutionary cousins and realising that we all got here by the same simple process of natural selection? To biologists, and potentially everyone else, apprehending the genetic kinship and common origin of all species is a spiritual experience, not necessarily religious but spiritual nonetheless, for it stirs the soul. But whether or not one is moved by such concerns, it is certain that our future is bleak if we do nothing to stem this sixth extinction.

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

Biodiversity loss comparatively outweighs nuclear war, economic collapse and tyranny.
Chen 2000 [Jim, Professor of Law at the U of Minnesota, Minnesota Journal of Global Trade Winter 2000, pg. 211]
The value of endangered species and the biodiversity they embody is literally . . . incalculable.
What, if anything, should the law do to preserve it? There are those that invoke the story of Noahs Ark as a moral basis for biodiversity preservation. Others regard the Judeo-Christian tradition, especially the biblical stories of Creation and the Flood, as the root of the Wests deplorable environmental record. To avoid getting bogged down in an environmental exegesis of Judeo-Christian myth and legend, we should let

The loss of biological diversity is quite arguably the gravest problem facing humanity. If we cast the question as the contemporary phenomenon that our descendents [will] most regret, the loss of genetic and species diversity by the destruction of natural habitats is worse than even energy depletion, economic collapse, limited nuclear war, or conquest by a totalitarian government. Natural evolution may in due course renew the earth will a diversity of
Charles Darwin and evolutionary biology determine the imperatives of our moment in natural history. species approximating that of a world unspoiled by Homo sapiens in ten million years, perhaps a hundred million.

Biodiversity loss itself outweighs human extinction. We have a moral imperative to protect the other species on Earth. Elliott`97
*Herschel, University of Florida Emeritus Philosophy, 1997 “A General Statement of the Tragedy of the Commons,” February 26, http://www.dieoff.org/page121.htm]
Third,

all systems of ethical beliefs are hypotheses about how human beings can live on Earth. As such, they make factual claims. And like all factual claims, their truth or falsity depends on empirical evidence . For
this reason, the sequence of biological events which the general statement of the tragedy of the commons describes is of decisive importance for ethical theory. It shows (1) that moral behavior must be grounded in a knowledge of biology and ecology, (2) that moral obligations must be empirically tested to attain necessary biological goals, (3) that any system of moral practices is self-inconsistent when the

empirical criteria give a necessary (though not a sufficient) condition for acceptable moral behavior. Regardless of the human proclivity to rationalize, any system of ethical beliefs is mistaken if its practice would cause the breakdown of the ecosystem which sustains the people who live by it. Indeed, biological necessity has a veto over moral behavior. Facts can refute moral beliefs Fourth, ecosystems are in dynamic equilibrium.
behavior, which it either allows or makes morally obligatory, actually subverts the goal it seeks. Thus In addition, technology and human institutions are constantly evolving in novel and unpredictable ways. Furthermore, living things must compete with each other for space and resources; yet each organism also

the welfare of all organisms -- including human beings -- is causally dependent on the health and stability of the ecosystems which sustain them. As a consequence, the stability and well-being of the Earth's biosystem has moral priority over the welfare of any of its parts -- including the needs and interests of human societies and individuals.
depends symbiotically on the well-being of the whole for its own survival and well-being. Indeed

Species decline causes extinction – each new decline risks total collapse Diner 94
[Judge Advocate’s General’s Corps of US Army, David N., Military Law Review, Winter, 143 Mil. L. Rev. 161] WD

No species has ever dominated its fellow species as man has. In most cases, people have assumed the God-like power of life and death -- extinction or survival -- over the plants and animals of the world. For most of history, mankind pursued this domination with a singleminded determination to master the world, tame the wilderness, and exploit nature for the maximum benefit of the human race. n67 In past mass extinction episodes, as many as ninety percent of the existing species perished, and yet the world moved forward, and new species replaced the old. So why should the world be concerned now? The prime reason is the world's survival. Like all animal life, humans live off of other species. At some point, the number of species could decline to the point at which the ecosystem fails, and then humans also would become extinct. No one knows how many [*171] species the world needs to support human life, and to find out -- by allowing certain species to become extinct -- would not be sound policy. In addition to food, species offer many direct and indirect benefits to mankind. n68 2. Ecological Value. -- Ecological value is the value that species have in maintaining the environment. Pest, n69 erosion, and flood control are prime benefits certain species provide to man. Plants and animals also provide additional ecological services -- pollution control, n70 oxygen production, sewage treatment, and biodegradation. n71 3. Scientific and Utilitarian Value. -- Scientific value is the use of species for research into the physical processes of the world. n72 Without plants and animals, a large portion of basic scientific research would be impossible. Utilitarian value is the direct utility humans draw from plants and animals. n73 Only a fraction of the [*172] earth's species have been examined, and mankind may someday desperately need the species that it is exterminating today. To accept that the snail darter, harelip sucker, or Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew n74 could save mankind may be difficult for some. Many, if not most, species are useless to man in a direct utilitarian sense. Nonetheless, they may be critical in an indirect role, because their extirpations could affect a directly useful species negatively. In a closely interconnected ecosystem, the loss of a species affects other species dependent on it. n75 Moreover, as the number of species decline, the effect of each new extinction on the remaining species increases dramatically. n76 4. Biological Diversity. -The main premise of species preservation is that diversity is better than simplicity. n77 As the current mass extinction has progressed, the world's biological diversity generally has decreased. This trend occurs within ecosystems by reducing the number of species, and within species by reducing the number of individuals. Both trends carry serious future implications. Biologically diverse ecosystems are characterized by a large number of specialist species, filling narrow ecological niches. These ecosystems inherently are more stable than less diverse systems. "The more complex the ecosystem, the more successfully it can resist a stress. . . . [l]ike a net, in which each knot is connected to others by several strands, such a fabric can resist collapse better than a simple, unbranched circle of threads -- which if cut anywhere breaks down as a whole." n79 By causing widespread extinctions, humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems. As biologic simplicity increases, so does the risk of ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa, and the dustbowl conditions of the 1930s in the United States are relatively mild examples of what might be expected if this trend continues. Theoretically, each new animal or plant extinction, with all its dimly perceived and intertwined affects, could cause total ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Each new extinction increases the risk of disaster. Like a mechanic removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's wings, [hu]mankind may be edging closer to the abyss.

Biodiversity loss increases the risk of total ecosystem collapse and extinction
Major David N. Diner , JAG – US Army, MILITARY LAW REVIEW, Winter 1994, http://www.stormingmedia.us/14/1456/A145654.html

By causing widespread extinctions, humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems.

As biologic simplicity increases,

so does the risk of ecosystem failure.
animal or plant extinction, with all

The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa, and the dustbowl conditions of the 1930s

in the United States are relatively mild examples of what might be expected if this trend continues. Theoretically, each

new its dimly perceived and intertwined effects, could cause total ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Each new extinction increases the risk of disaster. Like a mechanic removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's wings, mankind may be edging closer to the abyss.

Warming
Warming is an existential threat Mazo 10 – PhD in Paleoclimatology from UCLA
Jeffrey Mazo, Managing Editor, Survival and Research Fellow for Environmental Security and Science Policy at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, 3-2010, “Climate Conflict: How global warming threatens security and what to do about it,” pg. 122
The best estimates for global warming to the end of the century range from 2.5-4.~C above pre-industrial levels, depending on the scenario. Even in the best-case scenario, the low end of the likely range is 1.goC, and in the worst 'business as usual' projections, which actual emissions have been matching, the range of likely warming runs from 3.1--7.1°C. Even keeping emissions at constant 2000 levels (which have already been exceeded), global temperature would still be expected to reach 1.2°C (O'9""1.5°C)above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century." Without

early and severe reductions in emissions, the effects of climate change in the second half of the twentyfirst century are likely to be catastrophic for the stability and security of countries in the developing world - not to mention the associated human tragedy. Climate change could even undermine the strength and stability of emerging and advanced economies, beyond the knock-on effects on security of widespread state failure and collapse in developing countries.' And although they have been condemned as melodramatic and alarmist, many informed observers believe that unmitigated climate change beyond the end of the century could pose an existential threat to civilisation." What is certain is that there is no precedent in human experience for such rapid change or such climatic conditions, and even in the best case adaptation to these extremes would mean profound social, cultural and political changes.

Climate change outweighs conflict Lee 9 – Professor of environment, conflict, and trade @ American
James, PhD, runs American University's Inventory of Conflict and Environment project, Climate Change and Armed Conflict
The path from climate change to conflict will not be a direct one. For that matter, most roads to conflict are indirect and lie in structural and behavioral patterns that make the path easier to travel. There are three structural pathways from

climate change to armed conflict: sustained trends, intervening variables, and the need for conflict triggers. First, conflict only emerges after a sustained period of divergent climate patterns. People can survive
aberrant, short-term climate change through exploitation of saved resources, but this strategy has temporal limits. The issue is not one of surviving a particularly fierce rain or a harsh winter, but the accumulation of many rain events and many harsh winters. Human society is capable of enduring events and seasons, but as these events and

seasons accumulate over many years or even decades, accumulated wealth begins to draw down and eventually dissipates. Without renewal of society's wealth, human health and well-being decline, and
over time the society itself may collapse. Societies with few savings will be more vulnerable to adverse impacts from climate change. Societies that already heavily exploit their environment will be closer to possible conflict than those that do not. Brian Fagan offers a context for climate-induced conflict in places where people already live on the edge of survival: In a telling analysis on nineteenth century droughts, the historian Mike Davis has estimated, conservatively,

that at least 20 to 30 million people, and probably many more, most of them tropical farmers, perished from the consequences of harsh droughts caused by EI Ninos and monsoon failures during the nineteenth century, more people than in virtually all the wars of the century. (Fagan 2008: 235)

Coral reefs
Coral reefs sustain biodiversity Bird 96 Oceanic Research Group, Jonathan, Coral Reefs: Rainforests of the Sea (Script), http://www.oceanicresearch.org/education/films/crrainspt.html - ML
The larger marine creatures -- like whales, dolphins, and sharks -- get most of the attention. But some of the tiniest animals in the sea may be the most remarkable -- and most essential for supporting marine life. Within the world's oceans, the greatest variety of life is found on amazing living structures called coral reefs. These fragile reefs play a critical role in sustaining a thriving ocean habitat, especially in tropical oceans. They also provide many benefits to humans as well . Yet, coral reefs are built by tiny animals, each smaller than a pencil eraser.

Econ
Economic decline causes war – diversionary theory and empirical evidence Royal 10
[Jedediah Royal, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of Defense, 2010, “Economic Integration, Economic Signaling and the Problem of Economic Crises,” in Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives, ed. Goldsmith and Brauer, p. 213-215] WD Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict. Political science literature has contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and defence behaviour of interdependent states. Research in this vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable contributions follow. First, on the systemic level, Pollins (2008) advances Modelski and Thompson's (1996) work on leadership cycle theory, finding that 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 power (see also Gilpin. 1981) that leads to uncertainty about power balances, increasing the risk of miscalculation (Feaver, 1995). Alternatively, even a relatively certain redistribution of power could lead to a permissive environment for conflict as a rising power may seek to challenge a declining power (Werner. 1999). Separately, Pollins (1996) also shows that global economic cycles combined with parallel leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict among major, medium and small powers, although he suggests that the causes and connections between global economic conditions and security conditions remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic level, Copeland's (1996, 2000) theory of trade expectations suggests that 'future expectation of trade' is a significant variable in understanding economic conditions and security behaviour of states. He argues that interdependent states are likely to gain pacific benefits from trade so long as they have an optimistic view of future trade relations. However, if the expectations of future trade decline, particularly for difficult to replace items such as energy resources, the likelihood for conflict increases, as states will be inclined to use force to gain access to those resources . Crises could potentially be the trigger for decreased trade expectations either on its own or because it triggers protectionist moves by interdependent states.4 Third, others have considered the link between economic decline and external armed conflict at a national level. Blomberg and Hess (2002) find a strong correlation between internal conflict and external conflict, particularly during periods of economic downturn. They write: The linkages between internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and mutually reinforcing. Economic conflict tends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favour. Moreover, the presence of a recession tends to amplify the extent to which international and external conflicts self-reinforce each other. (Blomberg & Hess, 2002. p. 89) Economic decline has also been linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blomberg, Hess, & Weerapana, 2004), which has the capacity to spill across borders and lead to external tensions. Furthermore, crises generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government. “Diversionary theory" suggests that, 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), DeRouen (1995). and Blomberg, Hess, and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing

that economic decline and use of force are at least indirectly correlated. Gelpi (1997), Miller (1999), and Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that the tendency towards diversionary tactics are greater for democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from office due to lack of domestic support. DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence showing that periods of weak economic performance in the United States, and thus weak Presidential popularity, are statistically linked to an increase in the use of force. In summary, recent economic scholarship positively correlates economic integration with an increase in the frequency of economic crises, whereas political science scholarship links economic decline with external conflict at systemic, dyadic and national levels.5 This implied connection between integration, crises and armed conflict has not featured prominently in the economic-security debate and deserves more attention. This observation is not contradictory to other perspectives that link economic interdependence with a decrease in the likelihood of external conflict, such as those mentioned in the first paragraph of this chapter. Those studies tend to focus on dyadic interdependence instead of global interdependence and do not specifically consider the occurrence of and conditions created by economic crises. As such, the view presented here should be considered ancillary to those views.

Econ decline causes global catastrophe and nuclear war Harris and Burrows 9 – PhD in History and Statistical analyst
Mathew, PhD European History @ Cambridge, counselor in the National Intelligence Council (NIC) and Jennifer is a member of the NIC’s Long Range Analysis Unit ―Revisiting the Future: Geopolitical Effects of the Financial Crisis‖ http://www.ciaonet.org/journals/twq/v32i2/f_0016178_13952.pdf Increased Potential for Global Conflict Of course, the report encompasses more than economics and indeed believes the future is likely to be the result of a number of intersecting and interlocking forces. With so many possible permutations of outcomes, each with ample Revisiting the Future opportunity for unintended consequences, there is a growing sense of insecurity. Even so, history may be more instructive than ever. While we continue to believe that the Great Depression is not likely to be repeated, the lessons to be drawn from that period include the harmful effects on fledgling democracies and multiethnic societies (think Central Europe in 1920s and 1930s) and on the sustainability of multilateral institutions (think League of Nations in the same period). There is no reason to think that this would not be true in the twenty-first as much as in the twentieth century. For that reason, the ways in which the potential for greater conflict could grow would seem to be even more apt in a constantly volatile economic environment as they would be if change would be steadier. In surveying those risks, the report stressed the likelihood that terrorism and nonproliferation will remain priorities even as resource issues move up on the international agenda. Terrorism’s appeal will decline if economic growth continues in the Middle East and youth unemployment is reduced. For those terrorist groups that remain active in 2025, however, the diffusion of technologies and scientific knowledge will place some of the world’s most dangerous capabilities within their reach. Terrorist groups in 2025 will likely be a combination of descendants of long established groups inheriting organizational structures, command and control processes, and training procedures necessary to conduct sophisticated attacks_and newly emergent collections of the angry and disenfranchised that become self-radicalized, particularly in the absence of economic outlets that would become narrower in an economic downturn. The most dangerous casualty of any economically-induced

drawdown of U.S. military

presence would almost certainly be the Middle East. Although Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons is not inevitable, worries about a nuclear-armed Iran could lead states in the region to develop new security arrangements with external powers, acquire additional weapons, and consider pursuing their own nuclear ambitions. It
is not clear that the type of stable deterrent relationship that existed between the great powers for most of the Cold War would emerge naturally in the Middle East with a nuclear Iran. Episodes of low intensity conflict and terrorism taking place under a nuclear umbrella could lead to an unintended escalation and broader conflict if clear red lines between those states involved are not well established. The close proximity of potential nuclear rivals combined with underdeveloped surveillance capabilities and mobile dual-capable Iranian missile systems also will produce inherent difficulties in achieving reliable indications and warning of an impending nuclear attack. The lack of strategic depth in neighboring states like Israel, short warning and missile flight times, and uncertainty of Iranian intentions may place more focus on preemption rather than defense, potentially leading experience, such as over

to escalating crises. 36 Types of conflict that the world continues to resources, could reemerge, particularly if protectionism grows and there is a resort to neo-mercantilist practices. Perceptions of renewed energy scarcity will drive countries to take actions to assure their future access to energy supplies. In the worst case, this could result in interstate conflicts if government

leaders deem assured access to energy resources, for example, to be essential for maintaining domestic stability and the survival of their regime. Even actions short of war, however, will have important geopolitical
implications. Maritime security concerns are providing a rationale for naval buildups and modernization ef forts, such as China’s and India’s development of blue water naval capabilities. If the fiscal stimulus focus for these countries indeed turns inwar d, one of the most obvious funding targets may be military. Buildup of regional naval capabilities could lead to increased tensions, rivalries, and counterbalancing moves, but it also will create opportunities for multinational cooperation in protecting critical sea lanes. With water also becoming scarcer in Asia and the Middle East, cooperation to manage changing water resources

is likely to be increasingly difficult both within and between states in a more dog-eat-dog world.

AT: Gradualism

2AC
Status quo won’t solve – need much more action for there to be any breakthrough AP 6/21 – Associated Press. (AP, “Cuba, US try talking, but face many obstacles”, 6/21/13,
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2013/jun/21/cuba-us-try-talking-but-face-many-03/, HW) They've hardly become allies, but Cuba

and the U.S. have taken some baby steps toward rapprochement in recent weeks that have people on this island and in Washington wondering if a breakthrough in relations could be just over the horizon. Skeptics caution that the Cold War enemies have been here many times before, only to fall back into old recriminations. In the
past week, the two countries have held talks on resuming direct mail service, and announced a July 17 sit-down on migration issues. In May, a U.S. federal judge allowed a convicted Cuban intelligence agent to return to the island. This month, Cuba informed the family of jailed U.S. government subcontractor Alan Gross that it would let an American doctor examine him, though the visit has apparently not yet happened. President Raul Castro has also ushered in a series of economic and social changes, including making it easier for Cubans to travel off the island. Under the radar, diplomats on both sides describe a sea change in the tone of their dealings. Only last year, Cuban state television was broadcasting grainy footage of American diplomats meeting with dissidents on Havana streets and publically accusing them of being CIA front-men. Today, U.S. diplomats in Havana and Cuban Foreign Ministry officials have easy contact, even sharing home phone numbers. Josefina Vidal, Cuba's top diplomat for North American affairs, recently traveled to Washington and met twice with State Department officials — a visit that came right before the announcements of resumptions in the two sets of bilateral talks that had been suspended for more than two years. Washington has also granted visas to prominent Cuban officials, including the daughter of Cuba's president. "These

recent steps indicate a desire on both sides to try to move forward, but also a recognition on both sides of just how difficult it is to make real progress," said Robert Pastor, a professor of international relations at American University and former national security adviser on Latin America during the Carter administration. "These are tiny, incremental gains, and the prospects of going backwards are equally high." Among the things that have changed, John Kerry has taken over as U.S. secretary of state after being an
outspoken critic of Washington's policy on Cuba while in the Senate. President Barack Obama no longer has re-election concerns while dealing with the Cuban-American electorate in Florida, where there are also indications of a warming attitude to negotiating with Cuba. Castro, meanwhile, is striving to overhaul the island's Marxist economy with a dose of limited free-market capitalism and may feel a need for more open relations with the U.S. While direct American investment is still barred on the island, a rise in visits and money transfers by Cuban-Americans since Obama relaxed restrictions has been a boon for Cuba's cash-starved economy. Under the table, Cuban-Americans are also helping relatives on the island start private businesses and refurbish homes bought under Castro's limited free-market reforms. Several prominent Cuban dissidents have been allowed to travel recently due to Castro's changes. The trips have been applauded by Washington, and also may have lessened Havana's worries about the threat posed by dissidents. Likewise, a U.S. federal judge's decision to allow Cuban spy Rene Gonzalez to return home was met with only muted criticism inside the United States, perhaps emboldening U.S. diplomats to seek further openings with Cuba. To

be sure, there is still far more that separates the long-time antagonists than unites them. The State Department has kept Cuba on a list of state sponsors of terrorism and another that calls into question Havana's commitment to fighting human trafficking. The Obama administration continues to demand democratic change on an island ruled for more than a half century by Castro and his brother Fidel. For its part, Cuba continues to denounce Washington's 51-year-old economic embargo. 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 won't 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 CubanAmerican politicians and has missed opportunities to engage with Cuba at a crucial time in its history. "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 people's 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 RosLehtinen, scolded Obama for seeking "dialogue with the dictatorship." Despite

that rhetoric, many experts think 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 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 doesn't 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 Miami-Dade County that said 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 some sort of understanding with the Cuban government.”

