ze cuba case

8/12/2019 Ze Cuba Case

1/44

1

***CUBA NEGATIVE******CUBA NEGATIVE*** ....................................................................................................................................................................... 1***TOPICALITY*** ................................................................................................................................................................................ 2Topicality Economic Engagement .......................................................................................................................................................... 3***ADVANTAGE ANSWERS*** .......................................................................................................................................................... 4Cuban Relations 1NC ............................................................................................................................................................................. 5Cuba Stability 1NC ................................................................................................................................................................................. 6Hegemony 1NC ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 7Hegemony 2NC EXTN ........................................................................................................................................................................... 9LA Relations 1NC ................................................................................................................................................................................ 10LA Relations 2NC EXTN ..................................................................................................................................................................... 12Soft Power 1NC .................................................................................................................................................................................... 16Terrorism 1NC ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 17Terrorism Link EXTN .......................................................................................................................................................................... 19Terrorism Impact EXTN ....................................................................................................................................................................... 20Terrorism A2: Retaliation ..................................................................................................................................................................... 22***SOLVENCY*** ................................................................................................................................................................................ 23A2: Solve Sanctions ................................................................................................................................................................................. 24Assistance Now 1NC ............................................................................................................................................................................ 27Biodiversity Turn 1NC ......................................................................................................................................................................... 28Bioweapons Turn 1NC ......................................................................................................................................................................... 30

Cuba = Terrorist 1NC ........................................................................................................................................................................... 31Cuba = Terrorist 2NC EXTN ................................................................................................................................................................ 32***POLITICS*** .................................................................................................................................................................................... 35Link Generic ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 36Link Rubio ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 37Link Ros-Lehtinen ................................................................................................................................................................................ 38Counterplan Gross Condition................................................................................................................................................................ 39Gross CP 1NC ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 42GSP CP 1NC ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 43White House Pardon CP 1NC ............................................................................................................................................................... 44


2/44

2

***TOPICALITY***


3/44

3

Topicality Economic EngagementInterpretation: Affirmative must economically engage with a topically designated country

Violation: The affirmative removes Cuba from the state sponsor terror list, which does not changeeconomic policyTerrorism list has little effect on sanctionsClaver-Carone, U.S.-Cuba Democracy PAC Director , 2013 ,(Mauricio, Former U.S. Treasury Department Attorney-advisor, Former George Washington University Law Professor, "Cuba Sees anOpening", The American, 4-2, PAS) www.american.com/archive/2013/april/cuba-should-remain-designated-as-a-state-sponsor-of-terrorism 4-4-13

Cubas Castro brothers have spent billions of dollars over the last decade seducing U.S. farm bureaus and agri -business to lobby Congress to support lift ing sanctions on Cuba. Recently

recognizing that Congress is unlikely to support unconditional changes, and perceiving a possible opening with the new Secretary of State John Kerry, Castro lobbyists have shifted their focus to the Obama administration and a related goal: the removal of Cuba from the State Departments list of state sponsors of ter rorism . Kerrysupported unilaterally easing sanctions on Cuba during his Senate career, and speculation that the State Department is considering removing Cuba from the state sponsor list which alsoincludes Iran, Sudan, and Syria has been spurred by news reports citi ng contradictory remarks from anonymous administration sources. Some high -level diplomats have suggested Cuba bedropped from the list, according to the Boston Globe. But the State Department's spokesperson Victoria Nuland clarified in late February that it had no current plans to change Cuba'sdesignation as a state sponsor of terrorism. However, that has not slowed efforts b y those seeking rapprochement with the Cas tro regime, as a final decision w ill not be officially revealed until

April 30. Cuba has been on the state sponsors of terrorism list since 1982 due to its hostile acts and support o f armed insurgency groups. While being on the list of terroristsponsors imposes sanctions such as prohibiting the U nited States from selling arms or providing economic assistance , removing Cuba from thatlist would have litt le effect on these sanctions, as these were separately codified in 1996 . However, it would certainly hand the Cas tro brothers a major and unmerited diplomatic victory. The Castros have long protested and sought to escape the ostracism associated with the terrorism listing, while refusing to modify the egregious behavior

that earned them the designation. They are also hoping the change could improve their standing among otherw ise reluctant members of Congress and lead t o an unconditional lifting ofsanctions in the near future.

Vote negative:Predictable limits research focus is on economic policies with those countries anything else explodesthe limits in favor of the aff makes it impossible to be negative
http://www.american.com/archive/2013/april/cuba-should-remain-designated-as-a-state-sponsor-of-terrorismhttp://www.american.com/archive/2013/april/cuba-should-remain-designated-as-a-state-sponsor-of-terrorismhttp://www.american.com/archive/2013/april/cuba-should-remain-designated-as-a-state-sponsor-of-terrorismhttp://www.american.com/archive/2013/april/cuba-should-remain-designated-as-a-state-sponsor-of-terrorismhttp://www.american.com/archive/2013/april/cuba-should-remain-designated-as-a-state-sponsor-of-terrorismhttp://www.american.com/archive/2013/april/cuba-should-remain-designated-as-a-state-sponsor-of-terrorism


4/44

4

***ADVANTAGE ANSWERS***


5/44

5

Cuban Relations 1NCThe plan is a drop in the bucket only multiple constructive initiatives will repair relationsPascual et al., Brookings Foreign Policy Director , 2009 ,(Carlos, "Cuba: A New Policy of Critical and Constructive Engagement", Brookings, April, Pg. 5, PAS)www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2009/4/cuba/0413_cuba.pdf 4-16-13

It should be understood that engagement while having as a goal evolution to a peaceful and democratic Cuba does not promise an

overnight metamorphosis. Rather, it is a process, a pathway with various detours and obstacles, that over time arrives at itsdestination. The roadmap for critical and constructive engagement is a long-term strategic vision made up of baskets of short-,medium-, and long-term initiatives; all are within the authority of the Executive Branch to enact. Each of the initiatives we suggestwould advance one or more of the objectives listed in the box below.

Alternative cause to U.S.-Cuban relations Gross and tea party blockFinancial Times , 2012 ,(Marc Frank, Financial Times Correspondent, US relations with Cuba unlikely to warm, whoever enters White House: Foreign

policy, 9 -26, PAS) Accessed on ProQuest 4-18-13

But four years later, US-Cuba relations remain stuck in much the same time warp . Whether Mr Obama or Mitt Romney, hisRepublican challenger, becomes the next US president, few expect a breakthrough - although the region's changing ideologicallandscape could prompt the beginnings of a shift. Mr Obama lifted all restrictions on Cuban- American visits soon after taking office,

and in December 2010 reversed a Bush administration ban that led to a surge in so-called people-to-people visits, which are foreducational purposes rather than tourism. But he has also stepped up financial sanctions under antiterrorism laws, and this year issuedtough travel guidelines. "The US position on Cuba continues to undercut our strategic position in the region and a breakthrough wouldgreatly enhance Obama's foreign policy legacy through solving a problem far simpler than many other global issues," says JuliaSweig, a senior fellow on Latin America at the Washington-based Council on Foreign Relations. "There is no question that Obama'sfirst term disappointed many when it comes to Cuba, but I think it premature to assume this status quo under a second term," sheadded. Mr Romney, if he wins, is expected to tighten travel and adopt a more aggressive public stance towards Havana, encouraged

by powerful Cuban-American legislators in the key electoral state of Florida . The two countries' latest, seemingly intractable conflictis over the fates of US contractor Alan Gross - jailed in Cuba - and five Cuban intelligence agents. Mr Gross was arrested in 2009 for

participating in a US project to set up an internet platform covertly in Cuba. He is serving a 15-year sentence. The Cuban agents wereimprisoned in the US 14 years ago for infiltrating exile organisations and military installations in Florida. Following Mr Gross's arrest,immigration and mail service talks that had restarted under Mr Obama were again suspended. US diplomats say there will be no

progress until Mr Gross is released. Another factor limiting improved US-Cuban relations is the conservative tide that washed overWashington after the 2010 congressional elections and that brought Marco Rubio, the Florida Republican senator, to office and sawanother hardline Cuban-American, Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, appointed head of the House committee on foreign affairs.Both lawmakers oppose contact with Cuba and are particularly incensed by people-topeople exchanges. "This is nothing more thantourism . . . a source of millions of dollars in the hands of the Castro government that they use to oppress the Cuban people," MrRubio charged during congressional hearings last year. As many as 400,000 Americans visited Cuba in 2011, with up to 70,000 ofthem not of Cuban heritage. They may have boosted the government, but they were also important clients for the hundreds of small

businesses that have opened in Cuba - part of Havana's broad, if hesitant, market-oriented reforms.
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2009/4/cuba/0413_cuba.pdfhttp://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2009/4/cuba/0413_cuba.pdfhttp://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2009/4/cuba/0413_cuba.pdf


