Cuba Neg A2 Democracy Adv

Download 388.33 Kb.
Date conversion12.05.2016
Size388.33 Kb.
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10

Trinity 2012


***Cuba Neg***

A2 Democracy Adv

1NC Frontline

1. The plan is a unilateral concession- destroys bargaining chip to extract democratic reform

JAIME SUCHLICKI [one of the world’s foremost scholars on Latin America, is a professor of history at the School of International Studies at the University of Miami. He edits the Journal of Inter-American and World Affairs, consults for the U.S. government, and is the author of Mexico: From Montezuma to the Fall of the PRI and University Students and Revolution in Cuba] April 4, 2013¶ DEMOCRACY, DEVELOPMENT AND INSTITUTIONS¶ A BLOG SPONSORED BY THE DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH CENTER¶ What if…the U.S. Ended the Cuba Travel Ban and the Embargo? by Jaime Suchlicki¶
Conclusions¶ If the travel ban is lifted unilaterally now or the embargo is ended by the U.S., what will the U.S. government have to negotiate with a future regime in Cuba and to encourage changes in the island? These policies could be an important bargaining chip with a future regime willing to provide concessions in the area of political and economic freedoms. The travel ban and the embargo should be lifted as a result of negotiations between the U.S. and a Cuban government willing to provide meaningful and irreversible political and economic concessions or when there is a democratic government in place in the island.

2. Plan increases regime control - Unconditional removal of the embargo floods the regime with new money causing them to roll back political freedom- turns democracy efforts

JORGE A. SANGUINETTY [Dr. Sanguinetty is an expert on the political economy of policy reform in developing and transitional economies. As a former economic planner in Cuba, Dr. Sanguinetty has first-hand knowledge of centrally planned economies and how they can transition to more open, market-based systems. He has worked on projects in more than 20 countries]¶ April 8, 2013¶ DEMOCRACY, DEVELOPMENT AND INSTITUTIONS¶ A BLOG SPONSORED BY THE DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH CENTER¶ Who benefits and loses if the US-Cuba embargo is lifted? by Jorge A. Sanguinetty¶
Nonetheless, the system might have reached a point of equilibrium under which an unconditional lifting of the US embargo might still accrue enough economic benefit to the Cuban government that it leads to a roll back of some recent reforms in order to cut loses in the political, albeit informal, arena. This will be a strong reason to oppose an unconditional lifting on the embargo for those who care about the wishes for freedom and welfare of the Cuban people. Many international observers oppose the US embargo on the basis of several debatable assumptions. One is the belief that the embargo has served the Castro government as an excuse for its economic failures, and once lifted the excuse will disappear. Another assumption is that Cubans don´t know that the embargo might have constrained their economy, but not as much as the restrictions of virtually all economic activity by the Cuban government. There are also many Cubans that believe that the US embargo is the only leverage left to pressure the Cuban government to lift internal restrictions in both the economic and the political fronts. It is doubtful that, under the current conditions, a non-negotiated lifting of the US embargo is likely to bring about democracy in Cuba.

3. No Solvency - Lifting the embargo won’t solve elections or democracy

DAMIEN CAVE [foreign correspondent for The New York Times, he covers Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean.¶ From 2008 to 2010 he served as the Times’ Miami bureau chief, writing on a range of topics] ¶ November 19, 2012¶ Easing of Restraints in Cuba Renews Debate on U.S. Embargo¶
Maintaining this embargo, maintaining this hostility, all it does is strengthen and embolden the hard-liners,” said Carlos Saladrigas, a Cuban exile and co-chairman of theCuba Study Group in Washington, which advocates engagement with Cuba. “What we should be doing is helping the reformers.” Any easing would be a gamble. Free enterprise may not necessarily lead to the embargo’s goal of free elections, especially because Cuba has said it wants to replicate the paths of Vietnam and China, where the loosening of economic restrictions has not led to political change. Indeed, Cuban officials have become adept at using previous American efforts to soften the embargo to their advantage, taking a cut of dollars converted into pesos and marking up the prices at state-owned stores.