No political will to change Cuban policy—broken promises
Gustin ’13 (Felicia Gustin, worked as a journalist for 10 years in Cuba, works at SpeakOut, a national
organization working primarily with colleges, universities, and high schools and dedicated to the advancement of education, racial and social justice, leadership development and activism, long-time activist in international solidarity, peace, racial justice and labor movements, “Will Washington End its Cold War Against Cuba?”, War Times, 2-28-2013, http://www.war-times.org/endembargo)
But this

isn’t the first time changes in Cuban policy have lined up with Washington’s criteria for normalized relations. In fact, as each new President moved into the Oval Office, each has imposed his own list of prerequisites that have included any of the following: - End alignment with the Soviet
Union and communist bloc End support for liberation movements fighting colonialsim (aka “exporting revolution”) - Withdraw Cuban troops from Africa (Cuba sent troops in 1975 to help Angola repel the invasion by South African apartheid forces) - Stop statesponsored terrorism - End promotion of leftist revolutions in Central America, especially El Salvador and Nicaragua - Stop violations of human rights - Establish U.S. approved “democracy” and a market economy - Hold

U.S.-sanctioned elections with Fidel Castro stepping down as Cuba’s President - Free political prisoners. And so on. Some of these
have long been “complied” with. Some are so ridicuous they are laughable such as ‘state sponsor of terrorism.’ Believe it or not, Cuba is still on Washington’s list of terrorist nations even though several several senior administration officials and high-level U.S. diplomats have acknowledged Cuba should not have this designation. Some items on the list are quite contradictory such as the call regarding human rights violations. Since when has Washington let human rights violations get in the way of full diplomatic relations

During his first term, Obama did loosen travel for Cubans in the U.S. to visit family members on the island as well as send remittances. But ironically, the continued embargo actually benefits Cuban-Americans. Writing in the Huffington Post, long-time Cuba observers filmmaker
with another country? Saul Landau and Professor Emeritus at the University of New Mexico, Nelson P. Valdes note that “Miami-based Cuban-Americans and their Cuba-based families have used U.S.-Cuba policy, the embargo representing the power of the nation for their own selfinterest, and in order to attain a comparative advantage vis-a-vis the rest of the American population.” They claim that CubanAmerican entrepreneurs have “manufactured a lucrative business with the island, regulated by the very government they pretend to hate,” and that rightwing congressional representatives try to pass laws to punish Cuba while ignoring the trade that has benefitted both economies. Open trade that could come with the end of the blockade would benefit both countries. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce says the cost of the embargo to the U.S. economy is $1.2 billion per year while The Cuba Policy Foundation estimates it’s even higher: up to $4.84 billion annually in lost sales and exports. The Cuban government estimates the economic damage caused to the Cuban people by the embargo as of December 2011 amounted to $1.066 trillion. Bruno Eduardo Rodriquez Parilla, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Cuba, told the U.N. General Assembly, “Any sensible person could figure out the living standards and development levels that we could have achieved if we had had those resources available,” calling the blockade one of the main causes of Cuba’s economic problems and the major obstacle to its economic and social development. Most of the world agrees with him. With the

passage of the twenty-first consecutive resolution calling for an end to the United States’ blockade against Cuba, United Nations delegates voted 188 in favor to 3 against (United States, Israel, Palau) with 2 abstentions (Marshall Islands, the Federated States of

President Obama has outlined the priorities for his second term and most are on the domestic front: fixing the economy, immigration reform, improving education, gun control, addressing climate change, to name a few. In terms of foreign policy, Obama hopes to wrap up the U.S. quagmire in Afghanistan; deal with conflicts in Mali, Syria and other possible hotspots in the Middle East and Africa; strengthen engagement in Asia; handle the standoff with Iran and North Korea over nuclear capabilities; and reboot relations with Russia, among others. Normalization of relations with Cuba doesn’t make the top ten of either list. Nor from Washington’s vantage point, is there any compelling reason for it to especially given the knee-jerk reaction on the part of Republicans to everything Obama proposes/wants/does. Imagine if the President did in fact move
Micronesia). in the direction of lifting the embargo, opening trade and travel with Cuba. Republicans would go ballistic. They already charge him with being a socialist. This would only provide more fodder for their obsession and obstructionist modus operandi. For Democrats, surely already thinking about four years from now, a change in Cuba policy might also fuel Florida Republicans Jeb Bush’s or Mark Rubio’s run for the presidency. Cubans in Florida are a powerful lot. And despite shifts and even voting for Obama overwhelmingly in the last election, the old school leaders still have a grip on determining foreign policy with regards to Cuba. Unfortunately

up

in Washington, there doesn’t seem to be the political will to challenge this or make major changes any time soon.

Extensions

Status Quo Fails
Current policies fail; barriers that the aff solves prevent scientific interaction Lozano 6/20—Miguel is a journalist for the Havana Reporter. (“Academic Diplomacy, One More Element in the Cuba-US
Conflict”—6/20/2013 http://www.prensa-latina.cu/images/stories/Media/TheHavanaReporter.pdf) WASHInGtOn._ Like the ping-pong diplomacy that brought China and the United States closer together, “academic diplomacy” could initiate a dialogue between the two sides of the half centurylong Cuba-U.S. conflict, experts from both countries say. toward that end, academics from both sides devoted four years to reaching a consensus on possible areas for beginning talks between Washington and Havana, despite mutual distrust. this exercise was called the Cuban-U.S. Academic Workshop (known as tACE for its initials in Spanish) and it was presented in Washington at the 31st International Congress of the Latin American Studies Association, which was held May 29-June 1. the Regional Economic and Social Research Coordinating Association, a network of several dozen academic centers, research institutions and nGOs, acted as facilitator in this work, with results that the workshop’s president, Andrés Serbín, said were consistent with prior recommendations. In an interview, Serbín said that one of the most important aspects of the proposal is that concrete points were covered by consensus, and after a long period of distant relations, necessary bridges were built for improving those relations. In his opinion, this facilitates continued progress of much of what is done at the hemispheric level to improve US-Cuba relations. At the same time, he acknowledged that negotiations can be extremely complicated in the U.S. political system, although the outlook is positive for certain economic measures taken without consulting Congress. As examples, Serbín mentioned the easing of regulations on remittances and U.S.-Cuba travel by CubanAmericans and others, as well as food sales that, even with restrictions, call the blockade into question, he said. Philip Brenner of American University said that the spirit of tACE is to help initiate a process of eliminating distrust, which is why the goal is to get the final proposals to Cuban and U.S. officials. In an interview with Prensa Latina, Brenner said that the most important aspect of tACE was that it continued for four years with the participation of former U.S. officials and presidential advisors. Brenner noted that the U.S. participants were able to meet with Cuban academics and former officials to dig at the root of the problem and find ways to deal with distrust that has been exacerbated by a long history of U.S. aggression against the Cuban Revolution. Regarding what kind of space exists for initiatives of this kind in the Barack Obama administration, Brenner said that there were possibilities for taking small steps, although “unfortunately, the

president has not shown much interest in Latin America.” If the Obama administration truly paid attention to Latin America and understood that Cuba is a very important symbol for the region, real possibilities for making process would exist, he said. Another tACE participant, former Cuban diplomat Carlos Alzugaray, said that better relations were inevitable, because current U.S. policy is a failure. “We have chosen very concrete issues, but
there has been agreement on all of them, and if agreements exist between academics who have been diplomats, they can exist between the two governments,” he said. Obama is in a position to take a step, Alzugaray added. He won the elections, does not have to stand for re-election, and showed that he can win with non-extremist positions, even if they are not the ones that one would wish for, Alzugaray noted. Even with those positions, an election can be won in Florida, he commented. A total of 25 joint recommendations were published in the book Oportunidad para las relaciones Cuba-Estados Unidos (Opportunity for CubaUnited States Relations), in the fields of academic, scientific/technical and cultural cooperation; freedom to travel; international trade and development; terrorism and security, and environment. As an example of existing distrust and hostility, two Cuban participants, Milagros Martínez and Rafael Hernández, were absent from the presentation because U.S. authorities denied them and a dozen other Cuban academics entry visas. the book suggests “that the United States government remove Cuba from the list of state sponsors of terrorism, given that its inclusion on that list is an obstacle to cooperation between the two countries on the fight against terrorism.” Other areas include exchange between high-ranking officials; mutual recognition of proposals for improving security; talks for agreements on fighting terrorism and drugs; and a review of sentences given to individuals convicted of crimes committed in the name of a foreign country. For

academic cooperation, recommendations include improving processes for the granting of visas; adjustments to migration policy; promotion of meetings among prominent individuals; and the U.S. elimination of restrictions on acquiring resources for civilian research. Others proposals include: simplifying bureaucratic processes for travel; eliminating sanctions on
banks and commercial entities associated with the right to travel; mutually facilitation of insurance and medical services; monitoring of operators’ practices; and eliminating spending limits and the ban on credit card use for U.S. travelers. In addition, Washington is asked to acknowledge economic changes in Cuba and Havana is asked to continue that process. the proposal asks Washington to modify regulations that force Havana to buy food and medicine in cash upfront; not to hinder remittances; and to analyze Cuba’s return to international financial organizations. In the area of environment, the proposal is to eliminate the ban on the transfer of technology for disaster risk mitigation; to foster cooperation among local governments and nongovernmental organizations; and to hold talks on disaster management, joint plans for earthquakes, and protocols for fishing. With the conclusion of the tACE academic exercise, now the goal is to take these 25 proposals to both governments, and with that, academics hope to open up space for eliminating the distrust and hostility that has separated the two countries for more than half a century. In participating in a panel discussion on Cuba and the United States at the LASA Congress, José R. Cabañas, chief of the Cuban Interests Section in Washington, D.C., also referred to a number of issues that are obstacles to bilateral relations. He agreed with the tACE academics who oppose justifications for keeping Cuba on the list of state sponsors of terrorism. Academics say removing Cuba from the list could be one of the first actions to open up the road to normalizing relations.

Baby steps in the squo, but we need to make real progress Haven 6/21 (Paul, “Cuba, US try talking, but face many obstacles.” 7/13/13.
http://www.newsdaily.com/article/f150f522ad1030d68179cc16644f6483/cuba-us-try-talkingbut-face-many-obstacles. KJ) HAVANA (AP) — They've hardly become allies, but Cuba and the U.S. have taken some baby steps toward rapprochement in recent weeks that have people on this island and in Washington wondering if a breakthrough in relations could be just over the horizon.¶ Skeptics caution that the Cold War enemies have been here many times before, only to fall back into old recriminations. But there are signs that views might be shifting on both sides of the Florida Straits.¶ In the past week, the two countries have held talks on resuming direct mail service, and announced a July 17 sit-down on migration issues. In May, a U.S.
federal judge allowed a convicted Cuban intelligence agent to return to the island. This month, Cuba informed the family of jailed U.S. government subcontractor Alan Gross that it would let an American doctor examine him, though the visit has apparently not yet happened. President

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

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

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

The status quo fails – gradual steps like the plan are a pre-requisite to effective engagement Council of the Americas 2-20-13
[Americas Society – Council of the Americas, February 20, 2013, “Seven Steps the U.S. President Can Take to Promote Change in Cuba by Adapting the Embargo,” http://www.ascoa.org/articles/seven-steps-us-president-can-take-promote-change-cuba-adapting-embargo] WD Change, however gradual, is taking place in Cuba. At the same time, the administration of President Barack Obama has used its authority under the embargo—through exceptions, executive actions, regulations, and licensing adjustments—to take tentative steps to loosen restrictions on travel, remittances, and telecoms activity by U.S. companies. A careful reading of U.S. policy goals
toward Cuba and the set of regulations and laws governing the U.S. embargo on Cuba reveal a series of changes that are essential to ensuring the U.S. administration’s goal of encouraging independent economic and political activity in Cuba. More important, they are also legally possible and within the President’s authority under existing regulations. To that end, we steps that President

propose the following Obama can take to encourage private organizations and individuals to directly and indirectly serve as catalysts for meaningful economic change in Cuba. Grant exceptions for commerce—
including sales and imports—for businesses and individuals engaged in certifiably independent (i.e., non-state) economic activity. Allow for the export and sale of goods and services to businesses and individuals engaged in certifiably independent (i.e., non-state) economic activity. Allow licensed U.S. travelers to Cuba to have access to U.S.-issued pre-paid cards and other financial services— including travelers’ insurance. Expand general licensed travel to include U.S. executives and their duly appointed agents to Cuba in financial services, travel and hospitality-related industries, such as banking, insurance, credit cards, and consumer products related

to travel. Expand general licensed travel to include: law, real estate and land titling, financial services and credit, and any area defined as supporting independent economic activity. Allow for the sale of telecommunications hardware—including cell towers, satellite dishes, and handsets—in Cuba. Allow for the possibility for Cuba to request technical assistance from International Financial Institutions (IFIs) in the area of economic and institutional reform. In a separate annex (Annex I) this document lays out the legal and statutory basis for Presidential authority to make these necessary reforms to further U.S. policy to Cuba. Change, however gradual, is taking place in Cuba. A

series of economic reforms announced by President Raúl Castro in 2010 set out policies that authorize and give greater space to private enterprise. The reforms are already creating an incipient independent economic sector. At the same time, the administration of President Barack Obama has used its authority under the embargo—through exceptions, executive actions, regulations, and licensing adjustments—to take tentative steps to loosen restrictions on travel, remittances, and telecoms activity by U.S. companies. Unfortunately, the changes on both sides have not gone far enough. The two countries remain in diplomatic deadlock—creating an opportunity
for private groups to provide channels to share information and build contacts. Over the last three years, through its Cuba Working Group, Americas Society and Council of the Americas (AS/COA) have held discussions and hosted Cuban scholars and public officials at private events in New York, Washington D.C. and Miami. Since their founding, AS/COA have played a critical role in bringing together the public and private sectors to engage with and foster policy reform and entrepreneurship. Today, more than ever, there is room to create dialogue with all parties around market reforms, economic development and opening, private enterprise, and entrepreneurship in Cuba. A

careful reading of U.S. policy goals toward Cuba and the set of regulations and laws governing the U.S. embargo on Cuba reveal a series of changes that are essential to ensuring the U.S. administration’s goal of encouraging independent economic and political activity in Cuba. More important, they are also legally possible and within the President’s authority under existing
regulations. To that end, we propose the following steps that President Obama can take to encourage private organizations and individuals to directly and indirectly serve as catalysts for meaningful economic change in Cuba. We explain the regulatory and legal authority for all these steps in Annex I below.

The United States must make sensible steps to cooperate with Cuba Katrina vanden Heuvel, July 2 2013, Editor and publisher of The Nation, “The U.S. should end
the Cuban embargo” http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-07-02/opinions/40316090_1_embargo-limitedprivate-enterprise-odebrecht It is long past time for the United States to end the embargo and influence Cuba, rather than
threaten it. Ironically, as a result of a new Cuban migration law lifting more than 50 years of restrictions on the ability of its citizens to travel freely abroad, taking effect this year, Cubans are now freer to travel to the United States than Americans are to Cuba. The president can’t end the travel ban without Congressional approval, but as Peter Kornbluh explained in a recent piece in The Nation, he can take several steps that would transform our policy.¶ Obama should start by removing Cuba from the State Department’s list of nations that support terrorism, terminating the economic and commercial sanctions that come with that designation. The Treasury could stop fining international banks for doing business with Cuba, a practice that impedes the country’s slow opening to private enterprise. At the same time, the president could expand licensing

for travel to Cuba, making it easier for entrepreneurs, scientists , doctors and others to travel and explore commercial possibilities. The Cold War “Cuban Democracy and Contingency Planning Program,” designed for “regime change,” should be reconfigured to a people-to-people exchange program that would actually have some influence.¶ Finally, as a prelude to broader bilateral negotiations on a range of issues, Obama could act directly to remove an open sore in U.S.-Cuban relations. The president could commute the sentences of the so-called Cuban Five,
counterterrorism agents arrested in Florida in 1998 and convicted on espionage charges, four of whom are still imprisoned. At the same time, the Cubans could free Alan Gross, who was arrested when he was sent to Cuba by USAID on a quasi-covert mission to supply Jewish groups with satellite connections to the Internet. Former

President Jimmy Carter has offered to facilitate these sensible steps.¶ The Cold War is over; the Soviet Union is no more. The United
States sustains the largest trade deficit in the history of the world with China’s communists. And yet the embargo and enmity towards Cuba continue. The intelligence agencies and the embittered and aging Cuban refugees may never acknowledge the world as it is. But it

is long past time for the United States to turn to a policy that will engage Cuba rather than isolate ourselves.

Current Science cooperation has obstacles – status quo doesn’t solve for oil Ordonez 12 McClatchy Newspapers, Franco, Scientists work to bridge political gap between Cuba, U.S., http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/05/21/149603/scientists-work-to-bridgepolitical.html#.UeGMobvLg3I#storylink=cpy ML
U.S. officials also have engaged with the International Maritime Organization, which has sent technical teams to Cuba to evaluate its oil drilling procedures, and Cuban and U.S. officials met in the Bahamas in December along with officials from Mexico and Jamaica to discuss disaster plans. A similar meeting was held in Trinidad and administration officials say more will come.¶ “In fact, we’re all comfortable all the entities that would need licenses to respond appropriately either have them or are in the process of getting them at this point,” said a senior administration official, who requested anonymity in order to
speak freely.¶ Reilly notes that his delegation spent several days speaking directly with top Cuban officials and was able to gather specific details about Cuban plans that may not have been discussed at other multinational meetings.¶ “On

the oil and gas issues, we’ve been moderately successful in getting the two governments to start talking with each other,” said the Environmental Defense Fund’s Whittle, who helped lead the trip and had several meetings with administration officials.¶ There are still considerable obstacles to be overcome. In addition to needing visas to travel to the United States, Cuban scientists work with fewer resources. The Internet also is not easily accessible.¶ In February, Fabian Pina, a scientist with Cuba’s Center for Coastal Ecosystems Research in
Cayo Coco, Cuba, was awarded a $150,000 Pew Fellowship in Marine Conservation to study goliath grouper populations in Cuba, the first time a Cuban researcher has received the prestigious grant, a kin, in the marine science world, to winning a MacArthur “genius grant.”¶ But Pina

was supposed to be in the 2011 class. It took months to get proper approvals from U.S. officials, who were concerned the grant money would be taken or taxed by the Cuban government.

