The aff cites imperialism as a justification for ending the embargo but the Castro regime has historically used these strategies to oppress his people and tighten his grip on the economy- the plan INCREASES the oppression of Cubans
Jaime Suchlicki [Emilio Bacardi Moreau Professor of History and International Studies and the Director of the Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies at the University of Miami. He was the founding Executive Director of the North-South Center. For the past decade he was also the editor of the prestigious Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs. He is currently the Latin American Editor for Transaction Publishers- University of Miami] June 2000
The U.S. Embargo of Cuba IMPLICATIONS OF LIFTING THE U.S. EMBARGO AND TRAVEL BAN
Opponents of U.S. policy toward Cuba claim that if the embargo and ¶ the travel ban are lifted, the Cuban people would benefit economically; ¶ American companies will penetrate and influence the Cuban market; the ¶ Communist system would begin to crumble and a transition to a democratic ¶ society would be accelerated.¶ These expectations are based on several incorrect assumptions. First, ¶ that Castro and the Cuban leadership are naïve and inexperienced and, ¶ therefore, would allow tourists and investments from the U.S. to subvert the ¶ revolution and influence internal developments in the island. Second, that ¶ Cuba would open up and allow U.S. investments in all sectors of the ¶ economy, instead of selecting which companies could trade and invest. ¶ Third, that Castro is so interested in close relations with the U.S. that he is ¶ willing to risk what has been upper-most in his mind for 40 years – total ¶ control of power and a legacy of opposition to “Yankee imperialism,” – in ¶ exchange for economic improvements for his people. During the Fifth ¶ Communist Party Congress in 1997, Castro emphasized “We will do what is ¶ necessary without renouncing our principles. We do not like capitalism and ¶ we will not abandon our Socialist system.” ¶ Castro also reiterated his long-standing anti-American posture, ¶ accusing the U.S. of waging economic war against his government and ¶ calling for “military preparedness against imperialist hostility.”¶ A change in U.S. policy toward Cuba may have different and ¶ unintended results. The lifting of the embargo and the travel ban without ¶ meaningful changes in Cuba will: ¶ Guarantee the continuation of the current totalitarian structures. ¶ Strengthen state enterprises, since money will flow into businesses ¶ owned by the Cuban government. Most businesses are owned in ¶ Cuba by the state and, in all foreign investments, the Cuban ¶ government retains a partnership interest.¶ Lead to greater repression and control since Castro and the ¶ leadership will fear that U.S. influence will subvert the revolution ¶ and weaken the Communist party’s hold on the Cuban people. ¶ Delay instead of accelerate a transition to democracy on the island. ¶ Allow Castro to borrow from international organizations such as ¶ the IMF, the World Bank, etc. Since Cuba owes billions of dollars ¶ to the former Soviet Union, to the Club of Paris, and to others, and ¶ has refused in the past to acknowledge or pay these debts, new ¶ loans will be wasted by Castro’s inefficient and wasteful system, ¶ and will be uncollectible. The reason Castro has been unable to pay ¶ back loans is not because of the U.S. embargo, but because his ¶ economic system stifles productivity and he continues to spend on ¶ the military, on adventures abroad, and on supporting a bankrupt ¶ welfare system on the island.¶ Perpetuate the rather extensive control that the military holds over ¶ the economy and foster the further development of “Mafia type” ¶ groups that manage and profit from important sectors of the ¶ economy, particularly tourism, biotechnology, and agriculture. ¶ Negate the basic tenets of U.S. policy in Latin America which ¶ emphasize democracy, human rights, and market economies. ¶ Send the wrong message to the enemies of the U.S.: that a foreign ¶ leader can seize U.S. properties without compensation; allow the ¶ use of his territory for the introduction of nuclear missiles aimed at ¶ the U.S.; espouse terrorism and anti-U.S. causes throughout the ¶ world; and eventually the U.S. will “forget and forgive,” and ¶ reward him with tourism, investments, and economic aid.
