Travel to Cuba low now – travel restrictions and economies prevent

Download 0.7 Mb.

Page	19/22
Date	28.05.2018
Size	0.7 Mb.
	#50551

1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

2AC AT: CPs

AT: Embargo CP

No Solv – Gradual Lifting Key

Incremental lifting of the embargo vital to less corruption

Kagan 08 – American historian, author and foreign policy commentator at the Brookings Institution (Robert, “A Card to Play for Cuba's Freedom,” The Washington Post, 20 February 2008, http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2008-02-20/opinions/36789855_1_opposition-parties-international-election-monitors-cuban-government, Accessed 29 June 2013

The lifting of the embargo could be undertaken in stages linked to the fulfillment by the Cuban government of key conditions necessary for holding elections. These would include allowing genuine independent opposition parties to function, freeing the press and other media and opening them up to the opposition, allowing international nongovernmental organizations to provide elections training and technical assistance to the Cuban people -- in short, taking all the steps necessary to hold a full election campaign in which opposition parties have an equal chance to participate and compete.¶ With international monitors in place months in advance of any vote, the actions of the Cuban government could be watched and evaluated for compliance by members of the U.S. Congress and respected international figures. The Bush administration could determine at each stage whether conditions had been met that would allow the gradual lifting of specific aspects of the embargo.

Gradual lifting solves best – provides incentives for additional Cuban progress

Ledger 11 – Lakeland newspaper (“Tourism vs. Embargo: Time to Engage Cuba,” 24 August 2011, http://www.theledger.com/article/20110824/edit01/110829730

A better approach toward Cuba would entail a gradual lifting of the economic embargo and measured moves toward the establishment of normal diplomatic relationships. If the liberalization of Cuba's private-property laws moves forward, that development could be — and should be — a trigger for easing the embargo and establishing political ties. Benchmarks, including the protection of private assets, could be created in order to promote additional progress.

Gradual lifting key to a peaceful transition

Arzeno 03 – Master of Business Administration, University of Miami (Mario A., “The U.S. Embargo on Cuba: A Time for Change?” Master of Military Art and Science Strategy, page 49, 2003, http://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=727317, Accessed 30 June 2013

The U.S. strategic goal for Cuba should be a peaceful transition to a post embargo environment by gradually lifting the embargo with the implementation of the full spectrum of the Diplomatic Instruments of Power illustrated below. Fidel Castro should be inconsequential to the transition:

Immediate lifting of embargo could destroy architecture – gradual lifting more stable

Louv 09 – American nonfiction author and journalist (Richard, “Cuba and the Invasion of the Big-Box Stores,” Citiwire, 08 January 2009, http://citiwire.net/columns/cuba-and-the-invasion-of-the-big-box-stores/, Accessed 30 June 2013

Lifting the embargo, if that happens soon, could bring needed capital for the repair and preservation of the best of Havana’s architecture. Or it could destroy it. Coyula’s suggested to us the embargo be lifted gradually. Surprisingly, his opinion was shared by many Cubans we met, although they had suffered under communism and the embargo.

Gradual repeal of embargo key – Castro inflicted too much harm for an immediate repeal

Hamilton 08 – Director of the Center on Congress at Indiana University (Lee, “1st Step Toward Change for Cuba: End Embargo,” The Center on Congress, 10 March 2008, http://www.centeroncongress.org/1st-step-toward-change-cuba-end-embargo, Accessed 29 June 2013

But ending the embargo is hardly a solution in and of itself. Though its repeal would allow Cubans and Americans to trade, invest and travel, we must recognize that Cuba is a closed and repressed society, one that Fidel Castro increasingly victimized throughout his dictatorial rule starting in 1959. The hesitancy with which ordinary Cubans have discussed their country's future in the last few weeks illustrates the constant fear Castro's police state has instilled.¶ As we have seen in other countries subjected to despotic rule, the wounds of tyranny are deep, and we cannot treat them brazenly. Also, Raúl Castro and his elite chums will not go to bed tonight communist revolutionaries and wake up Jeffersonian democrats tomorrow morning. Deng Xiaoping and the Chinese may be more likely economic role models. Change will be gradual.

Turn – Leverage and Transition

Lifting the embargo now hurts leverage and slows transition

The dumbest thing we could do today would be to enact legislation unilaterally lifting the embargo. Set aside questions about the embargo's efficacy. Like it or not, it is our only leverage, aside from our military, to affect the transition in Cuba. Why would we fritter away that leverage just as time prepares to do what the embargo could not -- bring about the end of the Castro regime? Fidel was never going to negotiate a loosening of repression in Cuba in exchange for a lifting of the travel ban and other trade restrictions. But those who succeed him will, and the Castro brothers will soon be gone. The question is: When that happens, what power will the United States have to encourage a democratic transition on the island? Instead of strengthening Raúl by lifting the embargo now, we should keep our powder dry and use it to strengthen democracy and influence his successor. The embargo has been in place for 47 years -- at this point, it would be foolish not to wait a little longer.

And American leverage is critical to avoid an expansion of Russian influence in Cuba

Logan 8 – investigative journalist and analyst on security, politics, and energy in Latin America, studied at Hampden-Sydney College, Monterey Institute of International Studies (Samuel Logan, ISN ETS Zurich, International Relations and Security Network, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, 8/20/8 “Cuba's emerging leverage,” http://www.isn.ethz.ch/Digital-Library/Articles/Detail/?lng=en&id=90231, accessed 7/1/13, IS)