Cooperation now but underfunded Gonzalez 4/4/13-Rufford Foundation(Orestes, “Grant Recipents Conference, Cuba
2013”,7/13/13, http://www.rufford.org/news/grant_recipients_conference_cuba_2013)RN The Cuban archipelago is part of one of the hot points of the world biodiversity, is outlined for the high values of endemism in several biological groups and for presenting a great diversity of ecosystems and landscapes in a relatively small geographic area. In spite of the fact that environmental aspects are an important topic for the Cuban government, the economic conditions of the country, specially in the current conjuncture they make the project financing very difficult specially those with an approach centred on the conservation.

Obama
Lifting the embargo on Cuba is a low presidential priority
Davis ’13 (Lenka Davis, news reporter for WMNF radio, Tampa, “Public officials, scientists and
businessmen urge US to fix policy with Cuba”, 88.5 FM WMNF radio, 03/25/13, http://www.wmnf.org/news_stories/public-officials-scientists-and-businessmen-urge-us-to-fix-policywith-cuba)

For more than 50 years the U.S. Government has severely limited trade and travel with Cuba ,
but there’s a growing movement to restore the US-Cuba relationship. WMNF’s Lenka Davis reports from a seminar Saturday in Ybor City hosted by Alliance For Responsible Cuban Policy Foundation, dedicated to restoring trade and diplomatic relations with Cuba, and by Center for International Policy. Panelists urged the U.S. embargo on Cuba be lifted and diplomatic, economic and scientific

Cuba doesn’t have an ambassador to the United States, but their General Counselor in the United States, Llanio Gonzalez-Lopez, sees the the blockade of Cuba as the biggest obstacle in healthy diplomatic relationships. Gonzalez-Lopez also raised concerns about the U.S.
relations be restored between the two neighbors. military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. He said because the agreement for the base was made with the pre-revolution government, Cuba does not recognize the pact and he called for further discussion with the U.S. government on the issue. However, Peter

Kornbluh from National Security Archives says Cuba is a low presidential priority, despite Barack Obama’s pre-election promise to lead a dialog with Cuba. According to Kornbluh, friendship between the US and Cuba could bring changes to Cuba faster than the failed 50 year embargo. The former chief of staff for Colin Powell, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, revealed that Pentagon does not
consider Cuba to be a threat even though it’s on a list of terrorist countries. He also outlined what needs to happen to fix fore ign policy with Cuba. Dan Whittle from the Environmental Defense Fund says the US should care about the fate of Cuba’s environment as well, because Cuban and Floridian ecosystems are deeply connected.

No embargo lift in the status quo—Obama unwilling to act
White ’13 (Robert E. White, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, was the United States
ambassador, “After Chávez, a Chance to Rethink Relations With Cuba”, The New York Times, 3-7-2013, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/08/opinion/after-chavez-hope-for-good-neighbors-in-latinamerica.html?pagewanted=2&ref=cuba)
Yet for a half-century, our

policies toward our southern neighbors have alternated between intervention and neglect, inappropriate meddling and missed opportunities. The death this week of
President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela — who along with Fidel Castro of Cuba was perhaps the most vociferous critic of the United States among the political leaders of the Western Hemisphere in recent decades — offers an opportunity to restore bonds with potential allies who share the American goal of prosperity. Throughout his career, the autocratic Mr. Chávez

used our embargo as a wedge with which to antagonize the United States and alienate its supporters. His fuel helped prop up the rule of Mr. Castro and his brother Raúl, Cuba’s current president. The embargo no longer serves any useful purpose (if it ever did at all); President Obama should end it, though it would mean overcoming powerful opposition from Cuban-American lawmakers in Congress. An end to the Cuba embargo would send a powerful signal to all of Latin America that the United States wants a new, warmer relationship with democratic forces seeking social change throughout the Americas. I joined the State Department as a Foreign Service officer in the 1950s and chose to serve in Latin
America in the 1960s. I was inspired by President John F. Kennedy’s creative response to the revolutionary fervor then sweeping Latin America. The 1959 Cuban revolution, led by the charismatic Fidel Castro, had inspired revolts against the cruel dictatorships and corrupt pseudodemocracies that had dominated the region since the end of Spanish and Portuguese rule in the 19th century. Kennedy had a charisma of his own, and it captured the imaginations of leaders who wanted democratic change, not violent revolution. Kennedy reacted to the threat of continental insurrection by creating the Alliance for Progress, a kind of Marshall Plan for the hemisphere that was calculated to achieve the same kind of results that saved Western Europe from Communism. He pledged billions of dollars to this effort. In hindsight, it may have been overly ambitious, even naïve, but Kennedy’s focus on Latin America rekindled the promise of the Good Neighbor Policy of Franklin D. Roosevelt and transformed t he whole concept of inter-American relations. Tragically, after Kennedy’s assassination in 1963, the ideal of the Alliance for Progress crumbled and “la noche mas larga” — “the longest night” — began for the proponents of Latin American democracy. Military regimes flourished, democratic governments withered, moderate political and civil leaders were labeled Communists, rights of free speech and assembly were curtailed and human dignity crushed, largely because the United States abandoned all standards save that of anti-Communism. During my Foreign Service career, I did what I could to oppose policies that supported dictators and closed off democratic alternatives. In 1981, as the ambassador to El Salvador, I refused a demand by the secretary of state, Alexander M. Haig Jr., that I use official channels to cover up the Salvadoran military’s responsibil ity for the murders of four American churchwomen. I was fired and forced out of the Foreign Service. The Reagan administration, under the illusion that Cuba was the power driving the Salvadoran revolution, turned its policy over to

the Pentagon and C.I.A., with predictable results. During the 1980s the United States helped expand the Salvadoran military, which was dominated by uniformed assassins. We armed them, trained them and covered up their crimes. After our counterrevolutionary efforts failed to end the Salvadoran conflict, the Defense Department asked its research institute, the RAND Corporation, what had gone wrong. RAND analysts found that United States policy makers had refused to accept the obvious truth that the insurgents were rebelling against social injustice and state terror. As a result, “we pursued a policy unsettling to ourselves, for ends humiliating to the Salvadorans and at a cost disproportionate

a series of profound political, social and economic changes have undermined the traditional power bases in Latin America and, with them, longstanding regional institutions like the Organization of American States. The organization,
to any conventional conception of the national interest.” Over the subsequent quarter-century,

which is headquartered in Washington and which excluded Cuba in 1962, was seen as irrelevant by Mr. Chávez. He promoted the creation of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States — which excludes the United States and Canada — as an alternative. At a regional meeting that included Cuba and excluded the United States, Mr. Chávez said that “the most positive thing for the independence of our continent is that we meet alone without the hegemony of empire.” Mr. Chávez was masterful at manipulating America’s antagonism toward Fidel Castro as a rhetorical stick with which to attack the United States as an imperialist aggressor, an enemy of progressive change, interested mainly in treating Latin America as a vassal continent, a source of cheap commodities and labor. Like

its predecessors, the Obama administration has given few signs that it has grasped the magnitude of these changes or cares about their consequences. After President
Obama took office in 2009, Latin America’s leading statesman at the time, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, then the president of Brazil, urged Mr. Obama to normalize relations with Cuba.

No government reform to Cuba policy—denial
Ruiz 1/20 (Albor Ruiz, reporter for NY Daily News, M.A., Political Science and Philosophy, “Memo to
President Obama: Cuba has extended an olive branch, shouldn’t the U.S.?”, NY Daily News, 1-20-2013, http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/long-cuba-easing-travel-restrictions-u-s-continues-50-year-oldembargo-article-1.1242290)
It may be hard to believe but as the newsletter Cuba Central Newsblast points out, since last week Cubans have more freedom to see the world than American citizens have to visit Cuba. Hopefully, the irony won’t escape President Obama and members of Congress who should finally bury for good that political zombie which for 50 years has passed for a U.S. Cuba policy.

Last Jan. 14 Havana dropped travel restrictions on most of its citizens that had been standing since the early 1960s. Now practically any Cuban with a visa and a valid passport can book a flight. Gone are the days of the despised “tarjeta blanca” or white card, the expensive and complicated exit permit. Official permission to come and go will no longer be required. With this measure Raúl Castro’s government eliminates one of Washington’s main excuses for maintaining its counterproductive trade embargo and travel prohibition. “We hope President Obama is
paying attention,” said Sarah Stephens, executive director of the Center for Democracy in the Americas, who adds that while

Obama has undertaken some reforms, he has not acknowledged that Cuba has taken any meaningful steps. “After Cuba released scores of political prisoners following talks with the Catholic Church; after the Castro government implemented the most significant changes in its economic model in six decades; after Colombia turned to Cuba to help it broker peace talks with the FARC, U.S. policy remains in an official state of denial that its goals are being met,”
Stephens added.

Soph’s Gradism Cards
Current policy will not lead to a breakthrough Haven, Chief of Bureau/Havana, Cuba at The Associated Press, 2013
(Paul, The Vancouver Sun, “Relations thaw between Cuba, US: Small signs indicate the two longtime enemies are narrowing the gap in the Florida Straits,” 6/22/2013, http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Relations+thaw+between+Cuba/8564785/story.html, AFGA).

The State Department has kept Cuba on a list of state sponsors of terrorism and another that calls into question Havana's commitment to fighting human trafficking. The Obama administration continues to demand democratic change on an island ruled for more than a half century by Castro and his brother Fidel.¶ 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 .¶ "I think that a lot more would have to happen for this to amount to momentum lead ing to any kind of major diplomatic breakthrough," he said. "Obama should be bolder and more audacious."

Gradual Removal Key Arzeno, MASTER OF MILITARY ART AND SCIENCE Strategy, ‘00 (Mario, http://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=727317, accessed 6/30/13, ARH)
Castro’s time in power is short and Cuba without Castro is extremely vulnerable to becoming a rogue state with the elements of transnational threats at Cuba’s doorstep once he is gone. The Cuban American National Foundation grows weaker everyday and American public opinion that believes change must happen grows stronger everyday. The time for change in Cuba is now. Fidel Castro’s presence in Cuba should be inconsequential to that change. A gradual lifting of the embargo should begin today with the United States committed to engaging Cuba in order to prevent Cuba from becoming a threat to the United States in the future.

Gradual Removal is the way to go Whitney, Author for People's World, ‘10 (W.T., 10/28/10, http://www.peoplesworld.org/un-general-assemblycondemns-u-s-cuba-blockade/, accessed 6/30/13, ARH)
By gradually lifting the embargo it shifts any blame for current ecomomic issues to the Cuban government. 

Right now its so easy for Cuba to blame the US for all it sorrows by gradually lifting the embargo it shifts any blame for current ecomomic issues to the Cuban government. Right now its so easy for Cuba to blame the US for all it sorrows. Cuba can easily report looks how cruel the US is to Cubans with the whole world on Cuba's side and only the US and a couple others against Cuba. By lifting the embargo, gradually, Cuban start to get a taste of freedom. Right now how would a Cuban know what its like to have choice. IMHO the reason why China was partially forced to allow for a free market is because of Hong Kong. Give Cuba but a taste and they will want more.

The Lifting of the Embargo must be Gradual Peters, Member of the Lexington institute and advisor to the House of Representatives , ‘12

(Phil, 2/10/12, http://cubantriangle.blogspot.com/2012/02/happy-embargoversary.html, accessed 6/30/13, ARH)
The lifting of the embargo should be done gradually and through the negotiation of all outstanding issues between both countries and the implementation by stages of all the reforms Cuba needs. It is the sole remaining instrument for the US to use in influencing Cuba's policies and the US should not hesitate to do so or feel guilty for doing so. This would be both in the best interest of the Cuban people and of the US itself. A return to multiparty democracy and to a market economy would be the fastest possible way for the island to integrate efficiently to economic progress and to the competitive global society.

Gradualism is key—Empirics Prove The Ledger, Floridian Newspaper, ‘11 (4/24/11, http://www.theledger.com/article/20110824/edit01/110829730?p=1&tc=pg, accessed 6/30/13, ARH)
But it's also apparent that the Cuban government is taking steps that Americans should encourage with policies that reward reform and progress. Revoking the moderate tourism policy, as the House committee proposes, would represent a punitive step backward by the United States. A better approach toward Cuba would entail a gradual lifting of the economic embargo and measured moves toward the establishment of normal diplomatic relationships. If the liberalization of Cuba's private-property laws moves forward, that development could be — and should be — a trigger for easing the embargo and establishing political ties. Benchmarks, including the protection of private assets, could be created in order to promote additional progress. The United States should not change its hard-line policy to coddle the Castros. America should change its policy because Cuba is changing.

***Solvency***

Spill Over
Science Diplomacy is key to influence that spills over to global scientific research and science diplomacy Schreiterer 10- Senior Research Scholar at Center for International and Area Studies and Lecturer in Department of
Sociology, Yale University. (Urlich, “Science diplomacy at the intersection of S&T policies and foreign affairs: toward a typology of national approaches”, November 2010, http://spp.oxfordjournals.org/content/37/9/665.full.pdf+html, HW)

Influence on other countries’ public opinion, decision-makers and political or economic leaders (plus leaders to be): ‘soft power’ has been defined as a nation’s ability to attract sympathy, talents, capital, and political support to improve both its leverage and international standing (Nye, 1990). Under such a heading, S&T activities appear to be: a promising entry point for engaging citizens and civil society organizations worldwide. (Lord and Turekian, 2007: 769) The global spread and assertion of norms and values associated with scientific research such as rational reasoning and
deliberation, universalism and disinterestedness, the acknowledgment of better data or arguments regardless of who is putting them forward, so it looks, will

bolster peaceful development and conflict resolution even in nondemocratic, authoritarian societies. For foreign ministries, SD is but a specific aspect of international S&T policy that co-evolves alongside numerous topic-driven S&T initiatives and cooperation arrangements under the purview of other departments, intermediary organizations, universities or semi-autonomous R&D
agencies, most of whom want to follow through with their own agenda. The challenge to SD in a more narrow sense as well as international S&T collaboration more generally thus lies in the ability to team up different players, to effectively buy into their capacities in a way that joint priorities and objectives become feasible, and above all to devise customized approaches for different target regions, issues of particular strategic interests, and global concerns. With

respect to characterizing different national policies, this means that organizational arrangements, in particular the division of labor and program responsibilities among government departments, research institutions and the private sector, and governance modes, in particular funding streams, decision-making and coordination, become another distinctive feature second to goals and objectives.

New scientific partnerships spill over to solve for broader science diplomacy Hormats 12 - served as the U.S. Under Secretary of State for Economic Growth, Energy, and
the Environment since 2009. (Robert, “Science Diplomacy and Twenty-First Century Statecraft”, March 2012, http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/files/science_diplomacy_and_twenty-first_century_statecraft_science__diplomacy.pdf, HW) While the

scientific partnerships that the United States builds with other nations, and international a means to address shared challenges, they also contribute to broadening and strengthening our diplomatic relationships. Scientific partnerships are based on disciplines and values that transcend politics, languages, borders, and cultures. Processes that define the scientific community—such as merit review, critical thinking, diversity of thought, and transparency— are fundamental values from which the global community can reap benefits. History provides many examples of how scientific cooperation can bolster diplomatic ties and cultural exchange. American scientists collaborated with Russian and Chinese counterparts for decades, even as other aspects of our relationship proved more challenging. Similarly, the science and technology behind the agricultural “Green Revolution” of the 1960s and ‘70s was the product of American, Mexican, and Indian researchers working toward a common goal. Today, the United States has formal science and technology agreements with over fifty countries. We are committed to finding new ways to work with other countries in science and technology, to conduct mutually beneficial joint research activities, and to advance the interests of the U.S. science and technology community. Twenty-first century statecraft also requires that we build greater people-to people relationships. Science and
ties among universities and research labs, are technology cooperation makes that possible. For example, through the Science Envoy program, announced by President Obama in

2009 in Cairo, Egypt, eminent U.S. scientists have met with counterparts throughout Asia, Africa, and the Middle East to build relationships and identify opportunities for sustained cooperation. With over half of the world’s population under the age of thirty,

we are developing new ways to inspire the next generation of science and technology leaders.
Over the past five years, the Department of State’s International Fulbright Science & Technology Award has brought more than two hundred exceptional students from seventy-three different countries to the United States to pursue graduate studies. Through the Global Innovation through Science and Technology Initiative, the United States recently invited young innovators from North Africa, the Middle East, and Asia to post YouTube videos describing solutions to problems they face at home. The top submissions will receive financial support, business mentorship, and networking opportunities. Advancing

the rights of women and girls is a central focus of U.S. foreign policy and science diplomacy. As we work to empower women and
girls worldwide, we must ensure that they have access to science education and are able to participate and contribute fully during every stage of their lives. Recently, we partnered with Google, Intel, Microsoft, and many other high-tech businesses to launch TechWomen, a program that brings promising women leaders from the Middle East to Silicon Valley to meet industry thoughtleaders, share knowledge and experiences, and bolster cultural understanding. Science diplomacy

is not new. It is, however, broader, deeper, and more visible than ever before and its importance will continue to grow. The Department of State’s first Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review highlights that “science, engineering, technology, and innovation are the engines of modern society and a dominant force in globalization and international economic development.” These interrelated issues are priorities for
the United States and, increasingly, the world. The Department of State is committed to utilizing our capabilities in Washington, DC, and throughout the world to connect with scientists, entrepreneurs, and innovators for the mutual benefit of all of our people. In addition to Environment, Science and Technology, and Health Officers stationed at U.S. embassies, almost fifty doctoral-level scientists and engineers work at the Department of State through the AAAS Diplomacy Fellows program and the Jefferson Science Fellows program. Through this cadre

of science and foreign policy experts, the Department of State will continue to advance policies that bolster the global repertoire of scientific knowledge and further enable technological innovation.

Even if we don’t completely solve it’s a reason to continue science cooperation voting aff allows progress that overcomes any shortcomings Dabelko 09- Professor and Director of Environmental Studies at the George V. Voinovich
School of Leadership and Public Affairs at Ohio University in Athens (Geoff, “Science diplomacy: An expectations game”, Grist 2009, http://grist.org/article/science-diplomacy-an-expectationsgame/, MB)
But this view of science diplomacy is overly pessimistic. It sets unrealistically high expectations such dialogue could never hope to achieve. Science

diplomacy is not meant to solve all aspects of conflicts or distrustful relationships, so setting such a high bar is a bit of a straw man. Science, as well as dialogue on the management of shared natural resources, remains an under-utilized and under-studied tool for trust-building, so it is premature to declare it a failure before we have sufficient evidence for evaluation.¶ Veterans of
Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs and other Cold War-era scientific dialogues might suggest we are neglecting some rich experiences from this era. It bears remembering that Pugwash was awarded the 1995 Nobel Peace Prize (and current U.S. Science Adviser John Holdren delivered the acceptance speech as then executive director of Pugwash).¶ A distinct but related arena for further policy attempts and research inquiries is

environmental peacebuilding, where mutual interdependence around natural resources provides pathways for dialogue in the midst of conflict. The establishment
of the Cordillera del Condor Transboundary Protected Area between Ecuador and Peru was a result of integrating joint environmental management structures in the 1998 peace agreement that ended a long-festering border conflict. Negotiation over shared resources, such as water, can be a diplomatic lifeline for otherwise-hostile countries, such as Israel and Jordan, which held secret “picnic table” talks to manage the Jordan River while they were officially at war. And the

U.S. military has successfully uses environmental cooperation to engage both friends and adversaries.¶
Collaboration on scientific and environmental issues won’t solve all our problems. And defining and identifying success remains a fundamental challenge when success is the absence of something (conflict). But let’s

not retreat to the common church-and-state division where scientists fear being “contaminated” by participating in policy-relevant dialogues. And let’s certainly not declare science diplomacy a failure—and stop trying to make it a success—based on unrealistic expectations for the benefits such efforts might produce.