4. No Impact - Empirics are on our side- extinction won’t occur

Don Maier 2009 – Env Scholar @ U of St Francis, Don, “What’s So Good About Biodiversity?”, Paper presented to the 6th Annual Joint International Society for Environmental Philosophy/ISEE Conference
One might insist that the concern for biodiversity should be restricted even further – to the sustaining of life (just) as we know it right now in the early 21st century. But with this additional restriction, we have finally reached a confluence with the just-so model of biodiversity value and its attendant problems – discussed in Section 4.1.4 on "The just-so model". Yet another reworking of Noss' statement would place a different restriction on biodiversity – as that which sustains human life. But an historical perspective shows that none of the transformational changes in the kinds that are diverse, as well as changes in the diversity itself – have prevented humanity from emerging from a bottleneck population of perhaps 10,000 (or fewer) individuals some 60,000 – 70,000 years ago, to grow to its current population size, now nearing 7 billion, and become the world's apex species to boot. That is not just "sustaining human life". It is a spectacular flourishing of a species by any purely biological standard. To give it some degree of plausibility, I can only interpret this last reworking of Noss' statement as way to reinterpret the threshold model of biodiversity value. That is, at some point not yet in the experience of H. sapiens, with enough change (most likely reduction) in biodiversity, human life will not be possible – even though almost certainly other life forms will still flourish. The question then becomes, where is the threshold? Although megafauna have undoubtedly suffered globally at human hands, H. sapiens clearly has not suffered as a biological species on account of that. Moreover, we still stand at something near an all-time earth history high point in species diversity – indeed, at an all-time high for diversity considered at pretty much every taxonomic level. 147 Also, we know that some species – particularly the most adaptable generalists such as H. sapiens – have often survived dramatic extinction events and squeezed through the narrowest of population bottlenecks. As a result, the most straightforward inductions argue against any immediate danger to the continuation of human life.

1NC 1 Ext – Bargain Chip Key

Lack of transparency means embargo is key to bargaining chip

Vidal 2013 (William Vidal, 2-26-13, “What if the US Ended the Cuba Travel Ban and the Embargo”,
Cuba does not have an independent/transparent legal system. All judges are appointed by the State and all lawyers are licensed by the State. In the last few years, European investors have had over $1 billion arbitrarily frozen by the government and several investments have been confiscated. Cuba’s Law 77 allows the State to expropriate foreign-invested assets for reason of “public utility” or “social interest.” In the last year, the CEOs of three companies with extensive dealings with the Cuban government were arrested without charges. OTS: Again, U.S. companies can look out for their interests… well, you get the gist, even if Suchlicki doesn’t. Conclusions - If the travel ban is lifted unilaterally now or the embargo is ended by the U.S., what will the U.S. government have to negotiate with a future regime in Cuba and to encourage changes in the island? These policies could be an important bargaining chip with a future regime willing to provide concessions in the area of political and economic freedoms.

1NC 2 Ext – Increases Regime Crackdowns

Removing sanctions funds hardliners iron grip over the peoples

Cuba Standard 2012 (6-25-12, “Cuban American Corporate Execs Urge to Stay Hardline”,
Calling Cuba’s economic reforms “cosmetic,” 15 mostly Cuban American corporate executives urged the United States to maintain a hard line against the Cuban government. In their letter, titled “commitment to freedom” and datelined Washington, the signers reject any business ties with Cuba. “We … wish to convey our great concern regarding the Castro regime’s deceptive campaign aimed at securing much-needed financial resources to prolong its iron grip over the people of Cuba,” the document says. Reconciliation efforts with Cuban émigrés by the Cuban government and Catholic Church are a “smokescreen,” the signees contend.

1NC 3 Ext – No Solvency

Exposure and liberalization won’t work- empirically disprove

AJ Delgado [Cuban American columnist, author, Harvard Law graduate]¶ April 13th, 2013¶ Bill Maher Ignorantly Rants Against The Cuban Embargo, Adding Himself To The List Of Useful Idiots¶
Friday night’s Real Time With Bill Maher, Bill Maher and guests noted the controversy over Jay-Z and Beyonce’s recent trip to Cuba, prompting a discussion about the U.S. embargo towards the island. Maher, as he has done previously, criticized the policy, calling it, aside from the drug war, “the stupidest policy we have.”¶ Curiously, but not surprisingly, out of the Maher’s four guests, not a single Cuban exile or Cuban-American was among them to discuss the issue. That would actually present a credible point of view on the subject, something Maher apparently will not suffer.¶ Instead, we were subjected to a ‘not-exactly-expert’ panel’s opinion, including Bob Costas, asports broadcaster, noting: “The more Cubans are exposed to Americans and their lifestyle and their point of view… eventually this is gonna collapse of its own weight.” Ah, the tired, naïve ‘exposure’ argument that, if only Americans could freely travel to Cuba in droves, Cubans would see how marvelous and wonderful we are, overthrow their overlords, and democracy would flourish. Costas fails to ponder, however, why it is the constant tourism from Canada and other Western, democratic nations has failed to have this effect. Moreover, Cubans already have a massive amount of exposure to Americans (Cuban-Americans travel frequently to visit immediate family members). They’re well aware of how great America is – it’s precisely why some brave Cubans (risking execution if caught) escape, even swimming in shark-infested waters to reach our shores. (Sidenote: Why does the fact that Cuba is essentially one large island-prison, one of the few nations which physically restricts its citizens from traveling abroad, much less from permanently emigrating, always omitted from any conversation?)