When Russian daily Izvestia reported on 21 July that Russian Tu-160 and Tu-95MS bombers had landed in Cuba, it set off a sprint in Washington as analysts and military leaders struggled to understand the situation.¶ At first, it appeared that Moscow had made a very serious gesture. Russia's perceived geopolitical maneuver in Cuba, many thought, was in response to the US' plans for an anti-missile shield defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic.¶ By 24 July, after three days of media hype and speculation over Russia's true intentions, Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Ilshat Baichurin, dismissed any intention for a strategic deployment in Cuba.¶ Two events quickly followed up this announcement. Russian Deputy Prime Minister Igor Sechin arrived in Cuba on 30 July for extended talks with Raul and Fidel Castro. A former KGB operative and known confidant of now-Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, Sechin was an active operative during the Cold War and enjoyed a deep relationship with the Castros.¶ Putin then followed up Sechin's visit with a 5 August announcement that Russia ought to "restore [its] position in Cuba and other countries."¶ Observers agree a military presence in Cuba is not in Moscow's best interests; rather, closer economic ties would behoove both nations. Sechin's recent visit underlines the latter observation and coaxes Washington into a more open posture toward Cuba, an island nation the next US presidential administration would likely prefer not to lose again to the Russians.¶ The country is seemingly in a position to leverage its newfound attraction in two powerful nations. If the Castros can capitalize on Cuba's emerging position with both countries, it might find a way to pull the right geopolitical levers to win badly needed foreign direct investment (FDI).¶ "Cuba has more to gain and more to lose," Dan Erikson, senior associate for US policy and director of Caribbean programs with the Inter-American Dialogue told ISN Security Watch, commenting on if a closer relationship with the US than with Russia would be advantageous to Cuba.¶ "On the economic level, if travel and trade with the US were normalized, it would boost the Cuban economy," Erikson pointed out. "But then on the other hand, the Cuban government's number one preoccupation has been to maintain control over the island, and that is much easier within the context of the US embargo," he said, adding, "Cuba prefers to deal with countries that shares its ideology or at least respects it."¶ Moscow's interests¶ "The ideological rationale for close relations with Cuba ended with the demise of the Soviet Union, of course, and there has been little interest in Moscow in reviving the relationship until now," Derek Averre, a research fellow with the European Institute's Center for Russian and East European Studies, told ISN Security Watch.¶ "However, Moscow is keen to support the idea of a sovereign Cuba which does not fall wholly under a US sphere of interest," he added.¶ The rumors of Moscow's interests in using Cuba as a military forward operations location (FOL), some analysts argue, were most likely generated to signal Washington over Russia's displeasure for ongoing maneuvering in what used to be the latter's close sphere of influence, not to completely disrupt its own relationship with the US or Cuba.¶ Moscow intends to close the gap with Havana that occurred when it ceased financial aid to the island and further widened in 2001 when Russia closed a listening post there.¶ The electronic monitoring and surveillance facility near Havana at Torrens was closed in October 2001, precipitating the removal of an annual US$200 million payment Russia gave Cuba for use of the 28-square-mile area.¶ It was one of Russia's largest signal intelligence listening posts in the Western Hemisphere, but one Moscow could no longer afford. The unilateral and sudden closure of this base incensed Cuban leaders. They were neither consulted, nor were there any diplomatic overtures made to include Cuba in the decision process leading up to the closure of the base.¶ Since then, relations between Moscow and Havana have been chilly at best.¶ With the recent installment of Cuba's new leader, Raul Castro, Moscow has decided to repair relations with the high-level and overt visit recently made by Sechin: a man feared in Washington and welcomed in Havana.¶ His visit to Cuba began the process of business deals in tourism, pharmaceuticals, civilian aviation and oil, including most importantly the discussion of a refinery operated by Russian oil firm LUKoil.¶ If conversations over strategic interests were discussed in private, Cuba has publicly made its position well known. It is happy to receive FDI from Russia but will not engage in any military-military relations.¶ Military realities¶ Both Cuba and Russia know that any military-military relations between the two countries will provoke an immediate and negative response from Washington.¶ The US has geopolitical pulleys in place to pressure Russia, vis-à-vis relationships in Eastern Europe and elsewhere in Russia's neighborhood, and can pressure Cuba with a direct withdrawal from what has heretofore been the slow opening of a diplomatic aperture between the two historical enemies.¶ Any FOL for Russia in Cuba would mean an immediate departure for the latter from Washington's good graces and the declaration of the restart of a geopolitical battle between Moscow and Washington, thereby erasing any gains made by Putin during his presidency.¶ "Cuba has no strategic value to a post-Soviet Russia which is a regional great power but no longer a global superpower and, furthermore, it runs counter to Moscow's attempt to play a constructive role in international relations," Averre said, adding, "A revived military relationship is highly unlikely."¶ Russian military assets in Cuba would be limited to the projection of power, signaling Cuba's de facto decision to fall into step with its old ally.¶ Due to the proximity of the US naval base in Key West, Florida as well as other naval and US Coast Guard assets in the region, any hardware Moscow places on Cuban soil would most likely stay grounded or in port or face a direct confrontation with a far superior fighting force supported by various nearby ports. Russia would invite conflict half a world away from home – not an ideal situation for any military.¶ The reality of an aggressive Russian military presence in Cuba is one that is negative for both countries. It is simply one neither country sees as beneficial to its long term geopolitical goals in the region.¶ Cuba in the middle¶ When US Congress approved some US$42 million in aid destined to Cuba on 22 July, it was a concrete signal. Relations between the two countries are likely to improve over time despite the staunchly anti-Castro contingent that retains a powerful voting block in southern Florida.¶ Raul Castro is well aware of this future. And while he is willing to play hard ball with Washington, he knows the potential FDI upshot from the US could be beneficial to his people, Cuba's economy, and ultimately his regime.¶ Raul is also aware that Russia is keen to improve relations. His three-day visit with Sachin erased any doubt that Moscow is eager to invest in Cuba's energy and medical resources. Havana has long been interested in becoming a refining hub in the region, and is eager to complete the LUKoil deal to have the Russian energy firm refine Venezuelan heavy crude for domestic use and, perhaps, export to the US.¶ Cuba is in the middle with each hand on two heavy geopolitical levers. By applying the right amount of pressure, the country can certainly benefit from both relationships. Too much pressure on either side, and Cuba risks losing one or both connections. In the end, however, the island nation will stick to its historical roots – maintain sovereignty and some dignity no matter what the cost.

And Russian nuclearization is happening right now. Russia is angry because it feels like the US is blocking it with Eastern European states. CP pushes Russia over the brink of war.