Sci Dip is Cool
Science diplomacy is key to solve all of the major problems of the 21st century Fedoroff 9 - Science and Technology Adviser to the Secretary of State and to the Administrator of the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID), U.S. Department of State, Washington DC 20520, USA. (Nina, “Science Diplomacy in the 21st Century”, 1/9/2009, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S009286740801636X#, HW) But the problems are deep and stubborn. Perhaps the most poignant disparities exist between the countries of the developed world and much of Africa, where climate, disease, soil exhaustion, and a host of other problems contribute. In his book titled “The Bottom Billion,” economist Paul Collier (http://users.ox.ac. uk/~econpco/) offers an insightful analysis of the many factors that contribute to trapping the poorest nations in continuing cycles of poverty and unrest. The

global food crisis of 2008 triggered food riots in more than 30 countries and calls for a new Green Revolution. The first Green Revolution, however, was relatively straightforward, if not easy: improved crop varieties and increased fertilizer use. The next Green Revolution will be more difficult, even if we succeed in overcoming the deep and widespread mistrust of using modern molecular methods for the genetic improvement of crop plants. In a crowded world, we no longer have the luxury of focusing on the single variable of agricultural productivity. Food, water, energy, health, and economic development are all intertwined. Progress will depend on a high level of education, particularly in science and engineering. All will be impacted by climate change and politics — everywhere. Climate change is a wake-up call to the awareness that we live in a world without borders. Airplanes can make SARS and multidrug-resistant TB everyone’s problem in a heartbeat. Trade barriers between nations and farm subsidies in developed nations stifle agricultural growth in developing countries. The rush toward renewable energy from biofuels accelerates deforestation in the Amazon, however indirectly, and with each acre lost, another multitude of species goes extinct. Wall Street’s problems echo around the world. And all of these seemingly separate problems turn out to be interconnected. Food and energy are now
viewed as fungible. Growing the food—and feed and fiber and fuel—demanded by a still expanding and increasingly affluent human population requires innovations not just in agricultural productivity but also in water and land management, food processing, and transportation. Decimating what remains of the tropic’s forests will as surely exacerbate climate change as it will reduce biodiversity.

It’s one big thorny tangle: people, money, food, energy, health, water, land, climate, biodiversity. How do we as scientists begin to think—and act—on a global scale to address such complicated problems? It seems to me that we must first become citizens not just of our own nations, but of this world without borders. We need to see, experience, and identify with the peoples and
the problems of other nations and to recognize the complexity and interconnections among the challenges facing 21st century humanity. And perhaps most importantly of all, we need to understand, at a deep gut level, that all our fates are truly intertwined.

We must move quickly to develop the science that will allow us to model and understand the complex system that is our planet and its crust of human activities. We need to invent efficient,
nonpolluting means of local power generation. We need to invest in the research that will allow us to improve how we manage water, grow food, battle disease, and build economies into the next generation—and the next. Science,

of course,

provides the common language to build bridges between cultures.

Science diplomacy is key to relations, economic growth, national security and climate change Hormats 12 - served as the U.S. Under Secretary of State for Economic Growth, Energy, and
the Environment since 2009. (Robert, “Science Diplomacy and Twenty-First Century Statecraft”, March 2012, http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/files/science_diplomacy_and_twenty-first_century_statecraft_science__diplomacy.pdf, HW)

Science diplomacy is a central component of America’s twenty-first century statecraft agenda. The United States must increasingly recognize the vital role science and technology can play in addressing major challenges, such as making our economy more competitive, tackling global

health issues, and dealing with climate change. American leadership in global technological advances and scientific research, and the dynamism of our companies and universities in these areas, is a major source of our economic, foreign policy, and national security strength.
Additionally, it is a hallmark of the success of the American system. While some seek to delegitimize scientific ideas, we believe the United States should celebrate science and see it—as was the case since the time of Benjamin Franklin—as an opportunity to advance the prosperity, health, and overall well-being of Americans and the global community. Innovation policy is part of our science diplomacy engagement. More

than ever before, modern economies are rooted in science and technology. It is estimated that America’s knowledge-based industries represent 40 percent of our economic growth and 60 percent of our exports. Sustaining a vibrant knowledge-based economy, as well as
a strong commitment to educational excellence and advanced research, provides an opportunity for our citizens to prosper and enjoy upward mobility. America attracts people from all over the world—scientists, engineers, inventors, and entrepreneurs—who want the opportunity to participate in, and contribute to, our innovation economy. At the same time, our

bilateral and multilateral dialogues support science, technology, and innovation abroad by promoting improved education; research and development funding; good governance and transparent regulatory policies; markets that are open and competitive; and policies that allow researchers and companies to succeed, and, if they fail, to have the opportunity to try again. We advocate for
governments to embrace and enforce an intellectual property system that allows innovators to reap the benefits of their ideas and also rewards their risk taking. Abraham Lincoln himself held a patent on an invention, a device for preventing ships from being grounded on shoals. He said in his “Second Lecture on Discoveries and Inventions” in 1859 that patents “added the fuel of interest to the fire of genius, in the discovery and production of new and useful things.”

Science diplomacy is a unique situation by which the US can improve its international standing Agre 11 - American physician, professor, and molecular biologist who was awarded the 2003 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his
discovery of aquaporins. (Peter, “Life on the River of Science”, 1/28/11, http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6016/416.short, HW)

Science has always been one of the most international of human endeavors, and this trend is certainly increasing. Every year, thousands of young scientists come to the United States from abroad to undertake scientific education and research. Thus, science provides a unique approach to advancing good will toward America in the international arena. It is no secret that the U.S. government is viewed negatively in the Muslim world,
especially after the military intrusions in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Zogby Poll [(9); see table below] reveals a clear bimodal response.

The great majority of citizens of five moderate Arab nations held distinctly unfavorable views of the United States in general. In marked contrast, these same individuals held favorable views of U.S. science and technology. This provides an opportunity to use our background as nongovernment scientists to reinforce the positive: that U.S.-generated science and technology may improve the lives of people all around the world. The potential to establish contact and engage with scientists in countries considered adversarial to the U.S. government is an opportunity for science to serve as a unique bridge. Founded in 2008, the center is directed by Vaughan
Turekian, an atmospheric geochemist and international policy expert, with special advisor Norman Neureiter, a chemist with extensive policy experience. I was greatly pleased to participate as senior scientist in a series of trips abroad (10). Recognizing that some of our visits were to countries where there are serious intergovernmental tensions related to a wide range of issues such as proliferation, human rights, and economic openness, each visit was undertaken with an independent nongovernmental organization and with private funding, in most cases from the Richard Lounsbery Foundation. Efforts were made to inform appropriate U.S. authorities of such visits, but it was to be plain in every case that we served as representatives of the U.S. scientific and research community, not the U.S. government.

Sci Dip k2 Relations
Science diplomacy is a key diplomatic tool – even in strained relationships Colglazier 12 - the U.S. Science and Technology Adviser to the Secretary of State, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC.
(William, “Science and Diplomacy”, 2/17/2012, http://www.sciencemag.org/content/335/6070/775.short, HW)

The world has much to gain from developing more knowledge- and innovation-based societies and from spreading scientific values, including meritocracy and transparency, that support democracy. This fundamental assumption underlies a renewed interest in science diplomacy, along with the widespread recognition that science and technology (S&T) are strategic assets for U.S. diplomacy. My recent appointment as S&T Adviser to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has increased my appreciation of the great potential of America's S&T capabilities for enhancing our foreign policy. S&T are strategic assets for U.S. diplomacy because all countries, regardless of their politics, culture, and worldview, respect our S&T capabilities and want to engage with U.S. scientists and engineers. This is true even of countries with which governmental relations are strained. S&T are critical to fostering innovation and economic prosperity in a highly competitive and interconnected world, and are essential for solving national and global problems.

AT – Alternate Causes
The plan is a necessary starting point to solve alt causes – k2 Latin American relations and environmental impacts Johnson 12 – CSIS, a senior fellow and director of the Americas Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies,
a Washington, D.C.-based think tank. He has more than 20 years of experience in Western Hemisphere affairs spanning policymaking, policy advocacy, and public affairs in the Department of Defense, the Washington policy community, and the State Department. From 2007 to 2009, Johnson served as deputy assistant secretary of defense for Western Hemisphere affairs, overseeing the development and execution of policies, strategies, and programs governing hemispheric defense and security ties. From 1999 to 2006, Johnson served as a senior foreign policy analyst at the Washington-based Heritage Foundation, testifying before Congress and authoring studies on U.S. policy as well as Latin American politics, trade, development, and security. His commentaries have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Miami Herald, Business Week, and Diario Las Américas. His broadcast appearances have included CNN en Español, Univisión, Telemundo, C-SPAN, and MSNBC. He is the author of Iran’s Influence in the Americas. (Stephen, “U.S.-Cuba Academic and Science-Based Exchanges”, August 2012, http://csis.org/files/publication/120821_Johnson_U.S.-CubaExchanges_Web.pdf, HW)

As in other countries, U.S. and Cuban authorities look favorably on initiatives that benefit their societies. Educational institutions should make a point of creating exchange opportunities that are not charitable but constructive and use participants from both countries equally. This approach is especially important as a starting point for new conference series. If equality is established at the beginning , it will be far easier to develop plans that lead to a successful academic exchange . For conferences, there are three options—hosting them in Cuba, in a third-country, or in the United States. Holding seminars in Cuba or even a third country defeats the purpose of exposing Cuban scholars and academics to the United States. For now, an event in Cuba poses substantial challenges in seeking a host, arranging venues, obtaining OFAC licenses, transferring funds, and scheduling (planning should start a year in advance). Moreover, control over the event is in the hands of the Cuban government. Holding the conference in a third country has the advantage of making travel from Cuba easier, as visa problems for both parties are reduced. Mexico, Canada, the Dominican Republic, or Spain may be options. Yet, other factors could cloud the bilateral nature of the conference and adversely affect later exchanges. For one, a high-profile conference could irritate sensitivities in the host nation. For another, it could place the event in an unfamiliar territory where it would be difficult to control intrusions by interest groups favoring or opposing either party. A conference in the United States avoids some of these pitfalls. However, success in organizing one depends on the number of Cubans involved and their readiness to travel. Various sources claim that inviting fewer than 15 persons to the United States works well, although the latest Latin America Studies Association conference in May 2012 brought in 60, who mingled among some 4,000 other attendees. However, managing large groups is extremely ambitious and less likely to be approved because of the scrutiny such groups would face from both the Cuban and the U.S. government. Ideally, if a U.S.-Cuban exchange is the sole purpose of the event, no plans should be made until funding is guaranteed and all licenses or exit permits are approved. After that, planning may take several months. Another key factor is finding an appropriate, credible incountry partner that can help win approval within the Cuban regime’s bureaucracy. In most cases, academic exchanges may be facilitated through the international relations directorate of the desired institution, such as the University of Havana or the Academy of Sciences. Once selected, experienced exchange organizers generally agree that it may be best to let the incountry partner identify individual participants for the exchange. For now, American attempts to

recruit participants may subject candidates to government monitoring, targeting, and possible harassment. To reduce the risk of getting stuck with ciphers, however, event organizers can require participants to make substantive presentations during their exchange. New and useful subject areas could include sustainable food production , how to conduct environmental impact assessments, disaster response , and demographic challenges . Upon conclusion, a successful outcome is helped by the agreement of both sides to publish a summary of activities to build awareness that the work accomplished benefits both countries and does not further any hostile intent. Foreign Study Opportunities Since the late 1990s, it has been easier for American scholars to study and teach in Cuba than vice versa. In January 2011, the Obama administration eased Bush-era limits on U.S. scholars studying in Cuba, and university programs offering semesters in Cuba are rising, along with arts and history tours that border on tourism. U.S. students of modest means may study medicine in Cuba for free, on the premise that they will return to serve underprivileged communities in the United States. Most U.S. colleges with Cuba study programs partner with the University of Havana and offer Spanish immersion, as well as courses in the arts, social sciences, and humanities, although Cuba has nearly two dozen other institutions of higher learning at various locations on the island. Tuition, travel, and other associated fees for U.S. students may cost as much as $20,000 a semester. While some programs appear to expose students to an idealized Cuba, a casual survey of press interviews with some returning scholars suggests that they see what they want to see. Some harbor utopian illusions, while others clearly do not. While few Cuban nationals may take undergraduate or graduate courses in the United States now, opening digital educational opportunities, ride-aboard exchanges on marine research vessels, long-distance mentoring, and study opportunities in third countries where U.S. institutions have foreign campuses may be ways to build confidence that will lead the Cuban government to permit more scholarly visits to the United States. Cuban officials willing to speak on the subject maintain that the U.S. government should refrain from sponsorship, that expenses need to be covered for Cuban students, and that postgraduate researchers and later graduate students are the most likely subjects to receive travel permits. More extensive partner agreements with U.S. colleges and universities with Cuba’s university system offer possibilities for a time when relations improve between the two governments. Examples already exist between the University of Havana and many higher educational institutions in South America. Conclusions For now, prospects for meaningful exchanges and study opportunities between Cuba and the United States remain limited because of political and financial factors. Brief encounters like conferences do take place in both countries and third nations. However, regular extended study opportunities are really practical only for Americans who visit Cuba. And while private citizens make up almost all U.S. exchange and student populations, only trusted state workers may participate on Cuba’s side. In that sense, exchanges are still a one-way street. Over the long term, making exchanges less one-sided and more productive is worth the effort. For both nations, exchanges help participants gain situational and contextual awareness of the environment that their counterparts inhabit and establish communication links that can be strengthened when diplomatic relations improve. For foreign participants, they offer a lens through which to view the United States in a positive light. Moreover, they afford a basis for extending cooperation in mutually beneficial areas when and if political relations between the two countries begin to improve. Although the United States has an abiding interest in the

well-being and freedom of Cubans as neighbors, particularly the courageous dissidents for whom it has been a steadfast advocate, it should be willing to open channels for discussion with members of the regime as well. As the Castro brothers face fewer days in leadership, such channels become even more salient. Because education , medicine , and science are important sectors in the Cuban state and have been traditional areas of mutual interest, a concerted effort on these subjects makes sense. Experienced organizers suggest that the best ways to get the most out of exchange opportunities are the following: ■ Plan early for conferences: the bureaucratic hurdles can take months to overcome. ■ Ensure that exchange events incorporate balanced inputs from both sides and respect counterparts’ pride of accomplishment. ■ Ensure that exchanges are mutually beneficial and avoid political “hot buttons” as well as controversial figures. ■ Allow a partner institution in Cuba to navigate the bureaucratic maze on the other side of the Florida Straits. ■ For now, refrain from attempting to recruit participants in Cuba or give too much prominence to particular attendees: doing so could have unfavorable consequences for them. ■ Regarding study opportunities in the United States, government sponsorship seems to be a deal breaker. Furthermore, sponsoring institutions should be prepared to assume all costs. ■ Ways to develop confidence leading to greater openness with students may include developing long-distance education opportunities, ride-aboard agreements on research vessels, and study opportunities in third countries where U.S. institutions have foreign campuses. Certain policy changes on each side could benefit these exchanges: ■ The United States could streamline the nonimmigrant visa application process and lower fees . ■ Cuba could eliminate the need for exit permits so that all citizens—state employees, students, and independent entrepreneurs alike—could travel abroad more freely. ■ By respecting civil liberties such as freedom of expression and association along with greater economic liberalization, the Cuban government could make life on the island more tolerable to curb emigration. Until the last recommendation becomes a reality, the U.S. Congress will have little appetite for rescinding the Cuban Adjustment Act . Still, given the trend in modest economic and even minor political reforms, the time could be ripe for U.S.-Cuban people-to-people exchanges to begin to make a difference. The Obama administration thinks so and has eased some limits on contacts and travel. For now, academic exchanges will not assist the cause of Cuba’s human rights activists, aid Cuba’s independent journalists, or nurture independent Cuban nongovernmental organizations for which separate programs exist. What they will do is sustain lines of communication in anticipation of the day when political conditions improve . Meanwhile, meaningful reform on Cuba’s part should be met by a meaningful U.S. response. In 2002, President George W. Bush said, “The goal of the United States policy toward Cuba is not a permanent embargo on Cuba’s economy. The goal is freedom for Cuba’s people”—even those, like most of the population, who are compelled to work for the state. 50

Cooperation spills over to solve alternate causes Cathy Campbell, 2010, President and chief executive officer of CRDF Global - an independent
nonprofit organization that promotes international scientific and technical collaboration, “Send in the Scientists: Why Mobilizing America’s Researchers Makes Sense for Diplomacy” http://scienceprogress.org/2010/10/send_scientists/

Mobilizing America’s researchers for science diplomacy makes sense for three reasons. First, many of today’s global challenges—food, water, energy, climate, and health—require technical solutions. Scientists, engineers and innovators must be involved in understanding these problems and then designing and implementing the proposed solutions. In a flat world, scientists must work in partnership with colleagues around the world. Very few of today’s global challenges are confined to any single country. Disease, drought, and environmental degradation know no borders. They can be successfully addressed only through cross-border collaboration.

AT – Say No
Cuba is open to foreign biotech investment Nicholas Ward, 2012, National Post Reporter, “Investment climate dawns in Cuba, but U.S.
stays shut” AP http://www.lexisnexis.com/lnacui2api/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T 17783362277&format=GNBFI&sort=BOOLEAN&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T1778336228 1&cisb=22_T17783362280&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=397227&docNo=16 Larger-scale foreign investment is still restricted, but investors and observers in Cuba predict a relaxation of the rules in the near future. Hugo Pons, vice-president of Cuba's National Association of Economists and Accountants (ANEC), is optimistic Cuba will become more open to foreign investment, specifically in the biotech and mining industries. "Cuba has the knowledge and capabilities to develop new technologies. [But] to do that, Cuba needs capital, and [the government] is open to [listening] to proposals of mutual benefit," he says. The Canadian government
and Canadian business leaders have cultivated close ties with Cuba. Many Canadian companies are also exploring business opportunities there, hoping to be ready when and if the market opens up. While it is uncertain how quickly Cuba will implement any new reforms, it is unlikely to retreat from the ones already introduced. "I don't think anybody or anything can stop this process," says Marc Frank, correspondent with the London-based Financial Times. "The

changes they're making and the way

they're making them ... it is not reversible."

Cuba would say yes EDWARD P. DJEREJIAN, 2011, Founding director of the James A. Baker III Institute for Public
Policy at Rice University, is a former U.S. ambassador to Syria and to Israel; Lane is a senior fellow in science and technology policy at the Baker Institute as well as the Malcolm Gillis University Professor and a professor of physics and astronomy at Rice University; Matthews is a fellow in science and technology policy at the Baker Institute and a lecturer for the Wiess School of Natural Sciences at Rice University. “Science, diplomacy and international collaboration” http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/Science-diplomacy-and-internationalcollaboration-1683250.php The recent dramatic events taking place in the broader Middle East pose major challenges for the United States, making it all the more important that the Obama administration craft policies that respond to the dynamics of change in the region. One often-neglected but powerful diplomatic tool is known as "science diplomacy," the sharing of scientific information and establishing scientific collaborations with nations in which the United States has limited political relations. Polls show that American scientific research is widely respected throughout the world, even in nations whose citizens do not, overall, have a positive opinion of the United States. For instance, a 2004 Zogby poll showed that only 11 percent of Moroccans have a positive view of the United States, but 90 percent had a favorable view of U.S. science. Of 43 countries surveyed, U.S. science exceeded the general favorability of the United States by an average of 23 points. For this reason, it is often possible to establish constructive discussions and cooperative scientific efforts, especially ones that relate to food, water, health, energy and other human needs, when other channels of communication are closed.