6/44

6

Cuba Stability 1NCAlt cause to Cuba stability institutional barriersAron, Council on Hemispheric Affairs Research Associate , 2013 ,(Jennifer, Guest Scholar Adrian H. Hearn, "COHA Analysis: Without the Castros, What is the Fate of the Cuban Revolution?",Council on Hemispheric Affairs, 2-26, PAS) www.coha.org/council-on-hemispheric-affairs-analysis-without-the-castro-what-is-the-future-of-the-cuban-government/ 4-5-13

According to a report presented to the Cuban National Assembly, 365,000 jobs were cut from the state payroll in 2011 and 2012, andthe number of non-state workers grew by 23 percent . Self -employed workers now number around 400,000, but supporting theirviability has become a pressing policy challenge. There are two reasons for this, one ideological and one practical, and the Castro/Daz team will need to deal with both. First, the Lineamientos discourage small businesses from expanding their activities and evenstocking their back rooms, stating that, in the non -state system, the concentration of property will not be permitted. Thiscommitment to egalitarianism will probably diminish over time. Political bureau member Esteban Lazo Hernandez predicts that by2017, the year before Daz-Canel is slated to take office, the growth of the private sector will see the states share of GDP fall from 95

percent to around 40 percent. A more practical obstacle to small business development is the absence of a coherent wholesale supplychain. Cubas new entrepreneurs must rely on finances and inputs acquired either from fa mily overseas or illegally from socios (well-

placed business partners) in state factories. Wider legalization of self-employment a move often advocated by foreigncommentators will only deepen the black market if the supply problem is not dealt with first. Between now and 2018, establishingregulated supply chains to support small business development, diminish the black market, and reduce corruption will be critical bothto the health of the Cuban economy and the credibility of the state. It is worth noting that across the Pacific, on a grander scale, Chinafaces comparable challenges. Like Daz- Canel, Xi Jinping has recently been selected by the internal mechanisms of his nationsCommunist Party as the new President. His acceptance speech may just as wel l have been delivered in Havana, calling for reformand opening up, the reduction of undue emphasis on formality and bureaucracy, and the eradication of corruption and bribe -taking. That the Chinese leadership has recognized Cuba as a fraternal brother is a telling recognition of shared heritage, and

perhaps a common future.

Cuban state controls the economySullivan, Latin American Affairs Specialist , 2012 ,(Mark P., "Cuba: Issues for the 112th Congress", Congressional Research Service, 11-6, Pg. 20, PAS) cuba-embargo.procon.org/sourcefiles/CRS-report-cuba-2012.pdf 4-11-13

Cubas economy is largely state -controlled, with the government owning most means of production and employing over 80% of thelabor force. Key sectors of the economy that generate foreign exchange include the export of professional services (largely medical

personnel to Venezuela); tourism, which has grown significantly since the mid-1990s, with 2.53 million tourists visiting Cuba in2010; nickel and cobalt mining, with the Canadian mining company Sherritt International involved in a joint investment project; anda biotechnology and pharmaceutical sector that supplies the domestic healthcare system and has fostered a significant exportindustry. Remittances from relatives living abroad, especially from the United States, have also become a significant source of hardcurrency, with more than $1 billion sent to Cuba annually in remittances from families living abroad. The once-dominant sugarindustry has declined significantly over the past 20 years; in 1990, Cuba produced 8.4 million tons of sugar while in 2012 it

produced just 1.4 million tons.56
http://www.coha.org/council-on-hemispheric-affairs-analysis-without-the-castro-what-is-the-future-of-the-cuban-government/http://www.coha.org/council-on-hemispheric-affairs-analysis-without-the-castro-what-is-the-future-of-the-cuban-government/http://www.coha.org/council-on-hemispheric-affairs-analysis-without-the-castro-what-is-the-future-of-the-cuban-government/http://www.coha.org/council-on-hemispheric-affairs-analysis-without-the-castro-what-is-the-future-of-the-cuban-government/http://www.coha.org/council-on-hemispheric-affairs-analysis-without-the-castro-what-is-the-future-of-the-cuban-government/http://www.coha.org/council-on-hemispheric-affairs-analysis-without-the-castro-what-is-the-future-of-the-cuban-government/


7/44

7

Hegemony 1NCHeg doesnt deter war Layne 97 (Christopher, Visiting Professor Naval Postgraduate School, From Preponderance to Offshore Balancing)

Two critical objections could be lodged against an offshore balancing grand strategy: an offshore balancing strategy would increase not lower the risk of U.S. involvement in a major war, and the strategy of preponderance should not be abandoned because its

benefits exceed its costs. Advocates of preponderance believe it is ifiusory to think that the United States can disengage frominternational commitments, because it inevitably would be drawn into major wars even if initially it tried to remain aloof. The exampleof Europe is frequently invoked: whenever a major European war breaks out, it is said, the United States invariably is compelled tointervene. Preponderances advocates also claim that U.S. security commitments in Europe and East Asia are a form of insurance: it ischeaper and safer for the United States to retain its security commitments and thereby deter wars from happening than to stand on thesidelines only to be compelled to intervene later under what presumably would be more dangerous conditions. Yet this argument isunsupported by the historical record , and it is not evident that the strategy of preponderance will in fact minimize the risk of U.S.involvement in future wars.

Internal conflicts drive wars heg cant solve Conry 97 (Barbara, Foreign Policy Analyst Cato, Policy Analysis No. 267, 2- 5, U.S. Global Leadership: A Euphemism forWorld Policeman, http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa -267.html)

Other proponents of U.S. political and military leadership do not point to particular benefits; instead, they warn of near-certain disasterif the United States relinquishes its leadership role. Christopher paints a bleak picture: Just consider what the world would be likewithout American leadership in the last two years alone. We would have four nuclear states in the former Soviet Union, instead ofone, with Russian missiles still targeted at our homes. We would have a full-throttled nuclear program in North Korea; no GATTagreement and no NAFTA; brutal dictators still terrorizing Haiti; very likely, Iraqi troops back in Kuwait; and an unresolved Mexicaneconomic crisis, which would threaten stability at our border. [55] Gingrich has pronounced a future without American leadership "a

big mess." [56]And former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher has warned, What we are possibly looking at in 2095 [absentU.S. leadership] is an unstable world in which there are more than half a dozen "great powers," each with its own clients, allvulnerable if they stand alone, all capable of increasing their power and influence if they form the right kind of alliance, and allengaged willy-nilly in perpetual diplomatic maneuvers to ensure that their relative positions improve rather than deteriorate. In otherwords, 2095 might look like 1914 played on a somewhat larger stage. [57] In other words, if America abdicates its role as worldleader, we are condemned to repeat the biggest mistakes of the 20th century--or perhaps do something even worse. Such thinking isseriously flawed , however. First, to assert that U.S. leadership can stave off otherwise inevitable global chaos vastly overestimates the power of any single country to influence world events. The United States is powerful, but it still can claim only 5 percent of theworld's population and 20 percent of world economic output. Moreover, regardless of the resources Americans might be willing to

devote to leading the world, today's problems often do not lend themselves well to external solutions . As Maynes has pointed out,Today, the greatest fear of most states is not external aggression but internal disorder. The United States can do little about the latter,whereas it used to be able to do a great deal about the former. In other words, the coinage of U.S. power in the world has beendevalued by the change in the international agenda. [58] Indeed, many of the foreign policy problems that have confoundedWashington since the demise of the Soviet Union are the kinds of problems that are likely to trouble the world well into the nextcentury. " Failed states," such as Somalia, may not be uncommon. But, as the ill-fated U.S. and UN operations in that country showed,there is very little that outside powers can do about such problems. External powers usually lack the means to prevent or end civilwars, such as those in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, unless they are willing to make a tremendous effort to do so. Yet thosetypes of internecine conflicts are likely to be one of the primary sources of international disorder for the foreseeable future.Despite the doomsayers who prophesy global chaos in the absence of U.S. leadership, however, Washington's limited ability todampen such conflicts is not cause for panic. Instability is a normal feature of an international system of sovereign states, which theUnited States can tolerate and has tolerated for more than two centuries. If vital American interests are not at stake, instability itself

becomes a serious problem only if the United States blunders into it, as it did in Somalia and Bosnia. [59]

Heg is resilientWohlforth 7 (William, Professor of Government Dartmouth College, Unipolar Stability, Harvard International Review, Spring,http://hir.harvard.edu/articles/1611/3/)