Lulko 12 – Pravda.Ru, studied at Universidade Lomonossov, Faculdade de Geografia, lives in Moscow (Lyuba Lulko, Pravda RU, “Russia to revive army bases in three oceans,” 1/8/12, http://english.pravda.ru/russia/politics/01-08-2012/121804-russia_army_base-0/, accessed 7/1/13, IS)

The Russian government intends to restore the military-technical support of their ships at the former military base in Cam Ranh (Vietnam), Lourdes (Cuba) and the Seychelles. However, a solid contractual basis should be developed for these plans.¶ The intentions were announced on July 27 by the Russian Navy Commander Vice Admiral Viktor Chirkov. "At the international level, the creation of logistics points in Cuba, the Seychelles and Vietnam is being worked out," Chirkov was quoted by the media. The issue was specifically discussed at the meeting with the leaders of all countries. President of Vietnam Truong Tan Sang has recently held talks with Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev in Moscow and President Putin in Sochi. Cuban leader Raul Castro met with Putin in Moscow earlier this month. A little earlier the President of the Republic of Seychelles, James Michel made an unequivocal statement.¶ "We will give Russia the benefits in Cam Ranh, including the development of military cooperation," the President of Vietnam told the media. Cuba that has an American military base in Guantanamo Bay and is protesting against the deployment of new U.S. bases in Colombia, of course, wants to acquire an ally in Russia to be able to contain the United States. Seychelles in the Indian Ocean has always been in the zone of Soviet influence. In 1981, the Soviet Navy helped the government to prevent the military coup and before the collapse of the USSR the Soviets had a constant presence in the area. In June of 2012, at the opening of an Orthodox church in the capital city of Victoria, James Michel spoke of Russia's role in combating piracy and supported the Russian idea to build a pier in the port of Victoria, designed for the reception of the Navy warships of Russian Federation.¶ Following the statement by Vice-Admiral, Russian Foreign Ministry and Defense Ministry made it clear that they were talking about rest and replenishment of the crews after the campaign in the area and not military bases. It is clear, however, that Russian warships could do both without special arrangements, given the good attitudes of the leaders of these countries toward Russia. It can be assumed that the Russian Admiral unwittingly gave away far-reaching plans of the Russian leadership. That would be great, because from the time of Peter the Great, Russia had a strong fleet and army. In addition, it is worth mentioning Putin's statement at the G20 meeting in June. After the meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama, Putin made a sudden harsh statement to the press. ¶ ¶ "In 2001 I, as the President of the Russian Federation and the supreme commander, deemed it advantageous to withdraw the radio-electronic center Lourdes from Cuba. In exchange for this, George Bush, the then U.S. president, has assured me that this decision would become the final confirmation that the Cold War was over and both of our states, getting rid of the relics of the Cold War, will start building a new relationship based on cooperation and transparency. In particular, Bush has convinced me that the U.S. missile defense system will never be deployed in Eastern Europe.¶ The Russian Federation has fulfilled all terms of the agreement. And even more. I shut down not only the Cuban Lourdes but also Kamran in Vietnam. I shut them down because I gave my word of honor. I, like a man, has kept my word. What have the Americans done? The Americans are not responsible for their own words. It is no secret that in recent years, the U.S. created a buffer zone around Russia, involving in this process not only the countries of Central Europe, but also the Baltic states, Ukraine and the Caucasus. The only response to this could be an asymmetric expansion of the Russian military presence abroad, particularly in Cuba. In Cuba, there are convenient bays for our reconnaissance and warships, a network of the so-called "jump airfields." With the full consent of the Cuban leadership, on May 11 of this year, our country has not only resumed work in the electronic center of Lourdes, but also placed the latest mobile strategic nuclear missiles "Oak" on the island. They did not want to do it the amicable way, now let them deal with this," Putin said.¶ It is obvious that Russia will not stop simply at "resting" their sailors in the area. Now back to the statement of Chirkov. Americans have not officially resented it. For example, the Pentagon spokesman George Little said that Russia had the right to enter into military agreements and relationships with other countries, as does the United States, according to France Press Agency. The reason is simple: American analysts believe that Russia now cannot afford to create its own military bases.¶ The Americans talk about Russia's lack of influence, money and the actual fleet. Western media quoted an "independent expert on the defense" in Moscow Paul Fengelgauer. He said that Russia does not have the necessary naval resources to provide constant presence outside its territorial waters, as it has only 30 major warships that serve five fleets. Therefore, the possibility of placing an additional station does not mean the expansion of sea power in Russia. This is largely an objective assessment. But since the crisis in the West in 2008, Russia began to recover part of its navy. The loss was not that great - about a quarter of the Soviet reserve. Another thing is that we should talk about the modernization of the fleet. There is much to maintain. On Thursday, Chirkov said that this year Russia's naval forces can be replenished with another 10-15 warships, including destroyers and nuclear submarines.¶ As for the influence, judging by the words of the Russian President, Russia is also actively growing in this regard, although work in this direction has only begun. As we can see, Pacific, Atlantic and Indian Oceans are involved. This is due not only to geopolitical reasons, but the growing economic presence of Russia in the regions. For example, "Gazprom" is actively working on offshore Vietnam. In the Caribbean, it also participates in the construction of Meso-American pipeline and field development in Venezuela. An ammunition plant is under construction in Cuba.¶ However, one should start with a solid contractual basis. Take, for example, agreements on mutual defense that the U.S. has with the Philippines, Japan, Colombia, and Mexico. In the presence of such agreements military bases cannot be challenged as a military expansion. Russia has room to grow - of the 16 operating in the Soviet era military bases today there is only one left - Tartus in Syria, or two, if we consider the base in Sevastopol.

US-Russian relations are critical for global security, preventing proliferation, sustaining US leadership and averting nuclear war.