1NC 4 Ext – Impact Defense

Democracies can still destroy the environment- US actions in Iraq prove

Mikael Thalen [writer, political analyst, historian, and blogger]¶ DEMOCRACY: US Destruction Of Iraq Environment Worse Than Hiroshima¶ April 9, 2013¶
[T]en years ago, invading American troops and their allies deliberately tested all sorts of weapons, contaminating Iraqi the environment for hundreds of years to come and reducing citizens’ life expectancies to 30 years, an Iraqi doctor told RT.¶ Over the ten years of occupation, Iraqi citizens have been developing alarmingly growing numbers of medical conditions, the Iraqi cardiologist, Dr. Omar al-Kubaisi, told RT’s Arabic-language sister channel Rusiya Al-Yaum.¶ RT: What is the nature of these conditions?¶ Dr. Omar al-Kubaisi: I’d like to start by saying thanks to the Rusiya Al Yaum TV channel for this opportunity. I would like to talk first about the general health status and then I’ll address your question about the medical conditions. The United States claimed to have been helping Iraq restore the country in all areas, such as education, through investments, but in fact the only real “help” that came from the US was their deployment of the weapons prohibited by the Geneva [Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques] on Iraqi soil.¶ This convention forbids the use of any weapons capable of changing the environment at the site of war including making changes to climate and water sources, which will affect the entire ecosystem. The events of 1991 and 2003 were nothing but catastrophic. They have deployed all sorts of weapons you could think of: cluster, white phosphorus, depleted uranium munitions, toxic gases and poisonous substances, in other words chemical weapons. All these types of weapons were used deliberately and massively. They were test-tried in Iraq and caused an environmental catastrophe worse than that of Hiroshima.¶ ¶ RT: Isn’t it an overstatement? OK: Not in the slightest. This is not just my opinion. You can look it up on the Internet in the reports of the Human Rights Watch and the World Health Organization. Internationally acclaimed scientists have measured the levels of radiation which were found to be indicative of radiological contamination of Iraq’s southern, central and even some northern territories. And despite all the calls for attention and help published by the Iraqi scientists – and I’d like to note that we have internationally recognized nuclear physicists and biologists in Iraq – despite all their effort no one, neither chemists, nor physicists, nor healthcare officials, nor the United States paid any attention.¶ Whereas these publications mentioned such things as a widespread environmental contamination resulting in a growing number of congenital deformities, miscarriages, all kinds of cancer cases, and increased levels of radiation throughout Iraq. And it wouldn’t be so bad if it were only about the US. The worst thing is that Maliki’s government and all occupation governments have been the first to crack down on those who speak about the chemical and radiological contamination.

The plan destroys the environment- creates an opening for oil companies to offshore drill in Cuba and exploit the environment