Imperialist policies towards Cuba aren’t the problem- it’s the Castro regime that strips Cubans of their basic freedoms
Mark Finkelstein [Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters Senior Contributor]¶ May 01, 2007 ¶ Andrea Mitchell: Cuba's Only Major Problem is U.S. Embargo¶ http://newsbusters.org/node/12436
There's really only one problem for Cuba: those yanqui imperialists and the embargo they slapped on the country. Just ask Andrea Mitchell. The NBC correspondent is in Cuba today for the May Day festivities. Here's an excerpt from her conversation on MSNBC at 9:07 EDT this morning with host Contessa Brewer. ¶ MSNBC HOST CONTESSA BREWER: Is there an expectation among the crowd there, a sense that Castro will return to power at some point? NBC CORRESPONDENT ANDREA MITCHELL: Officials are pointing out, and it's certainly true from my visits here that the government runs, it's business as usual, that they have managed this succession rather well. Raul Castro is here today, he and other leaders are very much in charge. There have been no major problems, other than the continuing economic difficulties that of course this country faces because of the U.S. embargo, the economic embargo.¶ Yes, if only that darn embargo were lifted, communism could work its wonders. True, Cuba is already free to trade with all the 191 other countries in the world. But it's the U.S. embargo alone that is preventing Cuba from becoming a miracle of economic expansion. I have no doubt that if the embargo were lifted, in no time you would see standards of living rivaling those of, say, Bulgaria circa 1959. Oh, and I suppose some of you kill-joys are going to point out that, beyond the embargo, the Cuban people also suffer from an oppressive totalitarian government that robs them of political and human rights. Yeah, well, altogether now: but they have free health care! Thanks for some solid reporting, Andrea, on the sinister influence that is the United States. Viva Fidel! Viva la Revolucion! Abajo los imperialistas!
1NC 2 Ext – Impact Turn Strategy
American imperialism is unique, generic criticism of past imperial powers isn’t responsive- US empire promotes better quality of life
Michael Ignatieff [director of the Carr Center at the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University] "THE AMERICAN EMPIRE (GET USED TO IT)." THE NEW YORK TIMES. JANUARY 6, 2003.
America's empire is not like empires of times past, built on colonies, conquest and the white man's burden. We are no longer in the era of the United Fruit Company, when American corporations needed the Marines to secure their investments overseas. The 21st century imperium is a new invention in the annals of political science, an empire lite, a global hegemony whose grace notes are free markets, human rights and democracy, enforced by the most awesome military power the world has ever known. It is the imperialism of a people who remember that their country secured its independence by revolt against an empire, and who like to think of themselves as the friend of freedom everywhere. 11-1- an empire without consciousness of itself as such, constantly shocked that its good intentions arouse resentment abroad. But that does not make it any less of an empire, with a conviction t at it a one in • erman Melville's words bears "the ark of the liberties of the world.'
It is the failure to imperialize that allows genocide to occur
Max Boot, 2004 (Senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. "In Modern Imperialism, U.S. Needs to Walk Softly" Los Angeles Times, July 15. p B 13. Proquest)
But whatever happens in Iraq, there will continue to be strong demand for U.S. interventions around the world.Failed states and rogue states constitute the biggest threats to world peace in the foreseeable future, and only the United States has the will and the resources to do anything about them. Even many of those who detested the invasion of Iraq plead for the U.S. to bring order to places like Darfur, a province in Sudan where genocide is occurring,The U.S. cannot shrug off the burden of global leadership, at least not without catastrophic cost to the entire world. but it can exercise its power more wisely than it did in Iraq over the past year.