Allison and Blackwell 11 Graham [Director, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs; Douglas Dillon Professor of Government; Faculty Chair, Dubai Initiative, Harvard Kennedy School,] and Robert [International Council Member, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs] "10 Reasons Why Russia Still Matters" Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs 10/30/11 http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/21469/10_reasons_why_russia_still_matters.html, accessed 6/29/12)

That central point is that Russia matters a great deal to a U.S. government seeking to defend and advance its national interests. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s decision to return next year as president makes it all the more critical for Washington to manage its relationship with Russia through coherent, realistic policies. No one denies that Russia is a dangerous, difficult, often disappointing state to do business with. We should not overlook its many human rights and legal failures. Nonetheless, Russia is a player whose choices affect our vital interests in nuclear security and energy. It is key to supplying 100,000 U.S. troops fighting in Afghanistan and preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Ten realities require U.S. policymakers to advance our nation’s interests by engaging and working with Moscow. First, Russia remains the only nation that can erase the United States from the map in 30 minutes. As every president since John F. Kennedy has recognized, Russia’s cooperation is critical to averting nuclear war. Second, Russia is our most consequential partner in preventing nuclear terrorism. Through a combination of more than $11 billion in U.S. aid, provided through the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program, and impressive Russian professionalism, two decades after the collapse of the “evil empire,” not one nuclear weapon has been found loose. Third, Russia plays an essential role in preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons and missile-delivery systems. As Washington seeks to stop Iran’s drive toward nuclear weapons, Russian choices to sell or withhold sensitive technologies are the difference between failure and the possibility of success. Fourth, Russian support in sharing intelligence and cooperating in operations remains essential to the U.S. war to destroy Al Qaeda and combat other transnational terrorist groups. Fifth, Russia provides a vital supply line to 100,000 U.S. troops fighting in Afghanistan. As U.S. relations with Pakistan have deteriorated, the Russian lifeline has grown ever more important and now accounts for half all daily deliveries. Sixth, Russia is the world’s largest oil producer and second largest gas producer. Over the past decade, Russia has added more oil and gas exports to world energy markets than any other nation. Most major energy transport routes from Eurasia start in Russia or cross its nine time zones. As citizens of a country that imports two of every three of the 20 million barrels of oil that fuel U.S. cars daily, Americans feel Russia’s impact at our gas pumps. Seventh, Moscow is an important player in today’s international system. It is no accident that Russia is one of the five veto-wielding, permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, as well as a member of the G-8 and G-20. A Moscow more closely aligned with U.S. goals would be significant in the balance of power to shape an environment in which China can emerge as a global power without overturning the existing order. Eighth, Russia is the largest country on Earth by land area, abutting China on the East, Poland in the West and the United States across the Arctic. This territory provides transit corridors for supplies to global markets whose stability is vital to the U.S. economy. Ninth, Russia’s brainpower is reflected in the fact that it has won more Nobel Prizes for science than all of Asia, places first in most math competitions and dominates the world chess masters list. The only way U.S. astronauts can now travel to and from the International Space Station is to hitch a ride on Russian rockets. The co-founder of the most advanced digital company in the world, Google, is Russian-born Sergei Brin. Tenth, Russia’s potential as a spoiler is difficult to exaggerate. Consider what a Russian president intent on frustrating U.S. international objectives could do — from stopping the supply flow to Afghanistan to selling S-300 air defense missiles to Tehran to joining China in preventing U.N. Security Council resolutions.

And a rapid transition away from the communist economy is key to sustaining reform. Slow reform keeps the Castro regime in power, ensuring maintained political oppression.

Dominguez 9 – Chairman, Harvard Academy for International and Area Studies; Senior Adviser; Faculty Associate. Antonio Madero Professor for the Study of Mexico, Department of Government; Vice Provost for International Affairs, Harvard University. (Jorge I Dominguez, Harvard Magazine, Weatherhead Center for International Affairs, “Hello from Havana: Nuanced but unmistakable stirrings of change in Cuba,” August 2009, http://harvardmagazine.com/2009/07/hello-havana, accessed 7/1/13, IS)

The nuances in Cuban public life since Raúl became president in his own right in February 2008 are evident as well in the enactment of economic-policy reforms that were rolled out immediately following his formal installation. Consider some examples. Previously, Cubans had not been able to stay at hotels or eat at restaurants designed for international tourists, even if they had the funds to pay, unless they were on official business; now they were given access to all these facilities, so long as they could pay. Cubans had also been prohibited from purchasing cell phones and subscribing to such services unless officially authorized to do so. They were not allowed to purchase computers or DVD players. Now they were able to purchase such products so long as they had the funds.¶ How the Cuban government adopted these changes is important. It could simply have announced a general deregulation of prohibitions regarding purchases of consumer durables, for example. Instead, the government made each of these announcements separately: one week you could stay at tourist hotels, the next week you could purchase a computer, the following week you could obtain cell-phone services, and so forth. The government even announced that some products would be deregulated for purchase in 2009 (air conditioners) or 2010 (toasters).¶ This method of deregulating implied a desire to win political support over time, not all at once. It communicated that the government retained the right to micromanage the economy, deregulating product by product and service by service. The government also signaled that it expected to remain in office for years to come, behaving in the same way. Finally, most Cubans knew that they could have been purchasing these same consumer durables all along, albeit only on the black market. Thus the policy of postponed deregulation implied an official tolerance of some current criminality (knowing that some Cubans would buy toasters illegally in 2008, instead of waiting for 2010), because the government valued its economic micromanagement more.¶ Whom the government sought to benefit was equally newsworthy. In its most revolutionary phase, during the 1960s, the Cuban government adopted strongly egalitarian policies. Many Cubans came to believe in egalitarian values and resented the widening of inequalities in the 1990s. Consider, then, Raúl’s reforms. Hotels and restaurants designed for international tourist markets are expensive; so, too, are computers and DVD players. When these economic changes were announced in 2008, the median monthly salary of Cubans amounted to about $17: that is, the average monthly salary was below the World Bank’s worldwide standard for poverty, which is one dollar per day. To be sure, Cubans had free access to education and healthcare and subsidized access to some other goods and services. Nevertheless, only a small fraction of Cubans could take advantage of these new economic policies, because the purchases of such consumer durables and the access to such tourist services had to be paid for in dollar-equivalent Cuban currency at dollar-equivalent international prices. (Cuba has two currencies; the peso convertible is a close equivalent to the dollar, whereas the peso is worth about $0.04.) Raúl’s government was appealing to the upper-middle-class professionals.