Lifting Barriers Key
Lifting restrictions would rapidly increase cooperation b/t the US and Cuba – solves for Cuba’s limiting lack of laboratory space Agre 11 - American physician, professor, and molecular biologist who was awarded the 2003 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his
discovery of aquaporins. (Peter, “Life on the River of Science”, 1/28/11, http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6016/416.short, HW) Cuba. Together with members of the New America Foundation, a trip to Havana, Cuba, was made in November 2009. Our trip, the first AAAS visit since 1997, included a visit to the Finlay Center for Vaccines Research and Production, where we observed the Cuban efforts to prevent infectious diseases such as type B meningococcal meningitis. Endemic

before the Revolution, malaria has been eliminated from Cuba, despite a heavy malaria presence in Haiti, just to the east. Cuban efforts to provide universal prenatal health care have succeeded in raising the average life span to 78+ years, equivalent to that in the United States. The University of Havana generates a large number of science graduates, but laboratory opportunities are limited. Certainly the investment of funds in laboratories to train young scientists could be mutually beneficial to Cuba and the United States. Potential scientific collaborations could be rapidly undertaken once the five-decade political standoff between our governments is resolved.

Lifting visa and export restrictions key to science cooperation EDWARD P. DJEREJIAN, 2011, Founding director of the James A. Baker III Institute for Public
Policy at Rice University, is a former U.S. ambassador to Syria and to Israel; Lane is a senior fellow in science and technology policy at the Baker Institute as well as the Malcolm Gillis University Professor and a professor of physics and astronomy at Rice University; Matthews is a fellow in science and technology policy at the Baker Institute and a lecturer for the Wiess School of Natural Sciences at Rice University. “Science, diplomacy and international collaboration” http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/Science-diplomacy-and-internationalcollaboration-1683250.php Many U.S. scientists are eager to work with their counterparts in other countries, but significant barriers to international collaborations remain in place, especially U.S. policies on visas and export controls. Foreign students and visiting scientists continue to have trouble obtaining visas to study or attend conferences in the United States. In addition, the State Department's handling of export controls limits interactions between scientists and in some cases inhibits U.S. industry development. By deeming a large and overly broad list of scientific areas as military-sensitive (including computer software and hardware, biological materials and space technology, much of which is available from foreign companies) the federal government has created an environment where collaboration is unnecessarily difficult and sometimes impossible. Although the Obama administration has been working to improve how the federal government handles export controls as well as visas, there is still much to be done.

Offcase

Non-UQ
No disads – small agreements already in place make them non-unique and the plan is popular Pollack 2004
*Andrew Pollack. Holds a master’s degree in civil and environmental engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and has covered the business and science of biotechnology since 2000. Writing for New York Times. “U.S. Permits 3 Cancer Drugs From Cuba.” July 15, 2004. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/15/business/technology-us-permits-3cancer-drugs-from-cuba.html] WD The federal government is permitting a California biotechnology company to license three experimental cancer drugs from Cuba, making an exception to the policy of tightly restricting trade with that country. The company, CancerVax, had said late last year that it was trying to license the drugs and had been awaiting needed permission from the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control. That permission has been granted, and CancerVax is expected to announce it today. CancerVax executives said that it was the first time an American biotechnology company had obtained permission to license a drug from Cuba, a country that some industry executives and scientists say is surprisingly strong in biotechnology for a developing nation. In 1999, SmithKline Beecham, a large conventional pharmaceutical company now known as GlaxoSmithKline, licensed a Cuban vaccine for meningitis B that it is testing in clinical trials. ''I think there are other product candidates and technology in Cuba that could be helpful to the American people, not just the American people but people around the world,'' said David F. Hale, chief executive of CancerVax, a newly public company that does not yet have any drugs on the market. Mr. Hale said that he had been pursuing the Cuban drugs since he first saw a poster about the work at an American cancer conference three years ago. A spokesman for the State Department, which helps rule on such licenses, said that the exception had been made because of the life-saving potential of the experimental Cuban drugs and that the license approval did not represent a relaxation of the trade policy. ''These three drugs are claimed to be revolutionary life-saving medications,'' said the spokesman, who agreed to comment only if not identified by name. ''As such, upon review it was decided that the company should have an opportunity to further research and verify the claims about these drugs.'' CancerVax, which is based in Carlsbad, Calif., plans to test the drugs in clinical trials and bring them to market if they pass muster. The first one, Mr. Hale said, which has already shown some promise in small trials, could reach the market in 2008 or 2009. The licensing deal calls for CancerVax to pay $6 million over the next three years, during the development stage. If products reach the market, the company would pay up to $35 million more. As a government condition of allowing the license, payments to Cuba during the developmental phase would be in goods like food or medical supplies, to avoid providing the Cuban government with currency. Any payments after drugs reach the market, Mr. Hale said, could be half in cash. The agreement comes shortly after the Bush administration put into effect new restrictions on visits to Cuba and cash remittances by Americans. The administration has also stated that it believes Cuba has at least a limited biological weapons research effort and that it has provided biotechnology to other ''rogue states'' that might be used either for medical purposes or in development of biological weapons. The Cuban government has denied it is developing such

weapons. Representatives from both parties had sent letters to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell urging that permission be granted on medical grounds. One letter writer, Senator Christopher J. Dodd, the Democrat from Connecticut, hailed the government decision as good news in a statement issued yesterday. ''Saving lives shouldn't be a political issue,'' he said. H.P. Goldfield and Richard A. Popkin, Washington lawyers hired by CancerVax to help win approval, said there had been no real opposition.

Cuba and US increase discussions, increasing travel approval Associated Press 6/17 (“US, Cuba to resume talks on direct mail, official says.” 7/13/13.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/17/us-cuba-to-resume-talks-on-direct-mail-officialsays/. KJ) The resumption in talks does not signify any change in the Obama administration's Cuba policy, the official said, stressing that the discussions are taking place in the context of the Cuba Democracy Act of 1992 and are consistent with the U.S. interest "in promoting the free flow of information to, from and within Cuba." ¶ ¶ Cuba and the United States have had no direct mail service since 1963, though letters do go back and forth via third countries. ¶ ¶ In and of themselves, the discussions are not particularly significant, but the fact the two Cold War enemies are talking at all is. And, in the past, both governments have used the bilateral meetings as a pretext to discuss wider issues .
In 2009, a senior State Department official in Havana for mail talks ended up staying six extra days and even spoke secretly with Cuba's deputy foreign minister -- then the highest-level meeting between the two sides in decades. ¶ ¶ The mail talks and separate negotiations on immigration have been on hold since then over demands by Washington that Cuba release jailed American subcontractor Alan Gross. ¶ ¶ Gross was arrested in December 2009 while on a USAID-funded democracy building program and is serving a 15-year sentence after being caught bringing communications equipment onto the island illegally. ¶ ¶ Washington has continued to insist that no major progress in improving ties is possible while Gross is in jail. Cuba, for its part, is asking Washington to release four Cuban intelligence agents serving long jail terms in the United States. A fifth completed his sentence earlier this year and was allowed to return to Cuba after he renounced his American citizenship. ¶ ¶ In

recent months, Cuban and U.S. officials have spoken of a better working relationship, with diplomats on both sides routinely granted approval to travel outside each other's capital. But whether the behind-the-scenes thaw will result in
any improvement in the countries' formal relationship is anybody's guess.¶ Read more:

Now is time to increase relations, more Cuban Americans welcome relations with Cuba Haven 6/21 (Paul, “Cuba, US try talking, but face many obstacles.” 7/13/13.
http://www.newsdaily.com/article/f150f522ad1030d68179cc16644f6483/cuba-us-try-talkingbut-face-many-obstacles. KJ) Despite that rhetoric, many experts think 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 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 doesn't 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 CubanAmericans in Miami-Dade County that said 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 some sort of understanding with the Cuban government."

Ptix Link Turns

Science Cooperation
Science cooperation is bipartisan – overwhelming congressional support House.gov 12 – House of representatives media and reporting service. (House, “Carnahan Introduces Bipartisan
International Science Cooperation Legislation”, 6/7/12, http://votesmart.org/public-statement/702595/carnahan-introducesbipartisan-international-science-cooperation-legislation#.Ud3ScPnVCSp, HW)

Congressman Russ Carnahan (D-MO) today joined with Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Chair of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, to introduce the International Science and Technology Cooperation Act (ISTCA). This legislation will establish a body at the White House Office of Science
and Technology Policy to make certain that international science and technology strategy across American agencies is coordinated.

The bill would strengthen U.S. science and technology enterprise, improve economic and national security and support U.S. foreign policy goals. "International science and technology cooperation promotes the national security and economic competitiveness of the United States," said Rep. Carnahan. "Forging networks abroad helps the United States and its partners find technical solutions to key global challenges, promotes economic development at home, promotes American values, and protects our national security by contributing to the longterm stability of countries vulnerable to terrorist influence." The ISTCA is endorsed by The American
Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and CRDF Global, an independent nonprofit organization that promotes international scientific and technical collaboration. "As

scientific issues become ever more global, it is essential for the United States to develop a coherent approach to addressing scientific challenges and opportunities," said Vaughan Turekian, AAAS chief international officer and director of the Center for Science Diplomacy. "Legislation such as this would provide one way to help the government organize around those efforts. Science is an area that has always had the strong support of both major U.S. political parties. It is particularly encouraging to see that international science cooperation is being reaffirmed by Congress as well as the Administration." Last Congress, the International Science and Technology Cooperation Act of 2009 passed the House with overwhelming bipartisan support by a vote of 341-52. This legislation will improve U.S. participation in international science and technology cooperation, ensure more efficient use of resources, and help the U.S. maintain its leadership in the global science arena, while creating NO additional
spending. "As an organization that facilitates international science and technology, CRDF Global works closely with thousands of scientists and scores of U.S. government agencies and laboratories," said CRDF Global President and CEO Cathy Campbell. "We believe the

International Science and Technology Cooperation Act is a solid, bipartisan approach to establish greater strategic impact, improve coordination across agencies, maximize limited resources and increase efficiencies." Rep. Carnahan and Rep. Ros-Lehtinen were joined in introducing the ISTCA by original co-sponsors Judy Biggert, David Cicilline, Eliot L. Engel, Rush Holt, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Daniel Lipinski, Brad Miller, James Moran and Eleanor Holmes Norton.

Science cooperation bipartisan and key to leadership – recent bills and empirics prove Campbell 10 - president and CEO of the Arlington, VA-based CRDF—a non-government organization focused on establishing
peace and prosperity across the globe through science and technology cooperation. Ms. Campbell has nearly three decades of international science and technology policy and program management experience. - See more at: http://blog.psaonline.org/2010/03/18/science-diplomacy-gets-a-boost-with-new-bipartisan-bill-2/#sthash.8LcSIRKI.dpuf. (Cathy, “Science Diplomacy gets a Boost with New Bipartisan Bill”, 3/18/10, http://blog.psaonline.org/2010/03/18/science-diplomacy-getsa-boost-with-new-bipartisan-bill-2/, HW) Last Friday, Reps.

Howard Berman (D- CA) and Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE) introduced the Global Science Program for Security, Competitiveness, and Diplomacy Act, which proposes an increase in the application of science and scientific engagement in America’s foreign policy. This follows the recent appointment of U.S. Science Envoys by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, and

according to its authors, “formalizes the Obama Administration’s intention to enhance international science cooperation.” Science and technology (S&T) remain among the most admired aspects of American society, even among nations without a wholly favorable opinion of the U.S. Science has the power to inform decisions and serve as a core instrument of diplomacy. Science cooperation is critical to America’s ability to win worldwide respect and support and can help build bridges for peace and prosperity worldwide. Beyond simply calling for a larger role for science, the bipartisan bill details a variety of applications ranging from advancements in academic science and technology to the nonproliferation of WMD expertise, all of which seem pragmatic and feasible. On the
surface, the bill addresses a sensible and thorough approach to deploying scientific research and technological development to engage foreign counterparts over the long term. Notably, this bill seems to reflect the “smart power” sentiments of former Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage and former Assistant Secretary of Defense Joseph S. Nye Jr., whose 2007 editorial challenged readers to, “Stop getting Mad, America. Get Smart.” ‘Smart

power’ (soft power) advocates contend that hard power (military might) alone cannot sustainably secure America’s long-term goals. Instead, the smart power approach to foreign policy invests in the global good, builds sensible alliances and collaborations by placing America’s strengths forward, and charges the public— nonprofits, academic institutions and individuals who, by the very nature of their work, engage in public diplomacy each day—to identify and pursue real opportunities to achieve peace, stability and prosperity. Among the most valuable assets of American smart power is science. The bill further echoes the appeals of former Under Secretary of State Ambassador Paula J. Dobriansky, who advocated
for a larger role for science and technology-based engagement throughout her tenure. As far back as the early, post-Cold War days, there were those who saw the long-term value of science engagement for building a safer and more prosperous America. There

is also a long history of bipartisanship on science diplomacy that includes the development of scientific exchanges between the U.S. and the Soviet Union during the Cold War, the U.S.Japan S&T cooperation in the 1960s and the U.S.-China Agreement on Cooperation in Science and Technology in 1979. For those of us involved in international science engagement—particularly non-governmental
organizations, this bill represents a very important first step in realizing the opportunities that lie ahead. The nascent bill’s journey has only just begun and many hurdles remain as it is reviewed by various Congressional committees, and navigates the greatest obstacles of any new legislation—time and relevance to contemporary concerns. Collectively,

however, we hope that given the tremendous opportunities and potential gains for America to restore its global leadership, to effect solutions to WMD proliferation and to vastly expand access to potential collaborators, business partners,
academic exchanges and the types of valuable relationships that transcend political borders, that such hurdles will be overcome. Time will tell.

Generic Embargo
Plan popular – change in political atmosphere means Obama won’t lose PC AP 6/21
(Associated Press, WDEF News, “Cuba, US try talking, but face many obstacles,” http://www.wdef.com/news/world/story/Cuba-US-try-talking-but-face-manyobstacles/NF6nxerKV0SVtDgeVp-G0A.cspx, 6/23. RJ) HAVANA (AP) — They've hardly become allies, but Cuba and the U.S. have taken some baby steps toward rapprochement in recent weeks that have people on this island and in Washington wondering if a breakthrough in relations could be just over the horizon.¶ Skeptics caution that the Cold War enemies have been here many times
before, only to fall back into old recriminations. But there are signs that views might be shifting on both sides of the Florida Straits.¶ In the past week, the two countries have held talks on resuming direct mail service, and announced a July 17 sit-down on migration issues. In May, a U.S. federal judge allowed a convicted Cuban intelligence agent to return to the island. This month, Cuba informed the family of jailed U.S. government subcontractor Alan Gross that it would let an American doctor examine him, though the visit has apparently not yet happened. Castro making it easier for Cubans to travel off the island.¶ Under the radar, diplomats

has also ushered in a series of economic and social changes, including on both sides describe a sea

change in the tone of their dealings.¶ Only last year, Cuban state television was broadcasting grainy footage of American diplomats meeting with dissidents on Havana streets and publically accusing them of being CIA front-men. Today, U.S. diplomats in Havana and Cuban Foreign Ministry officials have easy contact, even sharing home phone numbers.¶
Josefina Vidal, Cuba's top diplomat for North American affairs, recently traveled to Washington and met twice with State Department officials — a visit that came right before the announcements of resumptions in the two sets of bilateral talks that had been suspended for more than two years. Washington

has also granted visas to prominent Cuban officials, including the daughter of Cuba's president.¶ "These recent steps indicate a desire on both sides to try to move forward, but also a recognition on both sides of just how difficult it is to make real progress," said Robert Pastor, a professor of international relations at American University and former national security adviser
on Latin America during the Carter administration. "These are tiny, incremental gains, and the prospects of going backwards are equally high."¶ Among the things that have changed, John Kerry has taken over as U.S. secretary of state after being an outspoken critic of Washington's policy on Cuba while in the Senate. President Barack Obama no longer has re-election concerns while dealing with the Cuban-American electorate in Florida, where there

are also indications of a warming attitude to

negotiating with Cuba.¶ Cuban President Raul Castro, meanwhile, is striving to overhaul the island's Marxist economy with a dose of limited free-market capitalism and may feel a need for more open relations with the U.S. While direct American investment is still barred on the island, a rise in visits and money transfers by Cuban-Americans since Obama relaxed restrictions has been a boon for Cuba's cash-starved economy. Under the table, Cuban-Americans are also helping relatives on the island start private businesses and refurbish homes bought under Castro's limited free-market reforms.¶ Several prominent Cuban dissidents have been allowed to travel recently due to Castro's changes. The trips have been applauded by Washington, and also may have lessened Havana's worries about the threat posed by dissidents.¶ Likewise, a U.S. federal judge's decision to allow Cuban spy Rene Gonzalez to return home was met with only muted criticism inside the United States, perhaps emboldening U.S. diplomats to seek further openings with Cuba.¶ To be sure, there is still far more that separates the long-time antagonists than unites them.¶ The State Department has kept Cuba on a list of state sponsors of terrorism and another that calls into question Havana's commitment to fighting human trafficking. The Obama administration continues to demand democratic change on an island ruled for more than a half century by Castro and his brother Fidel.¶ For its part, Cuba continues to denounce Washington's 51-year-old economic embargo.¶ 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 won't 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.¶ "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 people's 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 CubanAmerican politician from Florida, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, scolded Obama for seeking "dialogue with the dictatorship."¶ Despite that rhetoric, many

experts think 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 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 doesn't 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 MiamiDade County that said 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 some sort of understanding with the Cuban government."

Plan popular – key republican supports bill CNN 09
(February 23, 2009, CNNPolitics.com, “Key GOP senator calls Cuba embargo ineffective,” http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/23/cuba.lugar/, ACCESSED 6/24, RJ) Sen. Richard Lugar, the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, released a draft report Monday saying it is time to reconsider longtime U.S. economic sanctions on Cuba.¶ "After 47 years ... the unilateral embargo on Cuba has failed to achieve its stated purpose of 'bringing democracy to the Cuban people,' " Lugar, R-Indiana, wrote in a letter that accompanied the report.¶ "The current U.S. policy has many passionate defenders, and their criticism of the Castro regime is justified. Nevertheless, we must recognize the ineffectiveness of our current policy and deal with the Cuban regime in a way that enhances U.S. interests."¶ Lugar's letter preceded a 21-page draft report by the Republican members of the committee
titled "Changing Cuba Policy -- In the United States National Interest."¶ U.S. officials long have defended the trade embargo on Cuba -- initiated in 1962 -- as a way of pressuring the communist nation and its leaders, Fidel Castro and his brother, Raul, the country's current president, to move toward democracy.¶ The United States also has imposed travel restrictions on Cuba, which lies 90 miles south of Florida.¶ In October, the U.N. General Assembly passed a resolution urging the United States to end its trade embargo on Cuba -- a vote that was praised by Cuban Foreign Minister Felipe Perez Roque as "a clear and direct message to the next president of the United States about the necessity to change this obsolete and cruel policy."¶ During his candidacy, President

Obama said that he would be willing to meet with Cuba's leaders as well as the leadership of other countries that do not have diplomatic ties with the United States.¶ A month after Obama's election, Fidel Castro penned an essay in which he said he would be open to the idea of meeting with the new U.S. leader.¶ But the communist leader warned that Obama "must be reminded that the carrot-and-stick theory
cannot be applied in our country."