US military forces are stretched thin, its budget and trade deficits are high, and the country continues to finance its profligate ways by borrowing from abroad notably from the Chinese government. These developments have prompted many analysts to warn that theUnited States suffers from imperialoverstretch . And if US power is overstretched now, the argument goes, unipolarity can hardly besustainable for long. The problem with this argument is that it fails to distinguish between actual and latent power. One must becareful to take into account both the level of resources that can be mobilized and the degree to which a government actually tries tomobilize them. And how much a government asks of its public is partly a function of the severity of the challenges that it faces.Indeed, one can never know for sure what a state is capable of until it has been seriously challenged. Yale historian Paul Kennedy


8/44

8

coined the term imperial overstretch to describe the situation in which a states actual and latent capabilities cannot pos sibly matchits foreign policy commitments. This situation should be contras ted with what might be termed self -inflicted overstretch asituation in which a state lacks the sufficient resources to meet its current foreign policy commitments in the short term, but hasuntapped latent power and readily available policy choices that it can use to draw on this power. This is arguably the situation that theUnited States is in today. But the US government has not attempted to extract more resources from its population to meet its foreign

policy commitments. Instead, it has moved strongly in the opposite direction by slashing personal and corporate tax rates. Although itis fighting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and claims to be fighting a global war on terrorism, the United States is not acting like acountry under intense international pressure. Aside from the volunteer servicemen and women and their families, US citizens have not

been asked to make sacrifices for the sake of national prosperity and security. The country could clearly devote a greater proportion ofits economy to military spending: today it spends only about 4 percent of its GDP on the military, as compared to 7 to 14 percentduring the peak years of the Cold War. It could also spend its military budget more efficiently, shifting resources from expensiveweapons systems to boots on the ground. Even more radically, it could reinstitute military conscription, shifting resources from payand benefits to training and equipping more soldiers. On the economic front, it could raise taxes in a number of ways, notably on fossilfuels, to put its fiscal house back in order. No one knows for sure what would happen if a US president undertook such drasticmeasures, but there is nothing in economics, political science, or history to suggest that such policies would be any less likely tosucceed than China is to continue to grow rapidly for decades. Most of those who study US politics would argue that the likelihoodand potential success of such power-generating policies depends on public support , which is a function of the publics per ception of athreat. And as unnerving as terrorism is, there is nothing like the threat of another hostile power rising up in opposition to the UnitedStates for mobilizing public support. With latent power in the picture, it becomes clear that unipolarity might have more built-in self-reinforcing mechanisms than many analysts realize. It is often noted that the rise of a peer competitor to the United States might bethwarted by the counterbalancing actions of neighboring powers. For example, Chinas rise m ight push India and Japan closer to theUnited States indeed, this has already happened to some extent. There is also the strong possibility that a peer rival that comes to beseen as a threat would create strong incentives for the United States to end its self-inflicted overstretch and tap potentially largewellsprings of latent power .


9/44

9

Hegemony 2NC EXTNIsolationism inevitable social welfareMandelbaum 5 (Michael, Professor in the School of Advanced International Studies Johns Hopkins University, The Case forGoliath: How America Acts as the Worlds Government in the Twenty -First Century, p. 184-186)

The huge bill for entitlements as the twenty-first century proceeds will compel either a very steep rise in the taxes younger Americans pay or a sharp reduction in the benefits older Americans receive, or, what is most likely, both. Neither will be popular. The mark ofthis unpopularity is the fact that although the fiscal problems the aging of the baby boomers will pose have long been well known,candidates for political office, who have the ultimate responsibility for coping with these problems, have virtually ignored them.72The required tax increases and cuts in benefits are likely to be substantial enough to affect the context in which public policy is made.The entitlements explosion, especially in conjunction with rising energy costs but even without these, will create a new politicalclimate in the United States, and in this new climate the international services that the country came to provide during and after theCold War are not necessarily destined to flourish. Democracies favor butter over guns.73 The ultimate responsibility for the society'sresources rests with the people themselves, and most people see to their own immediate well-being before concerning themselves withevents beyond their borders.74 The founding document of the American republic, the Declaration of Independence of 1776,announced that all persons have certain fundamental rights, which the independent country the signers proposed to build wouldguarantee, namely "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"-presumably individual happiness. The document did not mentioninternational stability or global prosperity as goals to which the new country would devote itself. As the provision of welfare becomesmore expensive and therefore more controversial, other public programs, especially those involving other countries and not clearlyconnected to the physical safety of Americans, may well lose political support . Under these circumstances it will becomeincreasingly difficult for the foreign policy elite to persuade the wider public to support the kinds of policies that, collectively, makeup the American role as the world's government. Foreign policy will be relegated to the back burner , regarded as less worthy ofconcern and attention than the government's financial obligations to its own citizens.

Times have changed heg fails after IraqSchwenninger 7 (Sherle R., Fellow New America Foundation, Undebated Challenges, The Nation, 11-19,http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071119/schwenninger)

As important, the Democrats seem to assume that the world so wants and needs American leadership that it is there for the taking. Butas Anatol Lieven suggests, the overarching question facing American foreign policy is not how to restore leadership but how to adjustto an increasingly multipolar world that may be less open to any one power's primacy. Russia, China, India, South Korea, a host ofSouth American countries and even the pro-American powers belonging to the European Union have all grown accustomed to a worldin which the United States has been preoccupied with Iraq and in which they have had more freedom to shape the politics andeconomies of their regions. Much of the world has done just fine without active American leadership during this time and thus may

not be as receptive to a reassertion of US leadership, as most of the Democratic candidates seem to suggest. Indeed, the leadingDemocratic candidates have failed to grasp one of the central lessons of the Bush era: the world does not need strong US leadership somuch as it needs constructive US participation as a great power. On global climate change, on AIDS in Africa, on engaging NorthKorea, to mention just a few issues, other powers and new coalitions of transnational NGOs and intergovernmental agencies--as wellas long-established ones such as the United Nations--got there just as quickly as and in some cases before the United States, and theynow have an ownership stake in these issues and well-developed views about how they should be solved. They would welcome theUnited States to the fold, but they would not cede all leadership to Washington.


10/44

10

LA Relations 1NCEnvironment is resilientEasterbrook 95 (Gregg, Distinguished Fellow Fullbright Foundation, A Moment on Earth, p. 25)

In the aftermath of events such as Love Canal or the Exxon Valdez oil spill , every reference to the environment is prefaced with theadjective "fragile." "Fragile environment" has become a welded phrase of the modern lexicon, l ike "aging hippie" or "fugitivefinancier." But the notion of a fragile environment is profoundly wrong. Individual animals, plants, and people are distressinglyfragile. The environment that contains them is close to indestructible . The living environment of Earth has survived ice ages;

bombardments of cosmic radiation more deadly than atomic fallout; solar radiation more powerful than the worst-case projection forozone depletion; thousand-year periods of intense volcanism releasing global air pollution far worse than that made by any factory;reversals of the planet's magnetic poles; the rearrangement of continents; transformation of plains into mountain ranges and of seasinto plains; fluctuations of ocean currents and the jet stream; 300-foot vacillations in sea levels; shortening and lengthening of theseasons caused by shifts in the planetary axis; collisions of asteroids and comets bearing far more force than man's nuclear arsenals;and the years without summer that followed these impacts. Yet hearts beat on, and petals unfold still. Were the environment fragile itwould have expired many eons before the advent of the industrial affronts of the dreaming ape. Human assaults on the environment,though mischievous, are pinpricks compared to forces of the magnitude nature is accustomed to resisting .

Long time-frameKay 1 (Jane, Study Takes Historical Peek at Plight of Ocean Ecosystems, San Francisco Chronicle, 7 -26, Lexis)

The collapse of ecosystems often occur over a long period . In one example, when Aleut hunters killed the Alaskan sea otter about2,500 years ago , the population of their natural prey, the sea urchin, grew larger than its normal size. In turn, the urchins grazed downthe kelp forests, important habitat for a whole host of ocean life. Then, when fur traders in the 1800s hunted the otters and sea cowsalmost to extinction, the kelp forests disappeared and didn't start to regenerate until the federal government protected the sea otters inthe 20th century. In California, the diversity of spiny lobsters, sheephead fish and abalone kept down the urchin numbers. At presentin Alaska, the kelp beds are declining again in areas where killer whales are preying on sea otters. Biologists think the killer whalesswitched to otters for food because there are fewer seals and sea lions to eat.