Turn - Infrastructure

Immediate end to the embargo collapses Cuban political and legal infrastructure

Zimmerman, 10 [CHELSEA A. ZIMMERMAN, Barnard College, Rethinking The Cuban Trade Embargo: An Opportune Time To Mend a Broken Policy, 2010, http://www.thepresidency.org/storage/documents/Fellows2010/Zimmerman.pdf]

Elimination of the trade embargo immediately is not a feasible solution, as ¶ such a proposal would not attract sufficient political support. Furthermore, the ¶ Cuban political and legal infrastructure does not have the capability of adapting to ¶ such a radical change. Instead, I recommend incremental measures that would 1) ¶ reduce the restrictions on the financing of Cuba’s purchase of U.S. products by ¶ allowing payments to be made directly to U.S. banks; and 2) reduce and eventually ¶ eliminate the restrictions on travel by U.S. citizens to Cuba by initially permitting ¶ travel for educational and cultural purposes and eventually permitting direct ¶ commercial flights from the U.S. to Cuba. The U.S. International Trade ¶ Commission’s analysis of the effects of government restrictions on export financing ¶ estimates that the U.S. share of Cuban agricultural, fish and forest product imports ¶ would increase between one-half and two-thirds, and that all U.S. agricultural ¶ sectors would benefit from the lifting of financing restrictions (U.S. International ¶ Trade Commission). The Commission also studied the effect on U.S. agricultural ¶ sales to Cuba if travel restrictions were eliminated, and concluded that significant ¶ increases in U.S. exports of processed foods, poultry, beef and pork and fish would ¶ result (U.S. International Trade Commission) This proposal sets forth multiple reasons for the failure of the U.S. policy of ¶ economic sanctions to promote democracy in Cuba, but I will now focus on the ¶ costs and benefits of a gradual modification of the current policy. The U.S. needs ¶ to adopt a new approach to Cuba that is not based on sanctions, passivity, and ¶ waiting. The U.S. government should instead take a more pragmatic approach when trying to encourage change in Cuba, especially with the opportunity created ¶ by the change in leadership of both countries and with the recent reforms ¶ announced by Raul Castro which will over time eliminate the state’s information ¶ monopoly. The opportunities involved in gradually loosening trade restrictions ¶ with Cuba and promoting cooperation on issues of mutual benefit far outweigh the ¶ risks. Benefits for the U.S. in reducing financing restrictions and travel restrictions ¶ with Cuba include the following: 1) U.S. agribusinesses will benefit from ¶ substantial revenue increases derived from a more significant share of food exports ¶ to Cuba, from reduced transportation costs and delays caused by travel restrictions, ¶ and from the elimination of cumbersome payment requirements; 2) the U.S. ¶ government will benefit from additional tax revenues on the increase in sales; 3) ¶ funds wasted on attempts to de-legitimize the Castro regime, such as Radio and TV ¶ Marti, estimated to be in excess of $35 million annually, instead can be used for ¶ more productive purposes, such as academic and cultural exchanges; 4) the U.S. ¶ Treasury’s administrative expenses of enforcing complex financing restrictions and ¶ investigating illegal U.S. investments and travel to Cuba will be reduced and ¶ redirected to a more practical use, such as investigating terrorist networks abroad; ¶ and 5) improved foreign relations with some of the U.S.’s most important allies ¶ including the European Union and OAS partners will result from the reform ¶ measures (Sweig). Offsetting these benefits are the costs of enforcement of ¶ increased trade activities and travel with Cuba as well as the reality that these ¶ measures will not force the collapse of Cuban communism or result in a rapid ¶ transition to a democratic government.

Rapid political and social transition key to toppling the Castro government

Suchlicki 3/4 – Emilio Bacardi Moreau Distinguished Professor and Director, Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies at the University of Miami. (Jaime Suchlicki, The Atlantic, “Why Cuba Will Still Be Anti-American After Castro,” 3/4/13, http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/03/why-cuba-will-still-be-anti-american-after-castro/273680/, accessed 7/1/13, IS)

It is one of the ironies of totalitarian regimes that the road to bureaucratic success is not through efficiency or hard work but through loyalty. Perhaps Diaz Canel has learned this lesson in his short career. Without any popular support or base of power in the military, his future may be as precarious as those of his comrades fired from their jobs and now living in oblivion.¶ ***In the meantime, Raul Castro will still rule with an iron fist. Some Cuba observers expect that Raul will open up the economy and even provide some political changes. Not so soon. With Fidel alive, or even when he is dead, it would be difficult for Raul to reject his brother's legacy of political and economic centralization. His legitimacy is based on being Fidel's heir. Any major move to reject Fidel's "teachings" would create uncertainty among Cuba's ruling elites - party and military. It could also increase instability as some would advocate rapid change, while others cling to more orthodox policies. Cubans could see this as an opportunity for mobilization, demanding faster reforms.¶ For Raul Castro, the uncertainties of uncorking the genie's bottle of reform in Cuba are greater than keeping the lid on and moving cautiously. For the past 52 years, political considerations have always dictated economic policies. He had been the longest serving Minister of Defense (47 years). He presided over the worst period of political repression and economic centralization in Cuba and is responsible for numerous executions after he and his brother assumed power, and some while in Mexico and the Sierra Maestra before reaching power.¶ During his speech to Parliament, Raul Castro scoffed at any idea that the country would soon abandon socialism and embrace profound economic changes. "I was not chosen to be president to restore capitalism to Cuba," he emphasized. "I was elected to defend, maintain and continue to perfect socialism and not to destroy it."¶ General Castro faces significant challenges in his second term. A non-productive and highly dependent economy on Venezuela and other foreign sources, popular unhappiness, the need to maintain order and discipline among the population and the need to increase productivity. Raul is critically dependent on the military. Lacking the charisma of his brother, he still needs the support of key party leaders and technocrats within the government bureaucracy.¶ ***The critical challenge for Raul Castro will be to balance the need to improve the economy and satisfy the needs of the population with maintaining political control. Too rapid economic reforms may lead to an unraveling of political control, a fact feared by Raul, the military, and other allies keen on remaining in power. A partial solution may be to provide more consumer goods to the population, including food, but without any structural economic changes.¶ Similarly, any serious overtures to the U.S. do not seem likely in the near future. It would mean the rejection of one of Fidel Castro's main legacies: anti-Americanism. It may create uncertainty within the government, leading to frictions and factionalism. It would require the weakening of Cuba's anti-American alliance with radical regimes in Latin America and elsewhere.¶ Raul is unwilling to renounce the support and close collaboration of countries like Venezuela, China, Iran and Russia in exchange for an uncertain relationship with the United States. At a time that anti-Americanism is strong in Latin America and the Middle East, Raul's policies are more likely to remain closer to regimes that are not particularly friendly to the United States and that demand little from Cuba in return for generous aid.¶ Raul does not seem ready to provide meaningful and irreversible concessions for a U.S. - Cuba normalization. Like his brother in the past, public statements and speeches are politically motivated and directed at audiences in Cuba, the United States and Europe. Serious negotiations on important issues are not carried out in speeches from the plaza. They are usually carried out through the normal diplomatic avenues open to the Cubans in Havana, Washington and the United Nations or other countries, if they wish. These avenues have never been closed as evidenced by the migration accord and the anti-hijacking agreement between the United States and Cuba.¶ Raul remains a loyal follower and cheerleader of Fidel's anti-American policies.¶ The issue between Cuba and the U.S. is not about negotiations or talking. These are not sufficient. There has to be a willingness on the part of the Cuban leadership to offer real concessions - in the area of human rights and political and economic openings as well as cooperation on anti-terrorism and drug interdiction - for the United States to change it policies.