Support for bill growing now – Florida rep Meinhardt, Staff Writer for Tampa Bay Business Journal, 3/27
(Jaane, Mar 27, 2013, Tampa Bay Business Journal, “Florida Congresswoman Castor reveals support for ending Cuban embargo,” http://www.bizjournals.com/tampabay/blog/morningedition/2013/03/florida-congresswoman-castor-reveals.html , ACCESSED June 27, 2013, RJ) U.S. Rep. Kathy Castor believes it is time to end the embargo against Cuba. The Tampa Democrat voiced those thoughts and made history by becoming the first Florida member of Congress to publicly support lifting the embargo when she made a speech March 22 at an evening reception at Mise en Place for the Rapprochement With Cuba conference. “It is time for the U.S. to modernize its relationship with Cuba, lift the embargo and end restrictions on American’s rights to travel to Cuba,” Castor said in an exclusive statement to the Tampa Bay Business Journal. Florida’s members of Congress, particularly those representing South Florida, have for years been staunch, vocal supporters of the Cuban embargo. The embargo, instituted about 51 years ago, imposes economic sanctions, restrictions on travel to the island and prohibits — with a few exceptions — trade and business with Cuba.

Lifting the embargo has bipartisan support- A majority of Democrats, Republicans, and independents support lifting it Canseco, VP at Angus Reid Public Opinion, 2012 (Mario, 2/6/2006, “Most Americans Willing to Re-establish Ties with Cuba,” Online: http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/44366/most-americans-willing-to-re-establish-tieswith-cuba/ FG) Most Americans Willing to Re-establish Ties with Cuba. A majority of respondents also wants to lift the travel ban that prevents most Americans from visiting Cuba. People in the United States are ready to change their country’s interaction with Cuba, a new Angus Reid Public Opinion poll has found. In the online survey of a representative national sample of 1,008 American adults, three-in-five respondents (62%) agree with the U.S. re-establishing diplomatic relations with Cuba, while one-in-four (23%) disagree. Majorities of Independents (67%), Democrats (64%) and Republicans (56%) agree with re-instituting to bilateral ties. In March 2009, U.S. President Barack Obama eased travel restrictions to Cuba, and allowed U.S. citizens to travel to the island for religious and cultural reasons. Most Americans (57%) believe it is time to lift the travel ban that prevents most Americans from visiting the island. Half of Americans (51%) would lift the trade embargo with Cuba that has been in place since the 1960s, while three-in-ten (29%) disagree. Most Democrats (53%) and Independents (55%) support ending the embargo, but Republicans are not as convinced (46%). The notion of supporting non-governmental groups in Cuba in order to foster protests against the current regime did not resonate with Americans. Across the country, only 35 per cent of respondents endorse this course of action. Two-thirds of Hispanics (67%) support re-establishing diplomatic relations with Cuba, and their views on the travel ban and the trade embargo mirror those of the entire sample of Americans.

The embargo kills the Cuban economy, hurts the people and there is widespread American support to revoke it. Trani, University Distinguished Professor at Virginia Commonwealth University, 2013 [Eugene, 6-23-2013, Timesdispatch.com, “End the Embargo on Cuba,” http://www.timesdispatch.com/opinion/their-opinion/columnists-blogs/guestcolumnists/end-the-embargo-on-cuba/article_ba3e522f-8861-5f3c-bee9000dffff8ce7.html EJH]
At the same time, there are many significant problems that tend to hurt the Cuban people most at risk in economic terms. The visit of a cruise ship to a Cuban port results in that ship being unable, no matter which flag registry the ship has, to dock in the United States for six months. This policy really hurts the Cuban tourist economy, which could greatly improve employment and job creation across Cuba.¶ If Cuban materials are used in the construction of cars (more than 4% nickel for example), these cars cannot be sold in the United States, a policy which works against the rise of an automobile-based manufacturing segment of the Cuban economy.¶ The American embargo has had, therefore, very significant impact on different parts of the economy in Cuba. In fact, such varied political leaders as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; George P. Shultz, former Republican secretary of state; and the late former Democratic presidential candidate, George McGovern, have called for the embargo to be lifted and relations to be renewed between Cuba and the United States. Even polls of

Americans show a majority in favor of an end to the embargo and re-establishing of normal relations between the countries.

Trade Off
Thinking of science as “zero sum” is empirically disproven Ventura 5 - well‐known international authority on the development and application of science and technology for socio‐
economic development, and a former Special Science and Technology Advisor to the Prime Minister of Jamaica. He has over thirty years of experience in research and development, technological investment and the commercial application ofresearch results. (Arnoldo, “Cooperation is key to scientific growth in the Americas”, 1/24/2005, http://www.scidev.net/global/opinion/cooperationis-key-to-scientific-growth-in-the-ame.html, HW)

One of the great contradictions of our time is tacit acceptance of the wide gap between the rhetoric of the importance of science and technology to socio-economic development, and the actual commitment — and paltry political will — to move from words to actions. Perhaps the most compelling explanation of this gap is the view that science and technology exist within a 'zero sum paradigm', at both local and international levels. In other words, it is the belief that sharing science and technology — today's most powerful tools for promoting competition and innovation — diminishes the power of the giver, while providing undue leverage to the recipient. History, however, tells a different story. All the current economic 'powerhouse' countries were once weak, and benefited from science and technology from the more technologically advanced nations. Initially it was Europe that acquired and shared knowledge from the old empires of China, India and Arabia. Then the United States gained from Europe, and eventually Japan from the Western industrialised countries. In the long run, therefore, sharing scientific and technical knowledge benefits both the giver and receiver. Today, however, unnecessary barriers to the flow of scientific and technical knowledge are stifling production in countries that contain more than half of the world’s population. And one of our greatest challenges is therefore to find ways of collaborating on building meaningful science and technology partnerships among neighbours, thereby creating expanded and more vibrant markets, and enhanced socioeconomic progress.

Science diplomacy is not zero sum, it helps all parties involved and works as a unique vehicle to strengthen the US’s image Kerr 9 - professor of medicine at Oxford University and a former adviser to Tony Blair and David Cameron. (David, “Science can
bridge national divides” 6/22/2009, http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2009/jun/22/science-diplomacy-obamaadministration, HW)

And it's not bad for international relations either. Small wonder that science diplomacy – admittedly a fluid concept still searching for a precise definition – has caught the attention of the Obama administration as it kits itself out with the tools of soft diplomacy to repair America's tarnished image in the Middle East and elsewhere. A number of key US advisers including Hillary Clinton's
science adviser Nina Fedoroff and Harold Varmus, the co-chair of Barack Obama's Council of Advisers on Science and Technology, are known to be strong advocates. Varmus extolled the value of science in diplomacy, arguing that, “One

very healthy way to build relationships up when they have deteriorated is to get the scientists together… we’re used to internationalism, it’s part of the way we live.” President Obama himself gave a nod in the direction of
science diplomacy in his Cairo speech to the Muslim world earlier this month. We must, “Listen to each other... learn from each other... seek common ground,” he said, before announcing a new fund to support technological development in Muslim-majority countries to help transfer ideas to the marketplace and create jobs. With this new focus, however, come warnings about the dangers of mixing science and diplomacy. And of course if scientists were simply to become pawns in an inter-state power play then the whole thing collapses. Scientists should and do have more self-respect and dedication to their field of inquiry than that.

Science diplomacy works when there is shared interest and that is scientific progress – not leveraging state power through the proxy of science. Science diplomacy need not be a zero-

sum game in which what is good for one nation state is necessarily bad for another. The imperatives of globalisation have brought into sharp focus the need for countries to collaborate on a multitude of issues. Granted, the stimulus for collaboration remains the selfish national interest, but increasingly what is good for the one is good for the many. Efforts to combat trans-border health threats such as Sars and swine flu are cases in point. Science diplomacy in the modern world should be seen as a tool for good used by states where national interests intersect with the goals of others. Seeing it any other way risks obscuring the very real benefits it can bring for science and for the global
community – namely the establishment of non-threatening, collaborative environments between individuals from different states where shared scientific goals overshadow pre-existing conflicts. The Synchrotron project in Jordan is a perfect example. Scientists can clearly benefit from science diplomacy. Approached

honestly – with an understanding that science diplomacy necessarily needs national self-interest to be self-sustaining – it has a lot to offer.
For governments, it is admittedly more difficult to measure the benefits in any rigorous scientific way. But it is hard to see how any government that offered tangible health improvement, for example, to a nation with whom it wished to develop stronger diplomatic links would not gain a deeper relationship with its people. No wonder Obama is keen to use science to prise open the doors of countries that are minded to slam them shut in his face. America's

reputation may be in the pits, but that of its scientists is not. So science diplomacy has enormous potential as a political framework though it
will not by itself help negotiate peace treaties, draw up boundaries between warring states or solve disputes over scarce global resources. Nor should it try. But

delivered thoughtfully and rigorously, science diplomacy can open doors between peoples in conflict, keep them open when relationships are tough, and help unlock the potential of our global, collective body of knowledge.

U.S. Cuba bilateral cooperation is not zero sum—it is the prerequisite to opening up a greater awareness of the region and solving primary problems Hearn’9, June 2009,(Dr. Adrian H. Hearn is a research fellow at the School of Social and
Political Sciences, the University of Sydney. He has conducted research in Cuba (three years) and China (ten months), and is currently undertaking a study of Chinese engagement with Latin America. He is author of Cuba: Religion, Social Capital, and Development (Duke University Press 2008), China and Latin America: The Social Foundations of a Global Alliance (Duke University Press, forthcoming) and editor of Cultura, Tradición, y Comunidad: Perspectivas sobre el Desarrollo y Participación en Cuba (Imagen Contemporánea and UNESCO Center for Human Development 2008 http://cri.fiu.edu/research/commissioned-reports/cuba-china-hearn.pdf JP)

It is generally acknowledged that the U.S. embargo on Cuba has not achieved its economic or political goals. Even Cuban dissidents received the 2006 report of the Commission for a Free
Cuba with skepticism, criticizing it for “presuming what a Cuban transition must be”, and affirming that “only we Cubans, of our own volition...can decide issues of such singular importance” (quoted in Sullivan 2009:20).

A greater awareness of local socio-political dynamics in Cuba is sorely needed, and would be achieved by closer contact both at the interpersonal level, a prospect favored by 55.2 percent of Cuban Americans (FIU 2007), and through more interactive and coordinated commercial relations. Since 2002 the Unites States has been Cuba’s
largest food supplier, and in the wake of hurricanes Gustav and Ike in September 2008, the Cuban government expressed its readiness for deeper trade relations (Sullivan 2009:24). Rather

than dismiss this prospect on political grounds, economic openings and industrial coordination could be used to promote democratic outcomes. As the Inter-American Dialogue has concluded, “a democratic society in Cuba should be the objective of U.S. engagement, not a precondition” (IAD 2009:10). A policy outlook that engages Cuba as a stakeholder in the prevailing world system would advance negotiations and resolutions on long-contended political disputes. Encouraging rather than impeding Cuba’s participation in the Organization of American States and other multilateral institutions would be welcomed in the region (IAD 2009:10), and would encourage

much-needed multilateral dialogue on human rights, transparency, and sovereignty. This would also build international familiarity with the Cuban government’s industrial partnerships with China, economic objectives, and methods of calculating trade figures, which include social services not included in standard U.N. measures of economic output. Furthermore, multilateral

engagement would widen opportunities for cultural exchange, academic forums, and NGO access, which together would build a more realistic picture of local priorities, needs, and opportunities for building community welfare capacities. This process, in Marifeli Perez-Stable’s terms, would enable Havana and Washington “to formulate a ‘new beginning’ with words that do not prune the dialogue before it can blossom” (2009; also see Colvin 2008:30-31).

Science Diplomacy solves for an array of both domestic and international challenges—makes it not zero sum
Carnahan’12 (Russ Carnahan represented Missouri’s Third Congressional District from 2005-2013 and served on the House Committees on Foreign Affairs, Transportation and Infrastructure, and Veterans’ Affairs http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/authors/russ-carnahan. JP)
As a member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and a former member of the House Committee on Science, I believe that the

coordination of international science and technology (S&T) diplomacy is paramount to U.S. interests. The United States has the potential to build more positive relationships with other countries through science. Our country can better advance U.S. national security and economic interests by helping build technological capacities in other nations and working with international partners to solve global challenges. This is why I have worked in a bipartisan manner to lead the
introduction of four bills at the intersection of science and diplomacy: the International Science and Technology Cooperation Act; the Global Conservation Act; the Global Science Program for Security, Competitiveness, and Diplomacy Act; and the Startup Act 2.0. International challenges are just that: global in their scope and in their solutions. The

United States cannot solve multifaceted, multinational problems in scientific or diplomatic isolation. Forging networks with scientists and institutions abroad helps the United States and its partners find technical solutions to key global challenges. In an era where international skepticism about U.S. foreign policy abounds, civil society—including scientists and engineers—plays a critical role in reinforcing U.S. foreign policy priorities via engagement with its counterparts abroad. While many federal departments and agencies work with
international counterparts on S&T projects and issues, a coherent interagency strategy does not exist. In addition to the Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development, which both work regularly with international entities, any federal agency that does its own research or funds academic research engages in international S&T cooperation. This includes the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Commerce, and Health and Human Services as well as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Science Foundation (NSF). Further, some of the explicitly research-oriented agencies have offices or programs dedicated to international science, including the NSF, National Institutes of Health, and Department of Agriculture. With so many diverse —and oftentimes divergent—agencies involved in international S&T, it

is critical that the United States develop a mechanism to set federal priorities and achieve interagency coordination. This ensures the United States is deriving maximum scientific and diplomatic benefit from such cooperation and in the most efficient manner: yielding the greatest bang for the taxpayer buck. That is why, along with Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), the chair
of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, I am serving as the lead sponsor of the International Science and Technology Cooperation Act. The legislation establishes a body under the National Science and Technology Council at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy that will identify and coordinate the U.S. interagency strategy for international S&T cooperation. Such a strategy will strengthen the U.S. S&T enterprise, improve economic and national security, support U.S. foreign policy goals, and ensure efficient use of federal resources. The

bipartisan Global Conservation Act, which I am leading with Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE) who is my colleague on the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, uses a comprehensive and cost-

effective International Conservation Strategy to better coordinate U.S. programs that work to prevent the loss of our world’s natural systems. The Strategy will align key, ongoing U.S. and international conservation efforts, strengthening the United States’ ability to advance and compete for economic development opportunities and improve stability and security both domestically and abroad. Specifically, this legislation will help to limit environmental destruction in areas
wildlife trafficking in key regions, while maintaining properly managed wildlife for recreation and local use. The

vulnerable to conflict and instability; improve identification and protection of the most ecologically and economically significant natural areas and resources outside our borders; and address illegal and unregulated hunting, angling, logging, and

benefits of helping to preserve critical ecosystems, which comprise the fundamental building blocks of the world economy, national and regional security, and human health, are clear and indisputable.

Science Diplomacy is not zero sum—it is the platform for countries looking for better relationships Chan’12, January 2012, (Rachel Chan is a PDiN Contributing Researcher for CPD, helping to aggregate public diplomacy news
stories on a daily basis. A first-year Master of Public Diplomacy student from Singapore, she has a special interest in the cultural diplomacy and nation branding of Asia. Rachel majored in communication studies and minored in English Literature at Nanyang Technological University. http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/index.php/newswire/media_monitor_reports_detail/science_diplomacy/ JP)

Technological exchange is an important platform for countries looking to create better connections with the publics of other nations, and to establish and strengthen relationships. Technological exchanges can be particularly effective between developed and developing nations. With multiple scientific challenges like sustainability, pandemics, climate change, environmental disasters and overpopulation faced by the world today, technological exchanges are effective platforms for states and scientists to cooperate and share knowledge, expertise and resources. In turn, this can promote economic and social progress, and contribute to peace and security. Such exchanges can also be a means for developed countries to boost their soft power and international image with developing nations. This form of exchange diplomacy is enhanced by the fact that science diplomacy as a whole is better funded than cultural diplomacy, especially since it has the capacity to deliver tangible results in a shorter period of time. Next, technological exchange can also take place in the traditional sense of the word, where delegations travel to each other’s countries to share ideas on science, innovation and technology. The U.S. has several such exchanges with India, with the government playing a key role in setting the stage for
businesses, scientists, laboratories and institutions in both countries to collaborate with each other. These strategic public-private exchanges will not only develop India’s infrastructure and research capabilities, they offer a possible route for countering China’s rise by allying the United States with one of Beijing’s main rivals. Conferences are another form of technological exchange. The France-Israel Foundation, established in 2005, has brought together scientists from both countries at a yearly conference, with the objectives of shaping the respective images of France and Israel and cultivating deeper ties in science, as well as culture, economy and the media. The scientists are funded by the European Research Council, an independent organization which funds research in the European Union. This

example also further attests to the role that multilateral institutions can play as instruments of soft power.

Country Specific

Brazil
Numerous alt causes to US – Brazil relations, one of which is the Cuban embargo Einaudi 11 - U.S. career diplomat. He assumed the post of Acting Secretary General of the Organization of American States in
October 2004 upon the resignation of Secretary General Miguel Ángel Rodríguez. (Luigi, “Brazil and the United States: The Need for Strategic Engagement” March 2011, http://www.ndu.edu/inss/docuploaded/SF%20266%20Einaudi.pdf, HW)

As much as both countries need it, however, improved cooperation may require them to make changes for which they are not yet ready. Depending somewhat on their politics, many Brazilians will be dubious about cooperation with the United States as long as it continues to massively subsidize and protect key agricultural products, maintains an embargo on Cuba, is thought by important political groups to have ambitions on the Amazon or troops in South America, or fails to endorse Brazil’s UN Security Council ambitions. Similarly, some in the United States will question working closely with a Brazil that they see as enjoying the luxuries of the irresponsible until it accepts greater responsibility on nuclear nonproliferation (including more UN monitoring of its facilities), distances itself from Iran, is more present on democracy and human rights issues (in the Middle East, Cuba, Iran, and Venezuela), is more active on these issues at the UN and OAS, and generally treats the United States better in its diplomacy than it has often done recently.

Cuba already has scientific cooperation w/ Brazil; policies limiting engagement w/ the US are looked down on by Latin America Clegg 8 - the Foreign Secretary of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and Donald Bren Professor of Biological Sciences,
Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the School of Biological Sciences, University of California, Irvine. (Michael, “U.S.-Cuban Scientific Relations”, 10/17/8, http://penultimosdias.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/345.pdf, HW) Cuba has also made important strides in biotechnology, including the production of several important vaccines and monoclonal antibodies, and its research interests continue to expand in diverse fields, ranging from drug addiction treatment to the preservation of biodiversity. Cuban

scientists are engaged in research cooperation with many countries, including the United Kingdom, Brazil, Mexico, China, and India. Yet there is no program of cooperation with any U.S. research institution. The value system of science—openness, shared communication, integrity, and a respect for evidence—provides a framework for open engagement and could encourage evidence-based approaches that cross from science into the social, economic, and political arenas. Beyond allowing for the mutual leveraging of knowledge and resources, scientific contacts could build important cultural and social links among peoples. A recent Council on Foreign Relations report argues that the United States needs to revamp its engagement with Latin America because it is no longer the only significant force in this hemisphere. U.S. policies that are seen as unfairly penalizing Cuba, including the imposition of trade limitations that extend into scientific relations, continue to undermine U.S. standing in the entire region, especially because neither Cuba nor any other Latin American country imposes such restrictions. As a start, we urge that the present license that permits restricted travel to Cuba by scientists, as dictated by the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control, be expanded so as to allow direct cooperation in research. At the same time, Cuba should favor increased scientific exchanges. Allowing scientists to fully engage will not only support progress in science, it may well favor positive interactions elsewhere to promote human wellbeing. The U.S. embargo on Cuba has hindered exchanges for the past 50 years. Let us celebrate our mutual anniversaries by starting a new era of scientific cooperation.