Environment strong and improving their authors lieDutton 1 (Dr. Dennis, Professor of Philosophy University of Canterbury (New Zealand), Greener Than You Think, T heWashington Post, 10-21, http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=& contentId=A12789-2001Oct18)

That the human race faces environmental problems is unquestionable. That environmental experts have regularly tried to scare us outof our wits with doomsday chants is also beyond dispute. In the 1960s overpopulation was going to cause massive worldwide faminearound 1980. A decade later we were being told the world would be out of oil by the 1990s. This was an especially chilly prospect,since, as Newsweek reported in 1975, we were in a climatic cooling trend that was going to reduce agricultural outputs for the rest ofthe century, leading possibly to a new Ice Age. Bjorn Lomborg, a young statistics professor and political scientist at the University ofAarhus in Denmark, knows all about the enduring appeal -- for journalists, politicians and the public -- of environmental doomsdaytales, having swallowed more than a few himself. In 1997, Lomborg -- a self-described left-winger and former Greenpeace member --came across an article in Wired magazine about Julian Simon, a University of Maryland economist. Simon claimed that the "litany" ofthe Green movement -- its fears about overpopulation, animal species dying by the hour, deforestation -- was hysterical nonsense ,and that the quality of life on the planet was radically improving . Lomborg was shocked by this, and he returned to Denmark to setabout doing the research that would refute Simon. He and his team of academicians discovered something sobering and cheering: Inevery one of his claims, Simon was correct. Moreover, Lomborg found on close analysis that the factual foundation on which theenvironmental doomsayers stood was deeply flawed : exaggeration, prevarications, white lies and even convenient typographicalerrors had been absorbed unchallenged into the folklore of environmental disaster scenarios.

Even if theyre right that means pollution makes it inevitable Myers 97 (Norman, Visiting Fellow of Green College Oxford University and Senior Fellow World Wildlife Fund, Biodiversity II,Ed. Reaka-Kudla and Wilson, p. 135-136)

While formulating our responses to the mass extinction crisis, we need to bear in mind the length of time still available to us. Thecritical criterion for our efforts is not whether we are doing far more than before, but whether it will be enough and that in turn raisesthe question of enough by when? How soon might we cross a threshold after which our best efforts could prove to be of littl e avail?Of course, not all habitats are going to be destroyed outright within the immediate future. But that is hardly the point. What looks setto eliminate many if not most species in the long run will be the fragmentation effect, i.e., the break up of extensive hab itats intosmall isolated patches that are too small to maintain their stocks of species into the indefinite future. This phenomenon has beenwidely analyzed through the theory of island biogeography, and appears to be strongly supported through abundant empiricalevidence, albeit with a good number of variations on the general theme. True, the process of ecological equilibriation, with its delayed


11/44

11

fall-out effects, will take an extended period to exert its full depletive impact; in some instances, it will be decades and even centuries before species eventually disappear. But the ultimate upshot, which is what we should be primarily concerned with, will be the same.Consider the environmental degradation that already has occurred . Through dynamic inertia , it will continue to exert an increasinglyadverse effect for a good way into the future, no matter how vigorously we try to resist the process: much potential damage isalready in the pipeline. An obvious example is acid rain, which will keep on inflicting injury on biotas by reason of pollutantsalready deposited though not yet causing apparent harm. Similarly, tropical forests will suffer desiccation through climatic changesinduced by deforestation that already has taken place. Desertification will keep on expanding its impact through built-in momentum .Ozone-destroying CFCs now in the atmosphere will continue their work for a whole century even if we were to cease releasing themforthwith. There is enough global warming in store through past emissions of greenhouse gases to cause significant climatic change nomatter how much we seek to slow it, let alone halt it. In light of this on-going degradation of the biosphere, let us suppose, for the sakeof argument, that in the year 2000 the whole of humankind were to be removed from the face of the Earth in one fell swoop. Becauseof the many environmental perturbations already imposed, with their impacts persisting for many subsequent decades, gross

biospheric impoverishment would continue and thus serve to eliminate further large numbers of species in the long term (Myers,1990b).


12/44

12

LA Relations 2NC EXTNNo extinctionEasterbrook 3 (Gregg, Senior Fellow New Republic, Were All Gonna Die!, Wired Magazine, July,http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.07/doomsday.html?pg=1&topic=&topic_set=)

If we're talking about doomsday - the end of human civilization - many scenarios simply don't measure up. A single nuclear bombignited by terrorists, for example, would be awful beyond words, but life would go on. People and machines might converge in waysthat you and I would find ghastly, but from the standpoint of the future, they would probably represent an adaptation. Environmentalcollapse might make parts of the globe unpleasant, but considering that the biosphere has survived ice ages, it wouldn't be the finalcurtain . Depression, which has become 10 times more prevalent in Western nations in the postwar era, might grow so widespread thatvast numbers of people would refuse to get out of bed, a possibility that Petranek suggested in a doomsday talk at the TechnologyEntertainment Design conference in 2002. But Marcel Proust, as miserable as he was, wrote Remembrance of Things Past while lyingin bed.

Environment is strong nowBerg 8 (Chris, Columnist The Age, Isn't All This Talk of an Apocalypse Getting a Bit Boring?, The Age, 1 -27,http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/isnt-all-this-talk-of-an-apocalypse-getting-a-bit-boring/2008/01/26/12011 57736917.html)

But there are substantial grounds for optimism on almost every measure , the state of the world is improving. Pollution is no longerthe threat it was seen to be in the 1970s, at least in the developed world. Changes in technology, combined with our greater demandfor a clean environment, have virtually eliminated concerns about pungent waterways and dirty forests. Legislation played some rolein this, but as Indur Goklany points out in his recent study, The Improving State of the World, the environment started getting betterlong before such laws were passed. Goklany reveals that strong economies, not environment ministers, are the most effectiveenforcers of cleanliness in our air and water. Indeed, the world's 10 most polluted places are in countries where strong economicgrowth has historically been absent Russia, China, India and Kyrgyzstan have not really been known for their thriving consumercapitalism. Other indices, too, show that humanity's future is likely to be bright . Infant mortality has dramatically declined, as hasmalnutrition, illiteracy, and even global poverty. And there are good grounds for hope that we can adapt to changing climates as well.History has shown just how capable we are of inventing and adapting our way out of any sticky situation and how we can do itwithout crippling our economies or imposing brutal social controls. Environmental alarmists have become more and more like thoseapocalyptic preachers common in the 19th century always expecting the Rapture on this date and, when it doesn't come, quicklyrevising their calculations. Optimism is in too short supply in discussions about the environment. But four decades after ThePopulation Bomb, if we remember just how wrong visions of the apocalypse have been in the past, perhaps we will look to the futuremore cheerfully.

Overall ecological sustainability strongBailey 00 (Ronald, Science Correspondent Competitive Enter prise Institute, Reason Magazine, Earth Day, Then and Now, May,

Now, http://reason.com/0005/fe.rb.earth.shtml)

Earth Day 1970 provoked a torrent of apocalyptic predictions. We have about five more years at the outside to do something,ecologist Kenneth Watt declared to a Swarthmore College audience on April 19, 1970. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated thatcivilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind. We are in an environmental cr isis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation, wroteWashington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment. The day after EarthDay, even the staid New York Times editorial page warned, Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely toenhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction. Very Apocalypse Now. Three decadeslater, of course, the world hasnt come to an end; if anything, the planets ecological future has never looked so promisin g. With half a

billion people suiting up around the globe for Earth Day 2000, now is a good time to look back on the predictions made at the first

Earth Day and see how theyve held up and what we can learn from them. The short answer: The prophets of doom were not simplywrong, but spectacularly wrong . More important, many contemporary environmental alarmists are similarly mistaken when theycontin ue to insist that the Earths future remains an eco -tragedy that has already entered its final act. Such doomsters not only fail toappreciate the huge environmental gains made over the past 30 years, they ignore the simple fact that increased wealth, population,and technological innovation dont degrade and destroy the environment. Rather, such developments preserve and enrich theenvironment. If it is impossible to predict fully the future, it is nonetheless possible to learn from the past. And the best lesson we canlearn from revisiting the discourse surrounding the very first Earth Day is that passionate concern, however sincere, is no substitute forrational analysis. Redundancy and adaptation solveDoremus 00 (Holly, Professor of Law UC Davis, Washington & Lee Law Review, "The Rhetoric and Reality of Nature Protection:Toward a New Discourse," 57 Wash & Lee L. Rev. 11, Winter, Lexis)


13/44


14/44

14

Species are redundant others will fill in for lossMaser 92 (Chris, Expert in Forest Ecology and Government Consultant, Global Imperative: Harmonizing Culture and Nature, p. 40)

Redundancy means that more than one species can perform similar functions. Its a type of ecological insurance policy , whichstrengthens the ability of the system to retain the integrity of its basic relationships. The insurance of redundancy means that the lossof a species or two is not likely to result in such severe functional disruptions of the ecosystem so as to cause its collapse becauseother species can make up for the functional loss.