And the Castro government is uniquely terrible for human rights. The counterplan ensures that rights abuses continue.

Department of State 4/19 – US Department of State, BUREAU OF DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND LABOR, “2012 Human Rights Reports: Cuba,” 4/19/13, http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2012/wha/204441.htm, accessed 7/1/13, IS)

Cuba is an authoritarian state led by Raul Castro, who is president of the council of state and council of ministers, Communist Party (CP) first secretary, and commander in chief of security forces. The constitution recognizes the CP as the only legal party and “the superior leading force of society and of the state.” The October municipal elections were neither free nor fair. A CP candidacy commission preapproved all candidates for National Assembly elections anticipated for 2013. Security forces reported to a national leadership that included members of the military and conducted a range of oppressive actions and behaviors against civil rights activists and ordinary citizens alike.¶ The principal human rights abuses were: abridgement of the right of citizens to change the government; government threats, intimidation, mobs, harassment, and detentions to prevent free expression and peaceful assembly; and a record number of politically motivated and at times violent short-term detentions.¶ The following additional human rights abuses continued: unlawful use of force, harsh prison conditions, arbitrary arrests, selective prosecution, and denial of fair trial. Authorities interfered with privacy and engaged in pervasive monitoring of private communications. The government did not respect freedom of speech and the press; severely restricted Internet access and maintained a monopoly on media outlets; circumscribed academic freedoms; limited freedom of movement; and maintained significant restrictions on the ability of religious groups to meet and worship. The government refused to recognize independent human rights groups or permit them to function legally. In addition, the government continued to prevent workers from forming independent unions and abrogated workers’ rights.¶ Most human rights abuses were official acts committed at the direction of the government. Impunity for the perpetrators remained widespread.

Human rights violations outweigh nuclear war

Mohan '93 [Professor at LSU (Brij, “Eclipse Of Freedom,” p. 3-4)]

The ordeal of existence transcends the thermonuclear fever because the latter does not directly impact the day-to-day operations of the common people. The fear of crime, accidents, loss of job, and health care on the one hand; and the scourges of racism, sexism, and agism on the other hand have created a counterculture of denial and disbelief that has shattered the façade of civility. Civilization loses its significance when its social institutions have become counterproductive. It is the aspect of the mega-crisis that we are concerned about. The “ordeal of existence”, as I see it, has three relevant facets: Crisis of modernity, Contradictions of paradigms, Complexity of social phenomenon. Reinventing civility calls for an exposition of these elements without a vituperative intent. Each of these aspects has normative and structural dimension involving a host of theories. The politics, metaphors, and rhetoric, however, color the shape and substance of each analytical output. Therefore, a value-neutral assessment cannot be a politically correct statement on the human condition.

A free society outweighs nuclear extinction

Shue '89 [(Henry, Professor of Ethics and Public Life, Princeton University, “Nuclear Deterrence and Moral Restraint, pp. 134-5)]

But is it realistic to suppose that American citizens would risk not just their own lives but their families and their nation in using nuclear weapons to save Western Europe and other free societies from Soviet domination, especially if the United States’ allies are not willing to risk nuclear destruction themselves? According to one 1984 poll, 74 percent of Americans queried believe “the U.S. should not use nuclear weapons if the Russians invade Western Europe.” Nuclear Protectionists, however, would reply that further public debate might convince more Americans that deterrence cannot be had on the moral cheap. If the United States is determined to deter a Soviet attack on Europe, it must have a moral nuclear strategy that it is willing to implement. Without effective population defenses, such a strategy could require that the United States accept an unequal risk of nuclear destruction to ensure the survival of free society. In the extreme, this could mean that the United States must be willing to sacrifice itself for values higher than its own national survival. Thus, Nuclear Protectionism views both Just War morality and national “self-centered” as unworkable foundations for U.S. security policy.

Permutation

Perm Solves: Gradual removal of the embargo key – Embargo removal must be coupled with lifting travel ban restriction.