India
India supports the repeal of the embargo MEA 13 – India’s ministry of external affairs. (MEA, “India – Cuba Relations”, February 2013,
http://mea.gov.in/Portal/ForeignRelation/Cuba.pdf, HW)

Indo-Cuba relations have been traditionally warm and friendly. India was amongst the first countries to extend recognition to Cuba after the 1959 Revolution. Both countries have maintained close contacts with each other in various international forums, such as the UN, NAM, WTO, etc. Both have supported each other's candidature to various UN bodies. India has been supporting Cuba against US supported resolutions at the UN Human Rights Council and also consistently voted in favour of Cuban sponsored resolutions in the UN General Assembly calling for lifting of US sanctions against Cuba. India has also been consistently supporting Cuba for removal of its name from the black list of Financial Action
Task Force (FATF).

India wants the US to get rid of the embargo UN 11 – United Nations. (UN, “India calls for end to US embargo against Cuba”, 10/11/11,
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/india-calls-for-end-to-us-embargo-against-cuba/1/157563.html, HW)

India on Wednesday called for an immediate end to the nearly half-century old US embargo against Cuba, saying it has undermined development of the country and affected the economic prosperity of the Cuban people. "On the one hand we, the global community, make tall promises on
Millennium Development Goals, of striving for human dignity and achieving equitable growth, but when it comes to action, we do the exact opposite," Minister of State for External Affairs E Ahamed said in the UN. He

said India supports the resolution moved by Cuba and joins other nations in calling for an immediate end to the economic, commercial and financial embargo against Havana. Terming as "unfortunate" the continued US embargo on Cuba, Ahamed said India sees this as a "violation of the world opinion, and an act that severely undermines multilateralism and the credibility of the United Nations itself." The UN General Assembly also renewed its call for the 20th consecutive year for an end to the embargo. In a
resolution adopted by 186 votes in favour to two against (Israel and the US), the Assembly reiterated its call to all States to refrain from applying laws and measures not conforming with their obligations to reaffirm freedom of trade. Introducing the text, Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez Parrilla said the US has never hidden the fact that the objective of the embargo which he said has caused more than USD 975 billion in damage to the Cuban people is to overthrow his country’s government. "What the US Government wants to see changed will not change," Parrilla said, adding that the Cuban Government will continue to be "the government of the people, by the people and for the people." "Our elections shall not be auction sales. There shall not be USD 4 billion electoral campaigns nor a parliament supported by 13 per cent of voters," he added. Ahamed said the Cuban people have suffered immensely due to the US embargo, which has severely undermined the progress and development of the country. "The

embargo, which perhaps has no parallel in history, is a transgression of the right of a sovereign state to development and to enjoy freedom of trade, economy and navigation," Ahamed said. He said the embargo has denied a life of respect and basic standard to the people of Cuba, making a call that "action must speak louder than words." The global economic
slowdown coupled with spiraling food and energy prices has made matters worse for the Cuban population.

China
China wants an end to the embargo—loss of engagement makes Cuba not involved to solve global challenges
Xinhua’10, June/2010, (China Daily was established in June 1981 and has the widest print circulation of any English-language newspaper in the country (over 500,000 copies per issue, of which a third are abroad). The editorial office is in the Chaoyang District of Beijing, and the newspaper has branch offices in most major cities of China as well as several major foreign cities including New York City, Washington, D.C., London and Kathmandu.[1] The paper is published by satellite in the United States, Hong Kong, and Europe.[2][3] http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2010-10/27/content_11461619.htm).JP UNITED NATIONS - China on Tuesday urged the United States to terminate as soon as possible its economic, commercial and financial embargo against Cuba. Wang Min, China's deputy permanent representative to the United Nations, made the appeal as he spoke at a UN General Assembly plenary meeting. Wang said the General Assembly has adopted resolutions by an overwhelming majority for eighteen consecutive years on the necessity of ending the US embargo against Cuba which has been imposed since 1961. "Regrettably, however, those resolutions have not been effectively implemented over the years, and the economic, commercial and financial embargo against Cuba imposed by the country concerned is yet to be lifted," he said. A UN report shows that the "economic embargo against Cuba over the past year remained unchanged in substance, thus continuing to inflict enormous economic and financial losses on Cuba," he said. "The international community is faced with multiple serious challenges of the financial, food and energy crises as well as climate change, which make the embargo and sanctions against Cuba all the more unreasonable." "The Chinese government urges the country concerned to terminate as soon as possible economic, commercial and financial embargo against Cuba," said the ambassador.

China encourages increased S&T advances with Latin America
Hurtado’11 August/2011, (Maria Elena Hurtado is a writer for SciDev.Net (the Science and Development Network) is a not-for-profit organisation the world’s leading source of reliable and authoritative news, views and analysis on information about science and technology for global development. They primarily engage with development professionals, policymakers, researchers, the media and the informed public. .[1] The organisation was founded in 2001[2] in response to the significant gap in scientific knowledge between rich and poor countries and with the understanding that “those who stand to benefit the most from modern science and technology are also those with the least access to information about it.[3]" SciDev.Net seeks to redress this imbalance via its free-to-access website, regional networks and specialist workshops.)JP [SANTIAGO] Chile, Colombia and Ecuador have strengthened their science and technology (S&T) collaboration with China by signing cooperation agreements over the last two weeks. The agreements highlight China's growing interest in collaboration with Latin American countries at a similar stage of development to itself. They will involve investment in basic research in different fields. They were signed during visits to the three countries by a 40-strong Chinese

delegation headed by China's secretary of state, Liu Yandong, and including vice minister of S&T, Cao Jianlin. The Chilean and Colombian agreements will focus on joint projects between research centres, universities and industry, including placements in China for postgraduate students. Priority areas in both agreements include agriculture, information and communication technologies, and renewable energies, as well as anti-seismic engineering in Chile. "Most Chilean buildings resisted February's very strong earthquake so China is interested in our antiseismic technology. [And] we want to learn about their earthquake monitoring network before we set ours in place," María Teresa Ramírez, director of the international relations department at Chile's National Commission on Science and Technology (CONICYT), told SciDev.Net. She added that the agreement is part of a plan to turn Chile into the regional platform from which Latin America can develop its relations with the Asia-Pacific region. It also "improves our ability to solve common problems with other Latin American countries in areas such as the environment, education and renewable energy," added Ramírez. As part of the agreements China has offered Chilean universities new equipment worth around US$750,000 to replace instruments destroyed by the earthquake. It also gave the Colombian government US$200,000 to repair infrastructure damaged by torrential rains in November. During the signing ceremony in Chile, Liu said that China wants to provide substantial support to basic scientific research, and that it wants to find ways to increase the energy efficiency of Latin American firms. The China– Ecuador agreement focuses on cooperation in agricultural research, technology and training as well as developments in biotechnology aimed at family agriculture, which makes up 85 per cent of the country's farming land. China has also donated US$2.9 million dollars to Ecuador for use in any science-related field. Osvaldo Rosales, head of the International Commerce and Integration Division of the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, told SciDev.Net: "The last decade saw a dramatic increase in Chinese–Latin American commerce and Chinese investment in our region. China intends to become a technological power by 2015 so it is looking for know-how in our region by signing bilateral agreements. "Latin America should exploit this interest further by entering into regional S&T agreements that, by harnessing synergies, would make what we have to offer more attractive for China," he added. Four Latin American countries — Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Cuba — already have joint commissions on S&T cooperation with China, charged with drafting framework agreements, monitoring the implementation of specific accords and reviewing areas of cooperation.

Russia
Russia engages through science cooperation with Cuba
Markey’8, Nov./2008, (Patrick Markey is "Patrick Markey is the Senior Andean Correspondent for Reuters, based in Bogota, Colombia. For the last nine years he has covered and helped manage coverage across the Andean region, including Venezuela, Colombia and Ecuador. He has also reported on top stories across Latin America, including more recently the Honduras coup and Haiti's earthquake. “He is currently on the board of directors of the Dactyl Foundation. http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/11/27/us-cuba-russia-idUSTRE4AQ5RP20081127).JP Once a symbol of Soviet power in Latin America and the Caribbean, the building where Russian spies once eavesdropped on the United States is now an information university teaching Cubans computer science. Medvedev is the first Russian leader to travel to Cuba since 2000 as Moscow flexes its muscles in Latin America by signing trade, military and energy deals in Washington's traditional sphere of influence. Russia is likely to commit to rebuilding its alliance with Cuba, abandoned after the Soviet days. Russian oil companies want to drill offshore, vehicle makers are looking to boost exports and the military has talked about air defense cooperation with Havana. Medvedev's visit to Cuba comes as U.S.-Russian ties have frayed over the Georgia war and Washington's missile defense plans in Europe. But Cuba will likely take a pragmatic approach to renewing ties with Moscow if U.S. President-elect Barack Obama follows through on his offers to roll back some restrictions on the island, analysts say. "Even with Russia's differences with the United States, they are not interested in worsening relations," said Vadin Teperman at the Latin American Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences. "Cuba is expecting some positive changes from Obama, made during his campaign." EYE ON TRADE Medvedev's Cuba visit comes on the heels of a trip by Chinese President Hu Jintao, who put off some of Cuba's debt payments and agreed to cooperation deals to strengthen ties between the two communist nations. The Kremlin has said Medvedev's tour is mainly about trade. Russia is looking to expand its presence in Latin America and new markets as a way to help ward off the impact of the global economic crisis battering world oil prices. Russia has also sent warships to conduct naval exercises in the Caribbean with OPEC-member Venezuela, where President Hugo Chavez is a strong ally of Cuba and a persistent adversary of the United States. Cuban President Raul Castro may visit Russia next year and Moscow has called for Washington to lift the economic embargo on the Caribbean island imposed in 1962 when Castro's brother, Fidel Castro, was in power. Moscow was Havana's main benefactor during the Cold War but the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 battered Cuba's economy. Ties soured further after Russian President Vladimir Putin visited in late 2000 and closed down the Lourdes base just months later. "Cuba is involved in a series of diplomatic initiatives aimed at diversifying its portfolio on the diplomatic and commercial front," said Julia Sweig at the Council on Foreign Relations. "This is pure pragmatism."

Russia works with Cuba with building Space diplomacy—building better relations and peace
RBTH 2/18 (Russia Beyond the Headlines (RBTH) is a branch of Russian state-owned newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta which publishes a number of foreign-language newspaper supplements and maintains the RBTH news website. The supplements are included in international newspapers in

an effort to cultivate a positive view of Russia's political and economic environment abroad. http://rbth.ru/news/2013/02/18/russia_cuba_to_work_together_on_space_exploration_22981 .html) JP The Russian government will sign an agreement with Cuba on cooperation in space exploration for peaceful purposes, the Russian Cabinet of Ministers said in a report posted on its website. The agreement between the Russian and Cuban governments is aimed at developing mutually profitable cooperation between the two countries in the sphere of space telecommunication technologies, satellite navigation, remote sensing of Earth, space medicine and biology, and the training of the Cuban staff."The agreement is a framework one, determines the main conditions of Russian-Cuban interaction in the sphere of joint space activities, and governs issues relating to intellectual property protection, export control, preferential movement of specific categories of special-purpose goods," the report says.

Russia and Cuba forming bilateral partnership—scientific and environmental advances for Cuba key to cooperation
Lyakhov 5/19, May 19, 2013(Aleksei Lyakhov is a writer for WordPress is a free and open source blogging tool and a content management system (CMS) based on PHP and MySQL which runs on a Web hosting service.[5] Features include a plug-in architecture and a template system. WordPress is used by over 14.7% of Alexa Internet's "top 1 million" websites,[when?] and as of August 2011 manages 22% of all new websites.[6] WordPress is currently the most popular blogging system in use on the Web,[7][8] powering over 60 million websites worldwide.[9 http://02varvara.wordpress.com/tag/havana/)JP During her official visit to Cuba, Valentina Matviyenko, chairman of the RF Federation Council, met with Cuban President Raúl Modesto Castro Ruz and Juan Esteban Lazo Hernández, the President of the Cuban National Assembly of the People’s Power, and said that relations between Russia and Cuba are having a renaissance. Matviyenko praised the expansion of bilateral partnership , trade, economic, scientific , and humanitarian cooperation between the countries. She told reporters on the flight back to Moscow, “Our delegation came to Havana to upgrade and boost parliamentary cooperation between our two countries. We discussed a number of issues during a two-hour talk, including Fidel Castro’s health. The Comandante is feeling OK; he’s following a strict régime under tight medical supervision”. Matviyenko also said that apart from being an important strategic partner, Cuba’s also a good and reliable friend, noting, “Our countries have special bonds of fraternity and mutual respect; Russia has very warm and sincere feelings for Cubans. We love our Cuban friends and are ready for cooperation. Havana and Moscow became close allies under Fidel Castro… 2013 marks 50 years since his first visit to the USSR… Moscow and some other Russian cities noted the event. Now, bilateral cooperation is on the rise, mainly focused on trade and economy. Although last year’s trade turnover accounted for only some 220 million dollars (6.93 billion Roubles. 172 million Euros. 145 million UK Pounds), there’s a great potential for expansion”. The streets of Havana have many signs of long-lasting friendship, such as Soviet-made cars. Despite Cuba’s turn to foreign investors, the USA doesn’t want to lift its sanctions, so, Havana eyes working with Russia. Lazo, the president of the Cuban National Assembly of the People’s Power, spoke about the prospects of bilateral energy cooperation, thinking that Russia could help in constructing new units and supplying equipment for Cuban power plants built with Soviet aid. Havana also expects Moscow’s help in exploring oil in its Gulf of Mexico wells and further

construction of refineries. Russian investment in Cuba’s oil sector is important; at present, only Zarubezhneft does so, but other Russian companies shall also join in. Cuba also eyes cooperation with Russia in nickel production, tourism, and agriculture as well as seeking help to refurbish and upgrade the Mariel and Santa Cruz del Norte power plants. Russia and Cuba are long-term partners. For instance, Cubana de Aviación uses Russian Tupolev Tu-204 planes. Cuba has imported some worth 12 million USD (378 million Roubles. 9.4 million Euros. 7.9 million UK Pounds) worth of power plant equipment from Russia in the last three years and has recently resumed purchase of Russian tractors. Russian tourists are also contributing to Cuba’s economic revival… some 90,000 holidaymakers from Russia visited the Island of Freedom last year.

Russia urges Obama to lift the embargo on Cuba
GR (Global Research)’8, November 2008, (Global Research GE Global Research is the research and development division of General Electric.[1] GE Global Research's primary facility is located in Niskayuna, New York. The Advanced Manufacturing and Software Technology Center (AMSTC) is a satellite facility located in Van Buren, Michigan.[2] Outside the USA GE Global Research maintains three equally significant laboratories located in Bangalore (India), Shanghai (China), Munich (Germany), and San Ramon (California). A fifth center of GE Global Research is to be set up at Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) and is expected to start operations in 2011. http://www.globalresearch.ca/russia-urges-obama-to-lift-cuba-embargo-respect-worldopinion/10910)JP Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov called on U.S. President-elect Barack Obama to rethink the U.S. economic embargo against Cuba, which has been in place for nearly half a century. Lavrov said after talks in Moscow today with his Cuban counterpart Felipe Perez Roque that the ``overwhelming majority'' of countries, including Russia, opposed the U.S. trade embargo and had voted against it in the United Nations General Assembly. The U.S. imposed a trade embargo against Cuba in 1962 to put pressure on its Communist government, which rose to power in a 1959 revolution led by Fidel Castro, who ceded power to his brother in February. In 2000, U.S. lawmakers eased the rules to allow the export of agricultural and medical goods to Cuba. Shipments increased 31 percent last year to $447 million. The UN General Assembly on Oct. 29 voted for the 17th consecutive year in favor of a resolution that calls on the U.S. to lift the embargo. Three countries -- the U.S., Israel and Palau -- opposed the resolution, while 185 countries voted in favor and two, the Federated States of Micronesia and the Marshall Islands, abstained. Obama has promised to review U.S. policy toward Cuba. While this is a U.S. decision, Russia hopes that Obama will take into account ``the voice of the international community,'' Lavrov said in comments broadcast on state television. Russia is reviving its influence in Latin America, lost after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and challenging the U.S. in its backyard. It has developed friendly ties with Venezuela, a U.S. opponent, and is also rebuilding relations with its Soviet-era ally Cuba. Russia may lend Cuba as much as $335 million to spend on Russian goods and services, RIA Novosti reported on Nov. 6. Cuba may use funds provided under the state loan to cover as much as 90 percent of a contract, with a 10 percent advance paid, the state-run news service said, citing a government order dated Nov. 1.

Spending
Europe proves – biotechnology is a great investment Hogan 7/2/13 – Writer for “The New European Economy”. (Fergal, “Biotech Investment: Returns, Risks and Research”,
http://www.neweuropeaneconomy.com/home-mainmenu-51/biotech/529-biotech-investment-returns-risks-and-research, HW)

Great fortunes have been made by investors who have made the right biotech deal. Early shareholders of such companies as Amgen and Biogen have enjoyed huge profits as their investments have skyrocketed over the years. It’s not too late to join the party though, as there are plenty of exciting and promising biotech start-ups out there. Biotech start-ups with products ready for market can experience massive growth overnight or sell for huge profits to a larger firm. According to the Association of Investment Companies, biotechnology and healthcare emerged as the best performing investment sector of 2012. Figures published by the trade body showed investment trusts in the sector were up an average of 26% over the 12 months to the end of November 2012. The
sector is also home to the best performing individual trust of the last year - Biotech Growth. The trust, which is managed at healthcare-dedicated investment firm OrbiMed Capital, is up 52% over the last 12 months. In

a recent article, Forbes magazine recommended investing in established biotech company Gilead Sciences. Gilead is a
research-based biopharmaceutical company that discovers, develops and commercializes innovative medicines in areas of unmet medical need. It has revolutionised antiviral treatments for HIV and continues to transform medicine for the lethal disease.

Founded in 1987 in California, Gilead has a rapidly expanding product portfolio, a growing pipeline of investigational drugs and approximately 5,000 employees in offices across four continents. It was a big winner for investors in 2012, with shares surging by 75%. Many startups rely on funding from private investors that have an interest in biotech and believe in the product. European Partnering and Investment Conference (EPIC) will be showcasing the best of UK and European biotech firms
on June 6, 2013. Some 50 to 60 European and UK biotech companies will be presenting and are looking for partners, investment or services. The audience will comprise 250 - 300 delegates from the pharma, biotech, investor and service sectors. Industry keynotes will set the tone for the day and partnering will take place all day as well as informal networking. Large

and small investors

are paying increasing attention to biotech. The Wellcome Trust, the world’s second-largest biomedical charity,
recently started an investment unit with £200 million of initial capital to back biotech start-ups. Wellcome’s new Syncona unit will support new businesses in the medical-device, therapeutics, diagnostics and IT industries. Its

long-term investments will

amount to one million pounds to 20 million pounds each. Syncona CEO Martin Murphy says that the unit
expects to play a part in building successful businesses based upon innovation within the life science and healthcare industry.