Mauricio Claver-Carone [Executive Director of Cuba Democracy Advocates in Washington, D.C., a non-partisan organization dedicated to the promotion of a transition in Cuba towards human rights, democracy and the rule of law. In an independent capacity, Mauricio serves on the Board of Directors of the U.S.-Cuba Democracy PAC, the largest, single foreign-policy political committee in the United States]¶ July 25, 2008¶ How the Cuban embargo protects the environment¶
The answer is simple: If the Chinese were to start drilling in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Cuba - so very close to the coast of Florida - it would send a "red scare" through the halls of the U.S. Congress, creating a new and otherwise improbable coalition for unilaterally lifting the current embargo. Longtime advocates of lifting trade sanctions against Cuba would join with conservative Republicans, who, though they now support the trade embargo, are strong advocates for allowing U.S. companies to drill offshore, and with liberal environmentalists who would rather have strictly regulated U.S. companies drilling than unregulated Chinese companies. In Cuba that looks like a winning trifecta for changing U.S. policy.¶ As early as 2006, the Reuters news bureau in Cuba was reporting: "Havana is eager to see American oil companies join forces with the anti-embargo lobby led by U.S. farmers who have been selling food to Cuba for four years."¶ In recent weeks this strategy has taken center stage in Washington with political and public opinion leaders openly discussing the irony of "the Chinese drilling 60 miles from Florida's coast," while U.S. law prevents American companies from doing the same along the outer continental shelf.¶ The premise of the argument, however, is just not true. Chinese companies are not drilling in Cuba's offshore waters. Nor do the Chinese have any lease agreements with Cuba's state-owned oil company, Cupet, to do so. As a matter of fact, the last drilling for oil off Cuba's coast took place in 2004 and was led by the Spanish-Argentine consortium Repsol YPF. It found oil but not in any commercially viable quantity. Inactivity since suggests that Repsol YPF is not eager to follow up with the required investment in Castro's Cupet.¶ For almost a decade now, the Castro regime has been lauding offshore lease agreements. It has tried Norway's StatoilHydro, India's state-run Oil & Natural Gas Corporation, Malaysia's Petronas and Canada's Sherritt International. Yet, there is no current drilling activity off Cuba's coasts. The Cuban government has announced plans to drill, then followed with postponements in 2006, 2007 and this year.¶ Clearly, foreign oil companies anticipate political changes in Cuba and are trying to position themselves accordingly. It is equally clear they are encountering legal and logistical obstacles preventing oil and gas exploration and development. Among the impediments are well-founded reservations as to how any new discovery can be turned into product. Cuba has very limited refining capacity, and the U.S. embargo prevents sending Cuban crude oil to American refineries. Neither is it financially or logistically viable for partners of the current Cuban regime to undertake deep-water exploration without access to U.S. technology, which the embargo prohibits transferring to Cuba. The prohibitions exist for good reason. Fidel Castro expropriated U.S. oil company assets after taking control of Cuba and has never provided compensation.¶ Equally important, foreign companies trying to do business with Cuba still face a lot of expenses and political risks. If, or when, the Cuban regime decides again to expropriate the assets of these companies, there is no legal recourse in Cuba.¶ Frankly, it is bewildering why some seem to believe that U.S. companies partnering with one more anti-American dictatorship to explore and develop oil fields will somehow reduce fuel costs for American consumers and contribute to U.S. energy independence. One needs only to look at the reaction of the international oil markets when Hugo Chávez of Venezuela nationalized assets of U.S.-based ConocoPhillips and Chevron.¶ What message would the United States be sending to oil-rich, tyrannical regimes around the world about the consequences of expropriation if we were now to lift the embargo that was imposed after Fidel Castro expropriated the assets of Esso, Shell and Texaco?¶ For many years the U.S. embargo has served to protect America's national security interests; today it is also serving to prevent Cuba's regime from drilling near U.S. shores. And that's good for the environment.

A2 “Contact With Americans Solves”

The plan wouldn’t facilitate democracy- contact with Americans through tourism is limited and lifting the embargo would empower the Castros further

JAIME SUCHLICKI [one of the world’s foremost scholars on Latin America, is a professor of history at the School of International Studies at the University of Miami. He edits the Journal of Inter-American and World Affairs, consults for the U.S. government, and is the author of Mexico: From Montezuma to the Fall of the PRI and University Students and Revolution in Cuba] April 4, 2013¶ DEMOCRACY, DEVELOPMENT AND INSTITUTIONS¶ A BLOG SPONSORED BY THE DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH CENTER¶ What if…the U.S. Ended the Cuba Travel Ban and the Embargo? by Jaime Suchlicki¶
Ending the embargo and lifting the ban for U.S. tourists to travel to Cuba would be a major concession totally out of proportion to recent changes in the island. If the U.S. were to lift the travel ban without major reforms in Cuba, there would be significant implications: Money from American tourists would flow into businesses owned by the Castro government thus strengthening state enterprises. The tourist industry is controlled by the military and General Raul Castro, Fidel’s brother.¶ American tourists will have limited contact with Cubans. Most Cuban resorts are built in isolated areas, are off limits to the average Cuban, and are controlled by Cuba’s efficient security apparatus. Most Americans don’t speak Spanish, have but limited contact with ordinary Cubans, and are not interested in visiting the island to subvert its regime. Law 88 enacted in 1999 prohibits Cubans from receiving publications from tourists. Penalties include jail terms. While providing the Castro government with much needed dollars, the economic impact of tourism on the Cuban population would be limited. Dollars will trickle down to the Cuban poor in only small quantities, while state and foreign enterprises will benefit most.¶ Tourist dollars would be spent on products, i.e., rum, tobacco, etc., produced by state enterprises, and tourists would stay in hotels owned partially or wholly by the Cuban government. The principal airline shuffling tourists around the island, Gaviota, is owned and operated by the Cuban military.¶ Over the past decades hundred of thousands of Canadian, European and Latin American tourists have visited the island. Cuba is not more democratic today. If anything, Cuba is more totalitarian, with the state and its control apparatus having been strengthened as a result of the influx of tourist dollars
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10

The database is protected by copyright © 2016
send message

    Main page