Redundancy checksMarxen 3 (Craig S., Associate Professor of Economics University of Nebraska, The Independent Review, 7(3), Winter,http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_07_3_marxsen.pdf)

Carlos Davidson (2000), a biologist with an economics background, takes issue with what he perceives as Sagoffs agnos ticismconcerning the existence of significant environmental destruction relevant to humankinds well -being. He perceives that Sagoff risksoverstatement of the environments robustness, and he argues that human activities clearly damage the environment, b ut not in a waythat is likely to lead to catastrophe. According to Davidson, environmental damage is not so much like pulling rivets out of an airplaneas it is like pulling threads out of a tapestry. The tapestry becomes more and more threadbare and damaged looking, but it neverreaches some critical threshold of cataclysmic failure. The ecosystem is brimming with redundancy , and problems such asreductions in biodiversity do not threaten the viability of the simpler system that results. Like an old carpet, an increasingly damagedand dirty environment would show no tendency to resolve the deterioration trend catastrophically.

Environment is resilient due to redundancySedjo 00 (Roger A., Senior Fellow Resources for the Future, Conserving Natures Biod iversity: Insights From Biology, Ethics, andEconomics, Ed. Van Kooten, Bulte, and Sinclair, p. 114)

As a critical input into the existence of humans and of life on earth, biodiversity obviously has a very high value (at least to humans).But, as with other resource questions, including public goods, biodiversity is not an either/or question, but rather a question of howmuch. Thus, we may argue as to how much biodiversity is desirable or is required for human life (threshold) and how much is desirable (insurance) and at what price, just as societies argue over the appropriate amount and cost of national defense. As discussed

by Simpson, the value of water is small even though it is essential to human life, while diamonds are inessential but valuabl e tohumans. The reason has to do with relative abundance and scarcity, with market value pertaining to the marginal unit. This water-diamond paradox can be applied to biodiversity. Although biological diversity is essential, a single species has only limited value ,since the global system will continue to function without that species. Similarly, the value of a piece of biodiversity (e.g., 10 ha oftropical forest) is small to negligible since its contribution to the functioning of the global biodiversity is negligible. The globalecosystem can function with somewhat more or somewhat less biodiversity, since there have been larger amounts in times pastand some losses in recent times. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to indicate that small habitat losses threaten the functioning ofthe global life support system, the value of these marginal habita ts is negligible. The value question is that of how valuable to thelife support function are species at the margin. While this, in principle, is an empirical question, in practice it is probably unknowable.However, thus far, biodiversity losses appear to have had little or no effect on the functioning of the earths life support system ,

presumably due to the resiliency of the system, which perhaps is due to the redundancy found in the system. Through most of itsexistence, earth has had far less biological diversity. Thus, as in the water-diamond paradox, the value of the marginal unit of

biodiversity appears to be very small.

Studies prove species dont sustain ecosystems Warrick 97 (Joby, Staff Writer Washington Post, Diversity is Not Enough to Ensure Hardy Ecosystems, Washington Post, 8 -30,Lexis)

Ecologists have long maintained that diversity is one of nature's greatest strengths, but new research suggests that diversity alone doesnot guarantee strong ecosystems. In findings that could intensify the debate over endangered species and habitat conservation, threenew studies suggest a greater abundance of plant and animal varieties doesn't always translate to better ecological health. At leastequally important, the research found, are the types of species and how they function together. "Having a long list of Latin names isn'talways better than a shorter list of Latin names," said Stanford University biologist Peter Vitousek, co-author of one of the studies

published in the journal Science. Separate experiments in California, Minnesota and Sweden, found that diversity often had little bearing on the performance of ecosystems -- at least as measured by the growth and health of native plants. In fact, the communitieswith the greatest biological richness were often the poorest when it came to productivity and the cycling of nutrients. One studycompared plant life on 50 remote islands in northern Sweden that are prone to frequent wildfires from lightning strikes. ScientistDavid Wardle of Landcare Research in Lincoln, New Zealand, and colleagues at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences,found that islands dominated by a few species of plants recovered more quickly than nearby islands with greater biological diversity.Similar findings were reported by University of Minnesota researchers who studied savannah grasses, and by Stanford's Vitousek and


15/44

15

colleague David Hooper, who concluded that functional characteristics of plant species were more important than the number ofvarieties in determining how ecosystems performed. British plant ecologist J.P. Grime, in a commentary summarizing the research,said there is as yet no "convincing evidence that species diversity and ecosystem function are consistently and causally related .""It could be argued," he added, "that the tide is turning against the notion of high biodiversity as a controller of ecosystem functionand insurance against ecological collapse."


16/44

16

Soft Power 1NCLevels of soft power irrelevant too many Obama blundersBoultinghouse, Council on Hemispheric Affairs Research Associate , 2012 ,(Trent, "For Obama, Four More Years Requires a Willingness to Look South", Council on Hemispheric Affairs, 11-7, PAS)www.coha.org/for-obama-four-more-years-requires-a-willingness-to-look-south/ 4-7-13

When it comes to Latin America, Obama is certainly not an infallible figure, and for every positive sign of engagement with the

hemisphere, it is possible to point to a shortcoming in his strategy. One final point of contention is the presidents failure to closeAmericas military prison in Guantnamo Bay, Cuba, after promising to do so in his 2008 campaign . In an interview last month withJon Stewart of The Daily Show, Obama reiterated that he still sought to close the prison, but acknowledged the existing gridlock inCongress thus far which has prohibited its action.[2] Even just on symbolic measures, the shutdown of Guantnamo Bays prisonwould mark a welcome end to the imagery of torture and human rights depravity which now have bled into two presidentialadministrations.
http://www.coha.org/for-obama-four-more-years-requires-a-willingness-to-look-south/http://www.coha.org/for-obama-four-more-years-requires-a-willingness-to-look-south/http://www.coha.org/for-obama-four-more-years-requires-a-willingness-to-look-south/


17/44

17

Terrorism 1NCCuba terrorist list removal would force FARC and ETA removalClaver-Carone, U.S.-Cuba Democracy PAC Director , 2013 ,(Mauricio, Former U.S. Treasury Department Attorney-advisor, Former George Washington University Law Professor, "Cuba Sees anOpening", The American, 4-2, PAS) www.american.com/archive/2013/april/cuba-should-remain-designated-as-a-state-sponsor-of-terrorism 4-4-13

The United States designates ETA and the FARC as foreign terrorist organizations and Cuba continues to provide support for bothgroups. The favorite new argument of those seeking Cubas removal from the list is to note that peace negotiations between th eColombian government and the FARC are taking place in Havana. But the United States would need to rescind its designation of ETAand the FARC as foreign terrorist organizations before it could remove Cuba from the terrorism sponsor list. More importantly, thereis no peace agreement or peace in Colombia and ETA continues to threaten Spain.

Cuba has the means to make bioweaponsCFR , Council on Foreign Relations , 2010 ,(Backgrounder, "State Sponsors: Cuba", 3-23, PAS) www.cfr.org/cuba/state-sponsors-cuba/p9359?breadcrumb=%2Fissue%2F458%2F 4-13-13

Does Cuba have weapons of mass destruction? In May 2002, Undersecretary of State John Bolton accused Cuba of having a limited biological weapons program and selling dual-use biotechnology to rogue states. Bolton did not name the states in question but noted

that Castro visited Iran and Libya in 2001. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell later clarified Bolton's statement by saying he didnot believe Cuba had bioweapons, merely the capability to conduct biological research for offensive purposes.

Lifting of the Cuban embargo boosts terrorismRep. Rooney, (R-Fla), 2010 ,(Tom, serves on the House Agriculture and Armed Services Committees, "Lifting the travel ban would prop up Castro regime", TheHill, PAS) thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/111739-lifting-the-travel-ban-would-prop-up-castro-%20regime 4-15-13

According to the State Department, Cuba is a state sponsor of terrorism with close ties to Iran and North Korea. The country also provides a safe haven for terrorists from around the world. Lifting the travel ban would funnel American tourism dollars to financestate-sponsored terror and help provide refuge to terrorists, jeopardizing our national security. As a congressman from Florida, Icannot in good conscience support any bill that lets American dollars provide refuge for terrorists 90 miles from the shores of ourstate.