Cuba is a great market for foreign investment Feinberg 12 - professor of international political economy at the Graduate School of International Relations and Pacific
Studies, University of California, Berkeley. (Richard, “The New Cuban Economy What Roles for Foreign Investment?”, http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2012/12/cuba%20economy%20feinberg/cuba%20economy%20feinberg %209.pdf, HW) What drives the international investment decisions of firms? The

literature devoted to explaining the over $1 trillion in annual worldwide equity investment flows differentiates among three major categories of investments: resource-seeking investments, efficiency-seeking investments, and market-seeking investments . All three categories are, or could be, relevant to Cuba: • Cuba’s natural resources include its inviting tropical climate, world-class vacation destinations, deepwater ports, valuable minerals (nickel, cobalt, and possibly petroleum), nontraditional energy sources (sun, wind, and waves), and arable soils. • Efficiency-seeking investments are often attracted by relatively low-cost competitive wages. Cuba could score in two categories: highly-educated professionals with relatively low wages and low-wage workers with relatively good high school education. Still, Cuba would first have to overhaul its tax and currency policies that elevate labor costs . • The Cuban domestic market is modest in size but still interesting to some firms, including those

multinationals compulsively seeking a presence in every market worldwide . For countries located in
the Caribbean Basin, the relevant export market is first and foremost the United States—not yet an option for firms operating in Cuba . Once

U .S . sanctions are lifted some multinationals may use Cuba as a regional hub, serving the neighboring islands as well as the southeast United States . Increasingly, literature on FDI
focuses on what might be called the demand side: public policies of the receiving countries that affect the decisions of investors . Without negating the above cited factors driving investment supply, governments should recognize that public policies “can tip the balance in favor of one country over another if all other factors are equal .” 18 In Investing Across Borders, the World Bank presents cross-country indicators analyzing practices, laws, and regulations affecting FDI in 87 economies . 19 While

Cuba (which is not a member of the World Bank) is not included, the results of this survey are instructive; they indicate just how much of an outlier Cuba has become with regard to the treatment of foreign investment.

The embargo costs the US government hundreds of millions of dollars and hurts the economy billions of dollars each year Daniel Hanson et. all, 2013, economics researcher at the American Enterprise Institute, “It's
Time For The U.S. To End Its Senseless Embargo Of Cuba” AP http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/01/16/its-time-for-the-u-s-to-end-its-senselessembargo-of-cuba/ Despite this progress, the U.S. spends massive amounts of money trying to keep illicit Cuban goods out of the United States. At least 10 different agencies are responsible for enforcing different provisions of the embargo, and according to the Government Accountability Office, the U.S. government devotes hundreds of millions of dollars and tens of thousands of man hours to administering the embargo each year. At the Miami International Airport, visitors arriving from a Cuban airport are seven times more likely to be stopped and subjected to further customs inspections than are visitors from other countries. More than 70 percent of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control inspections each year are centered on rooting out smuggled Cuban goods even though the agency administers more than 20 other trade bans. Government resources could be better spent on the enforcement of other sanctions, such as illicit drug trade from Columbia, rather than the search for contraband cigars and rum. Yet, estimates of the sanctions’ annual cost to the U.S. economy range from $1.2 to $3.6 billion, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Restrictions on trade disproportionately affect U.S. small businesses who lack the transportation and financial infrastructure to skirt the embargo. These restrictions translate into real
reductions in income and employment for Americans in states like Florida, where the unemployment rate currently stands at 8.1 percent.

Politicization
The state is key for science and science diplomacy funding National Research Council 12 The National Research Council (NRC) is the working arm of
the United States National Academies, which produces reports that shape policies, inform public opinion, and advance the pursuit of science, engineering, and medicine. (“U.S. and International Perspectives on Global Science Policy and Science” *pg.28+—2012 http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13300&page=33 KW) Hernan Chaimovich also suggested that science diplomacy is done by the state, and while science can be a tool for diplomacy, it is part of a government’s policy. According to him, the problem we are facing today is
the relationship between a government’s policy and the agencies that are effectively engaged with scientific cooperation, including the private sector. As an example, he reffered to the stagnant budget of NSF’s international division over the past few years, which appears to be mainly due to policy issues.

Several participants underlined the importance of funding. Daniel Goroff of the Sloan Foundation stated that science and scientific knowledge are a public good, which by definition is nonexcludable and nonrival, meaning that no one can be excluded from it , and its “consumption” by one individual does not reduce its availability to another individual. Most people expect it to be free, but in fact, it does have a cost. Therefore, it takes collective will and organization to make science happen.

Nanotech
Turn – the plan is key to the responsible development of nanotech – guidance and regulations Dhawan and Sharma 11
[Alok Dhawan is principal scientist and Vyom Sharma is a senior research fellow at the Nanomaterial Toxicology Group, CSIR-Indian Institute of Toxicology Research, Lucknow, India., August 25, 2011, “Address risk of nanotech toxicity,” http://www.scidev.net/global/technology/opinion/address-risk-of-nanotech-toxicity-1.html] WD Developing countries forging ahead with nanotechnology need regulation and research into local risk patterns, say Alok Dhawan and Vyom Sharma. Nanotechnology, the science of manipulating tiny particles less than 100 nanometers in diameter, has found many applications in consumer products, biomedical devices, drug delivery agents and the industrial sector. In the consumer sector alone, more than 30 countries are manufacturing some 1,300 nanotech-based products, including textiles, food packaging, cosmetics, luggage, children's toys, floor cleaners and wound dressings. The number of such products has increased five-fold in the last five years. But this rapid growth has also raised concerns about the potential for adverse effects on human health and the environment. Although research on harm remains inconclusive, developing countries that embrace nanotechnology should not overlook possible risks and must regulate products that contain nanoparticles. Special properties, possible harm Their small size gives nanoparticles some unusual physical properties, as they have a larger ratio of surface area to volume than bigger particles. This can also make them biologically more active. For example, when gold, usually an inert material, is converted to a nano-form, it acts as a catalyst for chemical reactions owing to high surface reactivity. This suggests that nanoparticles may interact differently with biological systems, compared with larger particles, and could reach further into the body. People can be exposed to nanoparticles either directly, such as through nano-based drugs and topically applied cosmetics or sunscreens, or indirectly, for example by inhalation during synthesis of nanoparticles. A number of studies have documented in vitro and in vivo toxicity of exposure to nanoparticles. Evidence suggests they can induce DNA damage, reactive oxygen species, damage to cellular organelles and cell death. And a study published in the European Respiratory Journal in 2009 claimed that seven Chinese workers developed severe lung damage after inhaling polyacrylate nanoparticles produced in their printing factory — the first time that a link was made between exposure to nanoparticles and human illness. [1] Risk on the agenda… There is currently no mandatory consumer labelling of nanomaterials as potentially hazardous in any country. But governments and scientific bodies in the developed world — including the Royal Society, United Kingdom, and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) — are taking note of the potential hazards and have set up committees to formulate risk assessment guidelines. For example, under existing regulations, the EPA is proposing rules requiring those that manufacture, import or process two chemical substances — multi-walled and single-walled carbon nanotubes — to submit a notice with information that would help it monitor health or environmental risks. Similarly, washing machines using silver nanoparticles at the end of the wash cycle are being evaluated by the US government for their environmental safety. In 2005, concerns about toxic effects on microbe populations prompted

the temporary withdrawal of a washing machine using silver nanoparticles in Sweden. The US EPA has already decided to regulate products containing silver nanoparticles, which are used widely in consumer products and have anti-bacterial properties. …while developing countries lack guidance But developing countries still lack awareness of the potential hazards of nanobased consumer products, and only a few guidance documents are available in the public domain. A company in India already claims to be the world's largest manufacturer of nanotechbased fabrics. Many other companies that synthesise nanoparticles — for use in cosmetics, for example, or water filtration devices — are emerging in countries such as China and India. Framing regulations and guidelines for the synthesis, use and disposal of nanomaterials is of great importance for the responsible development of nanotechnology in developing nations. International organisations and developed nations can assist them by sharing scientific data and technologies for assessing environmental and health safety. And to control occupational exposures, the regulatory framework should include mandatory documentation of the nanomaterials developed and personnel involved, and training workers to take precautions. Our institute, the Indian Institute of Toxicology Research, Lucknow, has recently published guidance on the safe handling of nanomaterials in research laboratories, a step in the right direction. [2] Implications, not just applications But the vast majority of government funding in developing nations is spent on research into the applications, rather than the implications, of nanotechnology. For example, out of more than 200 research projects funded during 2001–10 by the Department of Science and Technology in India under its flagship Nano Mission programme, only one was directly related to nanoparticle toxicity studies (and was awarded to our institute). As a result, scientists may fail to identify any impacts of nanotechnology that are specific to populations or the use of a product in poor countries — patterns of environmental distribution and exposure could be different in developing nations. Current research on nanotoxicity does not take into account how different local environments and populations can influence risk. People in developing countries may be more prone to adverse effects of nanoparticles because of underlying health conditions and malnutrition. Moreover, genetic susceptibility to toxic effects varies in diverse ethnic groups and geographical areas. The scientific community needs to identify these information gaps before developing regulations and standard methodologies for nanotoxicity assessment.

Global nanotech inevitable – trends prove Delemarle et al 9
[Aurelie, post-doctoral research fellow at LATTS working on the conditions of emergence of markets for nanosciences and technology based innovations, Bernard Kahane, Lionel Villard, Philippe Laredo, “Geography of Knowledge Production in Nanotechnologies: A Flat World with Many Hills and Mountains,” Nanotechnology Law & Business 6 Nanotech. L. & Bus. (2009)+ WD 1. Introduction Research on nanoscale phenomena is increasing everywhere. Programs in nanosciences are flourishing in almost every country of the world. Publications in fields related to nanotechnologies have been increasing by 12% per year from 1998 to 2006. Nanotechnology is becoming the generic technology of the 21st century. Considerable resources are being invested, especially public resources. In 2007 an estimated $1,780 million was spent in the United States, $975 million in Japan, $563 million in Germany, and $222 million in South Korea. The true landscape of the continental, national and sub-national output of these investments requires considering more than just total investment.

Turn – fast nanotech good – US guidance is key Forrest 89
[David, President of the Institute for Molecular Manufacturing and a Senior Fellow at the Foresight Nanotech Institute, member of the Working Group for the International Technology Roadmap for Productive Nanosystems, and of the Technical Advisory Group to the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) on the ISO Technical Committee on Nanotechnology (TC/229), March 23, 1989, “Regulating Nanotechnology Development,” http://www.foresight.org/nano/Forrest1989.html] WD If we tried to block or slow the development of nanotechnology in the United States, or in other democracies, we would increase the chances that nanotechnology is first developed in a country without a free press. In which case we could not be certain that that country would not use nanotechnology to oppress its neighbors or the rest of the world. So efforts to slow progress only serve to threaten our own freedom. Therefore, a sensible course of action when formulating nanotechnology policy is to assume that nanotechnology will be here sooner than most people expect (the ten-year time horizon) and concentrate on guiding development to avoid the dangers instead of blindly opposing development. When we consider what must be accomplished in that time frame, it seems clear that we should begin the task as soon as possible.

Tech diffusion is inevitable—export restrictions fail Gierow 12-Reporters Without Borders Germany (Hauke, “Export Controls For Digital
Weapons”, EDRI-Gram 2012, http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number10.24/export-controlsdigital-weapons, MB)
While the European Governments often praise the positive role the Internet can have on the society in helping empower people and promoting freedom of information and expression, European mass surveillance and censorship software is being exported under their watch. Some

governments not only fail to enact controls, but even further the export of such technology using export credit guarantees. Reporters Without Borders Germany fights for a regime to stop
the export of European surveillance and censorship equipment to countries which oppress freedom of information and the press.¶ Surveillance equipment is used, inter alia, to spy on journalists, bloggers, citizen journalists, democracy activists and their sources, friends and even loose contacts. Many suppliers of this surveillance infrastructure are located in the European Union, names like Nokia Siemens Networks, Gamma, Trovicor, Hacking Team and Bull / Amesys come to mind. Those firms

supplied equipment to Libya, Egypt, Syria, Bahrain, Morocco and many more countries that have systematically violated human rights over the course of the last years. In all of these countries at
the time of the instalment of surveillance infrastructure there was no press freedom and people were being tortured or imprisoned for criticizing the government.¶ Reporters Without Borders believes that digital source protection is one of the most relevant issues for modern journalism. All journalists should be aware how important it is to store sensitive information in a secure way, to make sure they do not risk their sources’ lives or well-being. The possibility to encrypt emails, hard drives and use anonymous forms of communication is one of the key elements to a free press. This requires additional training and awareness raising as well as strong privacy and press freedom laws. That is why Reporters Without Borders Germany rejects the EU Data Retention Regime and other means of Internet surveillance, be it in the EU or outside.¶ Today the

EU has placed restrictions on the export of such surveillance equipment to Libya and Iran, but still lacks general rules and procedures . In
August, Reporters Without Borders Germany urged the German government to take action and enact a regime that bans the export and trade of Digital Weapons made in Germany. Later, we also appealed to the EU-Commission to amend the EU Dual Use regulation accordingly. The new "Strategy for Digital Freedoms in EU Foreign Policy" adopted by the European Parliament in early December 2012 calls on the EU-Commission to propose legislation to control the export of Digital Arms and enact Net Neutrality. We welcome this resolution and hope for subsequent legislation.

AT Hegemony DA
Government-controlled science diplomacy solves – allows cooperation which bolsters soft power – multiple existential threats in the status quo means it’s try or die Sackett 10
[Penny Sackett, Former Chief Scientist for Australia, former Program Director at the NSF, PhD in theoretical physics, the Director of the Australian National University (ANU) Research School of Astronomy and Astrophysics and Mount Stromlo and Siding Spring Observatories (2002 – 07), August 10, 2010, “Science diplomacy: Collaboration for solutions,” http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/2010/08/science-diplomacy-collaboration-for-solutions/] WD Now turn your attention to today’s reality. Almost 7 billion people inhabit the planet and this number increases at an average of a little over one per cent per year. That’s about 2 more mouths to feed every second. Do these 7 billion people have an impact on the planet? Yes. An irreversible impact? Probably. Taken together this huge number of people has managed to change the face of the Earth and threaten the very systems that support them. We are now embarked on a trajectory that, if unchecked, will certainly have detrimental impacts on our way of life and to natural ecosystems. Some of these are irreversible, including the extinction of many species. But returning to that single individual, surely two things are true. A single person could not have caused all of this, nor can a single person solve all the associated problems. The message here is that the human-induced global problems that confront us cannot be solved by any one individual, group, agency or nation. It will take a large collective effort to change the course that we are on; nothing less will suffice. Our planet is facing several mammoth challenges: to its atmosphere, to its resources, to its inhabitants. Wicked problems such as climate change, over-population, disease, and food, water and energy security require concerted efforts and worldwide collaboration to find and implement effective, ethical and sustainable solutions. These are no longer solely scientific and technical matters. Solutions must be viable in the larger context of the global economy, global unrest and global inequality. Common understandings and commitment to action are required between individuals, within communities and across international networks. Science can play a special role in international relations. Its participants share a common language that transcends mother tongue and borders. For centuries scientists have corresponded and collaborated on international scales in order to arrive at a better and common understanding of the natural and human world. Values integral to science such as transparency, vigorous inquiry and informed debate also support effective international relation practices. Furthermore, given the longestablished global trade of scientific information and results, many important international links are already in place at a scientific level. These links can lead to coalition-building, trust and cooperation on sensitive scientific issues which, when supported at a political level, can provide a ‘soft politics’ route to other policy dialogues. That is, if nations are already working together on global science issues, they may be more likely to be open to collaboration on other global issues such as trade and security.

Goal-based science diplomacy is good – facilitates smart power which comparatively outweighs other international frameworks Edwards 11
*Austen O. Edwards, Georgia Institute of Technology, The Fellows Review 2011, “Conscience sans Science: Staging Science Diplomacy for the 21st Century,” http://www.thepresidency.org/storage/Fellows2011/Edwards_Austen-_Final_Paper.pdf,] WD As evident in the typology previously discussed, the range of international science cooperation activities can also be understood by their primary goal. Flink and Schreiterer’s extensive discussion on a goals-based typology suggests that scientific cooperation across borders is sought simply in pursuit of “(a) access to researchers, research findings, and research facilities, natural resources and capital; (b) promotion of a country’s achievements in R&D; or (c) influence on other countries’ public opinion, decision-makers, and political or economic leaders.” The AAAS reinforces and corroborates these delineations by describing how science diplomacy can be conducted by the United States as a way to foster a developing country’s capacity to translate S&T into economic growth or to increase international understanding of US values and business practices. In particular, key proponents of the latter argue that science diplomacy can be utilized to inject the often instable and irrational international community with the norms and values of scientific research such as rational deliberation, universalism, and the acknowledgement of better data despite who is putting forth the argument [Turekian et. al, 2009]. Other foreign policy experts have also suggested that this field of study opens the door for a large number of differing organizational actors (beyond governmental agencies) to perform science diplomacy and maintain communication and cooperation links with the citizens of other countries despite the present temperature of official relations [Pickering et. al, 2010]. Both the governmental and non-governmental approaches, however, focus on science diplomacy’s us as tool to build stronger civil relationships abroad. Joseph Nye’s seminal book Soft Power and Public Diplomacy shines further light on to this framework and its potential to attract the sympathy, talents, capital, and political support of foreign populations to improve both a nation’s leverage and international standing. By creating linkages independent of the political process, science diplomacy therefore can potentially build relationships that seem to rise above national constraints to create a metanetwork of independent, decentralized diplomatic actors. After all, as Flink and Shreiterer state, “With cultural and political tensions mounting all over the world, conventional diplomacy, military power, and political or economic coercion have lost their former grip in IR” *Flink et. al, 2010+. The Obama-Clinton doctrine has attempted since 2008 to accommodate the emerging theories of soft power within the conventional concepts of international realist thought. This shift in the tone and posture of US foreign policy to one of ‘smart power’ provides an opportunity to analyze and reevaluate the tools brought to bear on the world stage. As then-Senator Hillary Clinton said in her 2009 confirmation hearing, smart power uses “the full range of tools at our disposal – diplomatic, economic, military, legal, and cultural – picking the right tool, or combination of tools, for each situation.” However, these attempts to reframe American diplomacy in a new conceptual framework as a logical extension of international liberal thought, including theories of science diplomacy, risks a number of tradeoffs and consequences in terms of reasonable expectations for these strategies.

AT Sci Dip=Bad Term
Science Diplomacy is an accurate, concise and effective term National Research Council 12 The National Research Council (NRC) is the working arm of
the United States National Academies, which produces reports that shape policies, inform public opinion, and advance the pursuit of science, engineering, and medicine. (“U.S. and International Perspectives on Global Science Policy and Science” *pg.26+—2012 http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13300&page=33 KW) Diplomacy is also seen as the science or art of avoiding difficulties and successfully engaging in a dialogue with others; thus, it is not surprising that many workshop participants regarded science diplomacy as a useful means of global engagement. As Vaughan Turekian stated, science is a good way to engage with people from other countries, because it provides a common language, is collaborative, addresses major societal challenges, and is based on common methods (peer review, for example). But participants noted that
, at the same time, global scientific engagement, if called diplomacy, can be problematic for many U.S. governmental agencies, such as the National Science Foundation (NSF), which have mandates to advance science—but not foreign policy.

Therefore,

there are advantages to using the simple, and accurate, label
cooperation

of advancing science through international

Counterplans

AT: Privatization
Private sector can’t solve; compromises scientific honesty National Research Council 12 The National Research Council (NRC) is the working arm of
the United States National Academies, which produces reports that shape policies, inform public opinion, and advance the pursuit of science, engineering, and medicine. (“U.S. and International Perspectives on Global Science Policy and Science” *pg.28+—2012 http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13300&page=33 KW) Another question was about whether the corporate world was doing science. Vaughan Turekian stated that “governments and metascience organizations (academics, associations, and so on) do science diplomacy, scientists do science, and businesses do business.” One comment was that a science component in governmental diplomacy is valuable, but science must still be real science; it must be true to the scientific method, for example, not using selected evidence to reach a desired conclusion. Susan Gardner of
the U.S. Department of State observed that although businesses do indeed focus on business, their activity can influence relationships and interstate diplomatic outcomes positively or negatively. This and several other examples and comments emphasized the scale, effect, and importance of science and technology efforts outside of government.