Arenzo 03 – M.B.A., University of Miami (Mario A. Arenzo, “THE U.S. EMBARGO ON CUBA: A TIME FOR CHANGE?,” Faculty of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, published 2003, http://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=727317, accessed 6/30/13, IS)

**CANF = Cuban American National Foundation.

Several actions, or decisive points, must occur for the CANF to compromise and¶ ultimately create change in Cuba; beginning with the review of the Torricelli Bill and the¶ Helms-Burton Act, followed by the opening of economic trade, and the lifting of¶ restrictions on the travel ban and the sale of food and medicine. The CANF will not allow¶ any of this to happen without the unconditional removal of Castro and anyone associated¶ with the Castro family. This is an unrealistic goal that the embargo alone cannot¶ accomplish. The CANF, as the source of all power in this issue, should be part of the¶ solution by seeking ways to promote change in the Cuba policy, instead of seeking ways¶ to prevent change in a failed policy.¶ The CANF’s power and influence is becoming less relevant each day with the¶ shift in public opinion that is even transcending cultural lines to Cuban Americans in¶ Miami who believe the embargo is a failed policy. Since 1993, the Florida International¶ University in Miami has polled Cuban Americans on their position with regard to the¶ Cuba Policy. In 1993, forty two percent of Cuban Americans believed better relations¶ 49¶ with Cuba were needed. The most recent poll in 2002 indicates that number has grown to¶ sixty-two percent who believe better relations are needed. However, the CANF’s¶ influence is still significant enough to prevent better relations and progress.¶ The U.S. strategic goal for Cuba should be a peaceful transition to a post embargo¶ environment by gradually lifting the embargo with the implementation of the full¶ spectrum of the Diplomatic Instruments of Power illustrated below. Fidel Castro should¶ be inconsequential to the transition:

And a laundry list of benefits to a gradual reduction of the trade embargo.

Zimmerman 10 - Barnard College (Chelsea A. Zimmerman, “Rethinking The Cuban Trade Embargo: An Opportune

Time To Mend a Broken Policy,” Published 2010, http://www.thepresidency.org/storage/documents/Fellows2010/Zimmerman.pdf, accessed 6/30/13, IS)

This proposal sets forth multiple reasons for the failure of the U.S. policy of¶ economic sanctions to promote democracy in Cuba, but I will now focus on the¶ costs and benefits of a gradual modification of the current policy. The U.S. needs¶ to adopt a new approach to Cuba that is not based on sanctions, passivity, and¶ waiting. The U.S. government should instead take a more pragmatic approach¶ 9¶ when trying to encourage change in Cuba, especially with the opportunity created¶ by the change in leadership of both countries and with the recent reforms¶ announced by Raul Castro which will over time eliminate the state’s information¶ monopoly. The opportunities involved in gradually loosening trade restrictions¶ with Cuba and promoting cooperation on issues of mutual benefit far outweigh the¶ risks. Benefits for the U.S. in reducing financing restrictions and travel restrictions¶ with Cuba include the following: 1) U.S. agribusinesses will benefit from¶ substantial revenue increases derived from a more significant share of food exports¶ to Cuba, from reduced transportation costs and delays caused by travel restrictions,¶ and from the elimination of cumbersome payment requirements; 2) the U.S.¶ government will benefit from additional tax revenues on the increase in sales; 3)¶ funds wasted on attempts to de-legitimize the Castro regime, such as Radio and TV¶ Marti, estimated to be in excess of $35 million annually, instead can be used for¶ more productive purposes, such as academic and cultural exchanges; 4) the U.S.¶ Treasury’s administrative expenses of enforcing complex financing restrictions and¶ investigating illegal U.S. investments and travel to Cuba will be reduced and¶ redirected to a more practical use, such as investigating terrorist networks abroad;¶ and 5) improved foreign relations with some of the U.S.’s most important allies¶ including the European Union and OAS partners will result from the reform¶ measures (Sweig)..¶

Plan is a Prerequisite

Lifting the travel ban is the first step toward lifting the embargo

Theissen 9 - a spokesman for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee from 1995 to 2001, is a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution. He served in senior positions in the Pentagon and the White House from 2001 to 2009 [Mark Theissen, Washington Post, 4/6/9, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/05/AR2009040501726.html]

The White House announced this weekend that President Obama would soon lift restrictions on family travel and remittances to Cuba. A bipartisan group of 20 senators has gone further, introducing legislation to repeal the nearly half-century-old ban on travel to Cuba -- a first step toward lifting the U.S. embargo on the communist island. Before proceeding, lawmakers ought to consider the words of Ricardo Alarcón -- a top official in the Castro regime and longtime leader of Cuba's National Assembly of People's Power.¶

Plan leads to end of embargo

Palmer 9 [Doug Palmer, Reuters, 3/31/09, http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/03/31/us-usa-cuba-travel-idUSN3142346320090331]

(Reuters) - A bipartisan group of U.S. senators introduced a bill on Tuesday to allow U.S. citizens to travel freely to Cuba and predicted Congress would approve it as a step toward ending the five-decade-old U.S. embargo.¶ "I think there's sufficient votes in both the House (of Representatives) and the Senate to finally get it passed," Democratic Senator Byron Dorgan said at a news conference.¶ Dorgan, whose home state of North Dakota could benefit from increased agricultural sales to Cuba, introduced the bill along with fellow Democratic Senator Christopher Dodd and Republican Senators Richard Lugar and Mike Enzi. Seventeen other senators also are sponsoring the measure. A companion bill introduced in the House earlier this year has 121 co-sponsors.¶ Congressional opponents of any move to ease the embargo promised a tough fight to keep this measure from becoming law.¶ "This is the time to support pro-democracy activists in Cuba, not provide the Castro regime with a resource windfall," Senator Mel Martinez, a Florida Republican who was the first Cuban-American elected to the Senate, said in a statement.¶ President Barack Obama said during last year's presidential campaign he favored easing U.S. restrictions on family travel to Cuba and the sending of cash to family members.¶ But he stopped short of supporting the lifting of the trade embargo, which a growing number of U.S. lawmakers believe has failed to bring about democratic change in communist-led Cuba.¶ Vice President Joe Biden told reporters "no" when asked in Chile on Saturday whether the United States would lift the embargo, as many in Latin American favor.¶ Obama is expected to face pressure from regional leaders to improve U.S. relations with Cuba when he travels to Trinidad in mid-April for the Summit of the Americas meeting.