No nuclear terrorism acquisition impossible prefer recent evidenceKrepon 9 (Michael, Co-Founder Henry L. Stimson Center and Diplomat Scholar University of Virginia, The Mushroom CloudThat Wasnt, Foreign Affairs, May / June, Lexis)

At the height of the Cold War, almost no one was bold enough or foolish enough to predict the Soviet Union's collapse, let alonewithout the eruption of a nuclear exchange between the two superpowers. One of the few who prophesied its demise, George Kennan,was deeply worried about a nuclear cataclysm. Kennan, a former U.S. ambassador to the Soviet Union and the father of containment

policy, warned repeatedly that unwise U.S. nuclear policies could lead to Armageddon. The Cold War is now history, but warnings ofan impending nuclear catastrophe are still very much alive. Anxieties today stem not from the threat of a surprise Soviet missile attack

but from the fear of Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, and terrorist groups seeking to carry out catastrophic attacks against soft targets in theUnited States. And yet, not a single death has occurred as a result of nuclear terrorism. Since 9/11, there have been more than 36,000terrorist attacks, resulting in approximately 57,000 fatalities and 99,000 casualties. A terrible, mass-casualty attack using nuclear or

biological weapons could occur at any time, and much more can be done to keep the United States safe. As the attacks that haveoccurred have repeatedly demonstrated, terrorists do not need weapons of mass destruction (WMD) to cause grievous harm; they cando so using hijacked airplanes, fertilizer, automatic weapons, and grenades. But the situation is far from bleak. It is not easy forterrorist groups to acquire the skills and materials necessary to construct a nuclear weapon. Meanwhile, Washington and Moscow havereduced their nuclear arsenals by 34,000 weapons over the past two decades, nuclear testing is now rare, the list of countries withworrisome nuclear programs is very short by historical standards, and the permanent members of the UN Security Council now haveless to fight about -- and more reasons to cooperate in preventing worst-case scenarios from occurring -- than ever before.

No attacks terrorists are weakMueller 9 (John, Professor of Political Science Ohio State University and Contributor Foreign Affairs, How Dangerous Ar e theTaliban?, Foreign Affairs, April / May, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/64932/john -mueller/how-dangerous-are-the-taliban)
http://www.american.com/archive/2013/april/cuba-should-remain-designated-as-a-state-sponsor-of-terrorismhttp://www.american.com/archive/2013/april/cuba-should-remain-designated-as-a-state-sponsor-of-terrorismhttp://www.american.com/archive/2013/april/cuba-should-remain-designated-as-a-state-sponsor-of-terrorismhttp://www.american.com/archive/2013/april/cuba-should-remain-designated-as-a-state-sponsor-of-terrorismhttp://www.cfr.org/cuba/state-sponsors-cuba/p9359?breadcrumb=%2Fissue%2F458%2Fhttp://www.cfr.org/cuba/state-sponsors-cuba/p9359?breadcrumb=%2Fissue%2F458%2Fhttp://www.cfr.org/cuba/state-sponsors-cuba/p9359?breadcrumb=%2Fissue%2F458%2Fhttp://www.cfr.org/cuba/state-sponsors-cuba/p9359?breadcrumb=%2Fissue%2F458%2Fhttp://www.cfr.org/cuba/state-sponsors-cuba/p9359?breadcrumb=%2Fissue%2F458%2Fhttp://www.cfr.org/cuba/state-sponsors-cuba/p9359?breadcrumb=%2Fissue%2F458%2Fhttp://www.american.com/archive/2013/april/cuba-should-remain-designated-as-a-state-sponsor-of-terrorismhttp://www.american.com/archive/2013/april/cuba-should-remain-designated-as-a-state-sponsor-of-terrorism


18/44

18

In addition, al Qaeda has yet to establish a significant presence in the United States. In 2002, U.S. intelligence reports asserted that thenumber of trained al Qaeda operatives in the United States was between 2,000 and 5,000, and FBI Director Robert Mueller assured aSenate committee that al Qaeda had "developed a support infrastructure" in the country and achieved both "the ability and the intent toinflict significant casualties in the U.S. with little warning." However, after years of well funded sleuthing, the FBI and otherinvestigative agencies have been unable to uncover a single true al Qaeda sleeper cell or operative within the country. Mueller'srallying cry has now been reduced to a comparatively bland formulation: "We believe al Qaeda is still seeking to infiltrate operativesinto the U.S. from overseas." Even that may not be true. Since 9/11, some two million foreigners have been admitted to the UnitedStates legally and many others, of course, have entered illegally. Even if border security has been so effective that 90 percent of alQaedas operatives have been turned away or deterred from entering the Unit ed States, some should have made it in -- and some ofthose, it seems reasonable to suggest, would have been picked up by law enforcement by now. The lack of attacks inside the UnitedStates combined with the inability of the FBI to find any potential attackers suggests that the terrorists are either not trying very hardor are far less clever and capable than usually depicted. Policymakers and the public at large should keep in mind the words of GlennCarle, a 23 year veteran of the CIA who served as deputy national intelligence officer for transnational threats: "We must see jihadistsfor the small, lethal, disjointed and miserable opponents that they are." Al Qaeda "has only a handful of individuals capable of

planning, organizing and leading a terrorist operation," Carle notes, and "its capabilities are far inferior to its desires."

Risk of terrorism low and fallingBrookings 8 (Institution, Independent Research and Policy Institute, Have We Exaggerated the Threat of Terrorism?, 7 -18,http://www.brookings.edu/events/2008/0221_terrorism.aspx)

One participant argued that terrorism presents minimal cause for concern. Discounting war zones, studies show that there have beenvery few people killed by Muslim extremists each year in fact, more people drown in bathtubs each year in the United States. TheFBI reported in 2005 that it had not found an al-Qaeda presence in the United States. Additionally, terrorism, by its very nature, can beself-defeating: many attacks by al-Qaeda have caused the group to lose popularity. This participant questioned both the intentions andcapability of al-Qaeda. Osama bin Laden has threatened many attacks that he has not been able to execute. In specific, this participantthought it unlikely that that al-Qaeda would obtain nuclear weapons, despite fears to the contrary. Another participant agreed that thefears about terrorism are exaggerated and differentiated between the actual campaign against al-Qaeda and its supporters and the ideaof a general war on terrorism. However, participants also detailed the larger problems that terrorism can create, regardle ss of thenumbers it kills directly: terrorism often leads to insurgencies or civil wars; it could destabilize U.S. allies in the Middle East and thewhole Middle Eastern architecture; terrorism keeps oil prices high; and it has psychological effects beyond the actual death tolls.Additionally, many planned attacks have been stopped before they were carried out; one participant noted that there have been severalnear-misses recently. One participant argued that the war on terrorism is actually about an ideological battle between the United Statesand its allies and radical forces. Another participant agreed with this assessment of the general struggle between the United States andradical Islamic extremism. This participant noted that the larger struggle is much more complicated to underst and than terrorism inspecific and that this leads to a disproportionate focus on terrorism and the accompanying misallocation of resources. Participantshighlighted the difference between the risks presented by terrorism in the United States and around the world. The impact of terrorism

in Iraq and Lebanon, for instance, is completely different than the impact in the United States, which one participant categorized as being essentially psychological. The relevance of the capability of governments at preventing terrorism was also addressed. Terrorismis particularly dangerous in places where there is weak government capacity and rule of law. Participants discussed why has there not

been another terrorist attack in the United States since September 11, 2001. One participant presented several reasons: the UnitedStates has a supportive domestic Muslim population; the would-be terrorists in the United States are not skilled; and U.S.counterterrorism policy has made it more difficult for the al-Qaeda core to plan complex attacks. This participant argued, however,that there are risks that this situation may change going forward. As the al-Qaeda core reconstitutes itself in Pakistan, it may be able to

plan more complex attacks again. Additionally, the U.S. Muslim population may become less supportive overtime as a result of U.S.homeland security policy. However, another participant did not think the attitudes of the U.S. Muslim community were particularlyrelevant to this debate.


19/44

19

Terrorism Link EXTNPlan increases terrorismClaver-Carone, U.S.-Cuba Democracy PAC Director , 2013 ,(Mauricio, Former U.S. Treasury Department Attorney-advisor, Former George Washington University Law Professor, "Cuba Sees anOpening", The American, 4-2, PAS) www.american.com/archive/2013/april/cuba-should-remain-designated-as-a-state-sponsor-of-terrorism 4-4-13

Third, the State Department report says that the Financial Action Task Force has identified Cuba as having deficiencies in combattingmoney laundering and terrorism financing. In February, the Castro regime made a high -level political commitment to work with theFATF to address money laundering and the flow of money through Cuba to terrorists. There has been no discernible effort since tocriminalize money laundering or to establish procedures to identify and freeze the assets of terrorists. The State Departments

previous rationale for continuing to list Cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism stands and now new justifications can be added: Terrorism is defined in U.S. law as the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coer ce agovernment, the ci vilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives. The arrest and arbitraryimprisonment of Alan P. Gross for actions internationally protected under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, towhich Cuba is a signatory, is an act of terrorism. Moreover, the Castro regime has now made it clear that Gross will be held hostageuntil the United States releases five Cuban spies convicted in U.S. federal courts. In addition, thousands of Cuban soldiers andintelligence officials are stationed in Venezuela. Cubas presence and control over the highest levels of Venezuelas military, police,and intelligence services not only threatens to subvert democracy in that nation, but it allows those Venezuelan authorities to beCubas proxies in trafficking drugs and weapons, and in providing support to such extremist organizations as Hezbollah and Irans al -Quds. Cubas close political ties with other state sponsors of terrorism particularly Iran and Syria and its history of sharingintelligence with rogue regimes are of serious concern and, according to former U.S. intelligence officials, pose a risk to U.S.counterterrorism efforts in the Middle East and elsewhere. As President Obama himself recognized last month when he renewed thenational emergency designation regulating the movement and anchorage of vessels in the Florida Straits (a yearly evaluation processundertaken by U.S. presidents since the 1996 downing of U.S. civilian aircraft by the Castro re gime), the Cuban government has notdemonstrated that it will refrain from the use of excessive force against U.S. vessels or aircraft that may engage in memorial activitiesor peaceful protest north of Cuba. To remove Cuba from the state sponsors of terrorism list based on mere hopes of betteringrelations would be foreign-policy malpractice. Cuba must earn its removal from this list. Clearly it has not done so, and, as long as theCastro brothers retain their absolute control over the island, nor is it likely to do so.