So called American imperialism can be used to fight the worst most oppressive forms of empire
Robert Kaufman [professor of public policy at the Pepperdine School of Public Policy] In Defense Of The Bush Doctrine. Pg. 66 [book] 2007 The issue is not whether a broad coalition is desirable, but when and in what circumstances its maintenance should take precedence over the need for decisive action. Nor is the issue whether legitimacy is an important criterion for American foreign policy. Benign is the key word in Josef Joffe's apt description of American hegemony.12 Niall Ferguson and others have wrongly branded the United States as an imperial power." Richard Cooper knows better. As he observes perceptively, the United States has been consciously anti-imperial for most of American history: True, it has interfered relentlessly in Central America, acquired territory by force (as well as by purchase), and it was caught up in-the imperial frenzy at the end of the nineteenth century; but it was also one of the first to give up its colonies. It then did its best to ensure that the British and French Empires were dismantled. The United States is founded on ideals and its vocation is the spread of those ideals. Although the United States has more troops deployed abroad than Britain at the height of its imperial glory, they are not used for the same purpose. Typically, they are used to de–fend America's allies. . . . Usually they arrive at a time of conflict, but stay on to ensure security and perhaps to strengthen the forces of good government the two are sometimes related thereafter. This often turns out to be a long business:4
Embargo is key to political and economic freedom negotiations
Vidal 2013 (William Vidal, 2-26-13, “What if the US Ended the Cuba Travel Ban and the Embargo”, http://ontwoshores.com/?p=1785)
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 4 Ext – A2 Ethics
Allowing the avoidable death of people through nuclear war you deny that group of people the ability to affirm life the way they want to
Lawrence Hateb (Professor & Chair Philosophy and Religious Studies, Old Dominion University) 1995 “A Nietzschean Defense of Democracy” p. 152-3
Nietzsche is willing to offer judgements against weak, life-denying perspectives and in favor of strong, life-affirming perspectives. Nevertheless, Nietzsche also indicates that overall evaluations of life cannot be given any veridical status, since they stem from perspectival interests. “Judgements, judgements of value, concerning life, for it or against it, can, in the end, never be true: they have value only as symptoms, they are worthy of consideration only as symptoms: in themselves such judgements are stupidities. One must by all means stretch out one’s fingers and attempt to grasp this amazing finesse, that the value of life cannot be estimated. Evaluations of life, then are local estimations that serve the interest of a certain perspective but that cannot stand as a global measure to cancel out other estimations. This would not be inconsistent with Nietzsche’s texts although he vigorously opposes what he calls the perspectives of the weak, nevertheless these perspectives have their authenticity, according to Nietzsche. Life denying perspectives serve the interests of certain types of life, who have been able to cultivate their own forms of power that have had an enormous effect upon the world. In order to make headway here, we have to distinguish between life affirmation and life enhancement. According to Nietzsche, even life-denying perspectives are life-enhancing, since they further the interests of weak forms of life. Different forms of life are continually affirming their own perspective on life; their cultural productions, even if animated by other worldy projections, express their local affirmative posture. Even philosophical pessimism is affirmative in this sense. Schopenhaurer’s elaborate philosophical output on behalf of pessimism was in effect an affirmation of a pessimistic life, in part as a vigorous – and stimulating – condemnation of optimism. Short of the practical nihilism of suicide, all forms of human life seek to will their meaning, even if that meaning is a conviction about the meaninglessness of life. As Nietzsche says, “man would rather will nothingness than no will”. Nietzsche does have a “global” philosophical position, namely perspectivism, in the sense that the life-world is a field of perspectives, each willing their own life interests; as perspectives if a field of becoming, however, none can pose as the “truth”. Nothing here would forbid Nietzsche from making judgements about perspectives that he thinks are deficient estimations of life. Morality is merely an interpretation of certain phenomena – more precisely, misinterpretation (missdeutung). Moral judgements, like religious ones, belong to a stage of ignorance at which the very concept of the real and the distinction between what is real and imaginary, are still lacking. Since, as we have seen, overall estimations of life can have no veridical status, Nietzsche’s critique cannot amount to a project of refutation or erasure, but rather a “plea by an interested party” The promotion of life-affirmation over life-denial should be taken as Nietzsche’s perspective, as a battle that he is willing to wage, as a commitment that involves an existential decision rather than a search for justification. In this way other perspectives can have their place, in their service to the interest of different types of life “This is my way: where is yours? – thus I answered those who asked me “the way”. For the way – that does not exist
1NC 5 Ext - Impact Framing
Consequentiallism key to progressivism – their moralism guarantees alienating potential allies and makes progressive reform impossible
(Jeffrey C., James H. Rudy professor of Political Science and director of the Center for the Study of Democracy and Public Life at Indiana University, Bloomington, “Ends, Means and politics,” Dissent, Spring)
But what is absent is a sober reckoning with the preoccupations and opinions of the vast majority of Americans, who are not drawn to vocal denunciations of the International Monetary Fund and World Trade Organization and who do not believe that the discourse of “anti-imperialism” speaks to their lives. Equally absent is critical thinking about why citizens of liberal democratic states—including most workers and the poor—value liberal democracy and subscribe to what Jürgen Habermas has called “constitutional patriotism”: a patriotic identification with the democratic state because of the civil, political, and social rights it defends. Vicarious identifications with Subcommandante Marcos or starving Iraqi children allow left activists to express a genuine solidarity with the oppressed elsewhere that is surely legitimate in a globalizing age. But these symbolic avowals are not an effective way of contending for political influence or power in the society in which these activists live. The ease with which the campus left responded to September 11 by rehearsing an alltoo- familiar narrative of American militarism and imperialism is not simply disturbing. It is a sign of this left’s alienation from the society in which it operates (the worst examples of this are statements of the Student Peace Action Coalition Network, which declare that “the United States Government is the world’s greatest terror organization,” and suggest that “homicidal psychopaths of the United States Government” engineered the World Trade Center attacks as a pretext for imperialist aggression. See http://www.gospan.org). Many left activists seem more able to identify with (idealized versions of) Iraqi or Afghan civilians than with American citizens, whether these are the people who perished in the Twin Towers or the rest of us who legitimately fear that we might be next. This is not because of any “disloyalty.” Charges like that lack intellectual or political merit. It is because of a debilitating moralism; because it is easier to denounce wrong than to take real responsibility for correcting it, easier to locate and to oppose a remote evil than to address a proximate difficulty. The campus left says what it thinks. But it exhibits little interest in how and why so many Americans think differently. The “peace” demonstrations organized across the country within a few days of the September 11 attacks—in which local Green Party activists often played a crucial role—were, whatever else they were, a sign of their organizers’ lack of judgment and common sense. Although they often expressed genuine horror about the terrorism, they focused their energy not on the legitimate fear and outrage of American citizens but rather on the evils of the American government and its widely supported response to the terror. Hardly anyone was paying attention, but they alienated anyone who was. This was utterly predictable. And that is my point. The predictable consequences did not matter. What mattered was simply the expression of righteous indignation about what is wrong with the United States, as if September 11 hadn’t really happened. Whatever one thinks about America’s deficiencies, it must be acknowledged that a political praxis preoccupation with this is foolish and self-defeating. The other, more serious consequence of this moralizing tendency is the failure to think seriously about global politics. The campus left is rightly interested in the ills of global capitalism. But politically it seems limited to two options: expressions of “solidarity” with certain oppressed groups—Palestinians but not Syrians, Afghan civilians (though not those who welcome liberation from the Taliban), but not Bosnians or Kosovars or Rwandans—and automatic opposition to American foreign policy in the name of anti-imperialism. The economic discourse of the campus left is a universalist discourse of human needs and workers rights; but it is accompanied by a refusal to think in political terms about the realities of states, international institutions, violence, and power. This refusal is linked to a peculiar strain of pacifism, according to which any use of military force by the United States is viewed as aggression or militarism.