Cuba supports Iranian proliferationCFR , Council on Foreign Relations , 2010 ,(Backgrounder, "State Sponsors: Cuba", 3-23, PAS) www.cfr.org/cuba/state-sponsors-cuba/p9359?breadcrumb=%2Fissue%2F458%2F 4-13-13

Cuba supports Iran's nuclear ambitions and opposed IAEA rebukes of secret Iranian enrichment sites. The two countries have bankingagreements (Islamic Republic News Agency), economic cooperation and lines of credit ( FNA), and three-way energy-focused treatieswith Bolivia (CSMonitor ). Cuba and Iran hold regular 'Joint Economic Commission' meetings; the latest, in November 2009, furtherexpanded bilateral trade and economic ties.
http://www.american.com/archive/2013/april/cuba-should-remain-designated-as-a-state-sponsor-of-terrorismhttp://www.american.com/archive/2013/april/cuba-should-remain-designated-as-a-state-sponsor-of-terrorismhttp://www.american.com/archive/2013/april/cuba-should-remain-designated-as-a-state-sponsor-of-terrorismhttp://www.american.com/archive/2013/april/cuba-should-remain-designated-as-a-state-sponsor-of-terrorismhttp://www.cfr.org/cuba/state-sponsors-cuba/p9359?breadcrumb=%2Fissue%2F458%2Fhttp://www.cfr.org/cuba/state-sponsors-cuba/p9359?breadcrumb=%2Fissue%2F458%2Fhttp://www.cfr.org/cuba/state-sponsors-cuba/p9359?breadcrumb=%2Fissue%2F458%2Fhttp://www.cfr.org/cuba/state-sponsors-cuba/p9359?breadcrumb=%2Fissue%2F458%2Fhttp://www.cfr.org/cuba/state-sponsors-cuba/p9359?breadcrumb=%2Fissue%2F458%2Fhttp://www.cfr.org/cuba/state-sponsors-cuba/p9359?breadcrumb=%2Fissue%2F458%2Fhttp://www.american.com/archive/2013/april/cuba-should-remain-designated-as-a-state-sponsor-of-terrorismhttp://www.american.com/archive/2013/april/cuba-should-remain-designated-as-a-state-sponsor-of-terrorism


20/44

20

Terrorism Impact EXTNNo motive for nuclear terrorMaerli 00 (Morten Bremer, Science Program Fellow in the Center for International Security and Cooperation Stanford University,Relearning the ABCs: Terrorists and Weapons of Mass Destruction, Th e Nonproliferation Review, Summer)

Furthermore, a groups interest in ABC weaponry is not the same as obtaining such capabilities. Before any decision to deplo y eitherconventional or non-conventional weapons, a terrorist group will have to judge its competence to use the weapon effectively. Thiswill involve practical assessments of the level of training, skills, and technical and logistical capabilities requires. Terrorists aredependent on success, as failure could threaten the cohesiveness or the very existence of the group. This creates an environment ofrisk aversion where known and proven tactics will be preferred. Surely, if the stakes are high, terrorists , as others, can accept furtherrisks. But there have always been enormous gaps between the potential of a weapon and the abilities and/or will to employ it byterrorists. Most terrorist groups, even those pursuing suicidal ends , protect their resources. Wasting personnel and money willinevitably harm the group and its long-term goals. Consequently, new means and methods of violence with unknown outcomes would

be less appealing.

No extinctionEasterbrook 3 (Gregg, Senior Fellow New Republic, Were All Gonna Die!, Wired Magazine, July,http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.07/doomsday.html?pg=1&topic=&topic_set=)

If we're talking about doomsday - the end of human civilization - many scenarios simply don't measure up. A single nuclear bombignited by terrorists, for example, would be awful beyond words, but life would go on . People and machines might converge in waysthat you and I would find ghastly, but from the standpoint of the future, they would probably represent an adaptation. Environmentalcollapse might make parts of the globe unpleasant, but considering that the biosphere has survived ice ages, it wouldn't be the finalcurtain. Depression, which has become 10 times more prevalent in Western nations in the postwar era, might grow so widespread thatvast numbers of people would refuse to get out of bed, a possibility that Petranek suggested in a doomsday talk at the TechnologyEntertainment Design conference in 2002. But Marcel Proust, as miserable as he was, wrote Remembrance of Things Past while lyingin bed.

Financial costs too highMueller 8 (John, Professor of Political Science Ohio State University, The Atomic Terrorist, 1 -1,http://polisci.osu.edu/faculty/jmueller/APSACHGO.PDF)

Assessing the financial costs. The discussion so far has neglected to consider the financial costs of the extended operation in all itscumulating, or cascading, entirely, but these could easily become monumental . There would be expensive equipment to buy,smuggle, and set up, and people to pay--or pay off. Some operatives might work for free out of utter dedication to The Cause, but thevast conspiracy requires in addition the subversion of a considerable array of criminals and opportunists, each of whom has everyincentive to push the price for cooperation as high as possible . Alarmists Zimmerman and Lewis (2006) suggest the entire capercould be pulled off for $10 million. The conspirators would be lucky to buy off three people with such a paltry sum. Moreover, theterrorists would be required to expose their ultimate goals to at least some of the corrupted, and at that point (if not earlier) they would

become potential extortion victims . They could not afford to abandon unreliable people who know their goals (though they couldattempt to kill them), and such people would now enjoy essentially monopoly powers ever to escalate their price . The cost of theoperation in bribes alone could easily become ten times the sum suggested by Zimmerman and Lewis. And even at that, there would

be, of course, a considerable risk that those so purchased would, at an exquisitely opportune moment of their choosing, decide to takethe money and run --perhaps to the authorities representing desperate governments with essentially bottomless bankrolls and anoverwhelming incentive to expend resources to arrest the atomic plot and to capture or kill the scheming perpetrators.

Resentment and terrorism are inevitableBrooks and Wohlforth 2 (Stephen, Assistant Professor and William, Associate Professor in the Department of Government Dartmouth, Foreign Affairs, July / August, Lexis)

Some might question the worth of being at the top of a unipolar system if that means serving as a lightning rod for the world'smalcontents. When there was a Soviet Union, after all, it bore the brunt of Osama bin Laden's anger, and only after its collapse did heshift his focus to the United States (an indicator of the demise of bipolarity that was ignored at the time but looms larger in retrospect).But terrorism has been a perennial problem in history, and multipolarity did not save the leaders of several great powers fromassassination by anarchists around the turn of the twentieth century. In fact, a slide back toward multipolarity would actually be theworst of all worlds for the United States. In such a scenario it would continue to lead the pack and serve as a focal point forresentment and hatred by both state and nonstate actors, but it would have fewer carrots and sticks to use in dealing with the situation.The threats would remain, but the possibility of effective and coordinated action against them would be reduced.


21/44

21

Deterrence checks terrorismMueller 6 (John, Professor of Political Science Ohio State University and Contributor Foreign Affairs, Is There Still A TerroristThreat?, Foreign Affairs, September / October, Lexis)

One reason al Qaeda and "al Qaeda types" seem not to be trying very hard to repeat 9/11 may be that that dramatic act of destructionitself proved counterproductive by massively heightening concerns about terrorism around the world. No matter how much they mightdisagree on other issues (most notably on the war in Iraq), there is a compelling incentive for states -- even ones such as Iran, Libya,Sudan, and Syria -- to cooperate in cracking down on al Qaeda, because they know that they could easily be among its victims. TheFBI may not have uncovered much of anything within the United States since 9/11, but thousands of apparent terrorists have been

rounded, or rolled, up overseas with U.S. aid and encouragement. Although some Arabs and Muslims took pleasure in the sufferinginflicted on 9/11 -- Schadenfreude in German, shamateh in Arabic -- the most common response among jihadists and religiousnationalists was a vehement rejection of al Qaeda's strategy and methods. When Soviet troops invaded Afghanistan in 1979, therewere calls for jihad everywhere in Arab and Muslim lands, and tens of thousands flocked to the country to fight the invaders. In starkcontrast, when the U.S. military invaded in 2001 to topple an Islamist regime, there was, as the political scientist Fawaz Gerges pointsout, a "deafening silence" from the Muslim world, and only a trickle of jihadists went to fight the Americans. Other jihadists publicly

blamed al Qaeda for their post-9/11 problems and held the attacks to be shortsighted and hugely miscalculated. The post-9/11willingness of governments around the world to take on international terrorists has been much reinforced and amplified by subsequent,if scattered, terrorist activity outside the United States. Thus, a terrorist bombing in Bali in 2002 galvanized the Indonesiangovernment into action. Extensive arrests and convictions -- including of leaders who had previously enjoyed some degree of localfame and political popularity -- seem to have severely degraded the capacity of the chief jihadist group in Indonesia, JemaahIslamiyah. After terrorists attacked Saudis in Saudi Arabia in 2003, that country, very much for self-interested reasons, becameconsiderably more serious about dealing with domestic terrorism; it soon clamped down on radical clerics and preachers. Some ratherinept terrorist bombings in Casablanca in 2003 inspired a similarly determined crackdown by Moroccan authorities. And the 2005

bombing in Jordan of a wedding at a hotel (an unbelievably stupid target for the terrorists) succeeded mainly in outraging theJordanians: according to a Pew poll, the percentage of the population expressing a lot of confidence in bin Laden to "do the rightthing" dropped from 25 percent to less than one percent after the attack.


22/44

22

Terrorism A2: RetaliationNo retaliationDavis and Jenkins 2 (Paul K., Professor RAND Corporation and Research Leader Naval Studies Board, and Brian M., SpecialAdvisor RAND Corporation and International Chamber of Commerce, RAND Research Paper,http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1619/MR1619.pdf)

Deterring acquisition and use of WMD is profoundly important and difficult. Terrorists appear to have grandiose intentions, and somehave intense interest in such weapons. Moreover, they may believe that they have what a Cold War theorist would call escalat iondominance. That is, al Qaeda could use WMD against the Unite d States, but retaliation and certainly escalation would bedifficult because (1) the United States will not use chemical, biological, or radiological weapons; (2) its nuclear weapons will seldom

be suitable for use; and (3) there are no good targets (the terrorists themselves fade into the woodwork). And, of course, the UnitedStates has constraints. Although this gap in the deterrent framework is dismissed by some, we regard it as very dangerous.

No targets and cant trace weapons Dowle 5 (Marke, Graduate School of Journalism University of California, Berkeley, California Monthly, September,http://www.alumni.berkeley.edu/Alumni/Cal_Monthly/September_2005/COVER_STORY-_Berkeleys_Big_Bang_Project_.asp)

Because terrorists tend to be stateless and well hidden, immediate retaliation in kind is almost impossible . But some nuclearexplosions do leave an isotopic signature, a DNA-like fingerprint that allows forensic physicists such as Naval Postgraduate Schoolweapons systems analyst Bob Harney to possibly determine the origin of the fissile material in the bomb. Nuclear forensics is not aprecise science , Harney warns. Post-attack sites are almost certain to be contaminated with unrelated or naturally occurringradioactivity, and there are numerous, highly enriched uranium stashes in the world with unknown signatures. But there is no question,according to Peter Huessy, a member of the Committee on the Present Danger and consultant to the National Defense University inWashington, D.C., that Russian forensic experts could quickly detect Russian isotopes, and that highly enriched uranium (HEU) from,say, France could readily be differentiated from American HEU. But, Huessy warns, distinguishing post-blast residues of Pakistaniuranium from North Korean uranium would be more challenging, probably impossible . Because neither country is a member of theInternational Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA inspectors have been unable to collect from their facilities reliable isotope samples thatcould be compared to post-attack residues. Even if the uranium were traced, the source nation could claim that the material had beenstolen.

U.S. wont over -react to terrorismJenkins-Smith 4 (Hank C., Ph.D., Professor of Government Texas A&M University, and Kerry G. Herron, Ph.D., ResearchScientist Texas A&M University, Fall)

Our final contrasting set of expectations relate to the degree to which the public will support or demand retribution against terroristsand supporting states. Here our data show that support for using conventional U.S. military force to retaliate against terrorists initiallyaveraged above midscale, but did not reach a high level of emotional demand for military action. Initial support declined significantlyacross all demographic and belief categories by the time of our survey in 2002. Furthermore, panelists both in 2001 and 2002

preferred that high levels of certainty about culpability (above 8.5 on a scale from zero to ten) be established before taking militaryaction. Again, we find the weight of evidence supporting revisionist expectations of public opinion. Overall, these results areinconsistent with the contention that highly charged events will result in volatile and unstructured responses among mass publics that

prove problematic for policy processes. The initial response to the terrorist strikes, in the immediate aftermath of the event,demonstrated a broad and consistent shift in public assessments toward a greater perceived threat from terrorism, and greaterwillingness to support policies to reduce that threat. But even in the highly charged context of such a serious attack on the Americanhomeland, the overall public response was quite measured . On average, the public showed very little propensity to undermine speech

protections, and initial willing-ness to engage in military retaliation moderated significantly over the following year.


23/44

23

***SOLVENCY***


24/44


25/44

25

They argue that an opening now can help a post- Castro Cuba evolve in a positive direction. The code word for all of these unilateral actions is normalizing relations. On e of the rarest exceptions to U.S. historicaldiplomatic options is that t hese relations with Cuba were codified into American laws in 1991 wherein the U.S. Congress deter mined that for the embargo to be lifted, Cuba needed to free its jails of po litical prisoners, agreeto allow the formation of political organizations, and agree to hold elections at some point in the future. But, what is actually being proposed is that these conditions be unilaterally lifted. No reimbursement for U.S. businessloses or return o f valuable properties taken; no relief for the 11 million caged humans in Cubas archipelago and, in essence, a recognition t hat in spite of all o f the above enumerated transgressions and many others, the

United States has no beef with the Castro regime and is willing to let bygones be bygones. Why do that? How does that serve our interests? The Castro regime has nocredit or resources with which to trade . If they did they could trade with every other nation they wish to but cant. Andmost importantly, they have no intention of discontinuing their destabilizing efforts in the hemisphere . Every time the freeworld has sought to extend a hand of friendship to world tyrants, they have lived to regret their actions. President Obama upontaking office sought to ease travel and remittances sent to Cuba as a gesture of good faith. The result? Jailing of an American Alan Gross who was there on humanitarian efforts to work with the few remaining Jews on the island and redoubling their efforts to undermine our interests in LatinAmerica . Enter Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and Secretary of State John Kerry. Secretary Hagel, while in the Senate, called the U.S. embargo nonsensical and anachronistic and Secretary Kerry shares similarviews. No cabinet since the Carter administration has had such leaders in favor o f rapprochement with the Castro brothers. But, after more than 50 y ears of exile, the Cuban diaspora remains st rong. Its culture and memories

passed on from generation to generation. More than one million Cuban expatriates and their children retain the fervor for their fatherland. Its been a remarkable journey in the America they we have all so fallen in lovewith. We have elected four Cuban-Americans to the U.S. Senate, several U.S. Representatives and literally dozens of state legislators throughout our land. We are also proud of our many corporate CEOs, athletes, a rtistic

performers and successful professionals. One policy change which is favored by a growing segment of the Cuban exile commun ity is the ending of our immigration accord and of the wet foot dry foot policies. These basetheir origins on the assumption t hat Cubans leaving the island for the United States are political refugees, fearing for t heir well-being at ho me and entitled to asylum in our country. However, far too many of our compatriotscome and go regularly to the island to visit friends, relatives or to just vacation. That needs to stop and our immigration policies should treat my fellow Cubans as we do every one else regarding asylum entry and visa

opportunities. Our views on relations with Castros Cuba remain firmly ensconced in our current policies regardless of our partyaffiliation . Our children were born here; our dead are buried here. America is o ur home but we yearn w ith fervor for the opportunity that our slaved brothers and sisters can so meday soon enjoy the basic freedoms towhich every human on earth is entitled. While I respect the different points of view of many inside of Cuba who have given up hope afterthree generations of Castro rule and seek different accommodations with the Castro r

ze cuba case

Documents