Easing restrictions leads to the end of the embargo

Schlesinger 9 [ROBERT SCHLESINGER, Obama's Revamp of Cuba Travel Policy Is Overdue, But the Embargo Should Come Next, US News and World, 4/14/09, http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2009/04/14/obamas-revamp-of-cuba-travel-policy-is-overdue-but-the-embargo-should-come-next]

As an American, I enjoy the right to travel virtually anywhere without interference from my government. It's one of the things that set us apart from the authoritarian regimes to which we hold ourselves up as a beacon and an example. But there's one exception, one country over which the U.S. government abrogates its citizens' freedom of travel. Is it North Korea, the outlaw, nuclear-saber-rattling regime that starves its citizens? No, any of us can legally head west for a demilitarized zone vacation. Perhaps it's Iran, America's biggest Middle Eastern adversary and another possible nuclear threat? Nope.¶ The only country to which Americans are barred from traveling is neither a rival nor a threat. It is Cuba, the last bastion of domestic Cold War politics.¶ That may soon change. In anticipation of this week's summit with Latin American and Caribbean leaders, President Obama rolled back restrictions on Cuban-Americans traveling to the island or sending money to their families there. Last week, members of a congressional delegation had constructive meetings with former Cuban President Fidel Castro and his brother Raúl, the current president. And a bipartisan group of members of Congress, backed by a formidable coalition of U.S. business interests, is pushing legislation that would lift the travel ban for all U.S. citizens. They are optimistic of passing it this year.¶ Easing travel restrictions would be a good first step, but only as prologue to the main event: lifting the U.S. embargo against Cuba. There are several good reasons, substantive and political, to modernize our Cuba policy (and not simply my own desire to enjoy a Cuba libre and a Cohiba cigar while strolling the beaches of Varadero).

Ending travel ban key to ending the embargo

Rep. Lee 10 [Rep. Barbara Lee, California’s 9^th District, Huffington Post, 8/19/10, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-barbara-lee/mr-president-lift-the-tra_b_687580.html]

It is far past time that we end the counterproductive and unnecessary travel ban.¶ If one examines the history of American foreign affairs, it is hard to find a policy that has lasted for as long, yet so obviously failed, as our trade embargo of Cuba. If someone had told President Dwight Eisenhower in 1960 that the Cuban embargo would last 50 years, would Eisenhower have considered a different approach?¶ We'll never know, but what we do know is that a half-century of the embargo hasn't brought down Castro's government. And it certainly hasn't helped Americans in any way. At long last, the time has come for the embargo to end.¶ The old cliché says that "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result." Yet whenever the question of the embargo is raised, its defenders say we need to keep it in place so we can keep pressure to promote democratic reforms, including greater freedom of speech, religion, and association. This is the same argument that has been made for 50 years. The embargo didn't bring about democratic reform in 1960, or 1970, or 1980, and it won't do so in 2010. We need to try a new approach.¶ That approach is engagement - individual, cultural, and economic. It won't be only Cubans who will reap the benefits. The House Agriculture Committee recently passed the Travel Restriction Reform and Export Enhancement Act, of which I am proud to be a co-sponsor. It lifts all restrictions on travel to Cuba, and allows American farmers to sell their crops to this waiting market just a few miles off our shores. It will be an important first step, but we need to go even farther, to eliminate the trade embargo that has failed for so long.¶ The result will be hundreds of millions of dollars coming into the American economy, and the creation of thousands of American jobs. And when Cubans start buying our goods and forming relationships with Americans, the path to their future - a democratic and prosperous one - will become clearer than ever.¶ If we can allow travel and trade with nations such as China and Vietnam, then surely we can move forward with lifting the travel ban and ending the embargo with Cuba.

AT: Env Condition CP

Raul Castro will say no to the US. He will reject any American intervention because Castro sees Cuban-US cooperation as a tradeoff of relations with other allied nations.

Suchlicki 4/3 – Emilio Bacardi Moreau Distinguished Professor and Director, Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies at the University of Miami. He is the author of Cuba: From Columbus to Castro, Mexico: From Montezuma to NAFTA and Breve Historia de Cuba. (Jaime Suchlicki, The Atlantic, “Why Cuba Will Still Be Anti-American After Castro,” 4/3/13, http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/03/why-cuba-will-still-be-anti-american-after-castro/273680/, accessed 6/28/13, IS)

Similarly, any serious overtures to the U.S. do not seem likely in the near future. It would mean the rejection of one of Fidel Castro's main legacies: anti-Americanism. It may create uncertainty within the government, leading to frictions and factionalism. It would require the weakening of Cuba's anti-American alliance with radical regimes in Latin America and elsewhere.¶ Raul is unwilling to renounce the support and close collaboration of countries like Venezuela, China, Iran and Russia in exchange for an uncertain relationship with the United States. At a time that anti-Americanism is strong in Latin America and the Middle East, Raul's policies are more likely to remain closer to regimes that are not particularly friendly to the United States and that demand little from Cuba in return for generous aid.¶ Raul does not seem ready to provide meaningful and irreversible concessions for a U.S. - Cuba normalization. Like his brother in the past, public statements and speeches are politically motivated and directed at audiences in Cuba, the United States and Europe. Serious negotiations on important issues are not carried out in speeches from the plaza. They are usually carried out through the normal diplomatic avenues open to the Cubans in Havana, Washington and the United Nations or other countries, if they wish. These avenues have never been closed as evidenced by the migration accord and the anti-hijacking agreement between the United States and Cuba.¶ Raul remains a loyal follower and cheerleader of Fidel's anti-American policies.¶ The issue between Cuba and the U.S. is not about negotiations or talking. These are not sufficient. There has to be a willingness on the part of the Cuban leadership to offer real concessions - in the area of human rights and political and economic openings as well as cooperation on anti-terrorism and drug interdiction - for the United States to change it policies.

AT: XO CP

Even if the CP claims to get rid of the Helms-Burton Act, it’s not true. Obama doesn’t have the jurisdiction to void the Helms-Burton Act, means Obama can only pass part of the plan. Proves that the permutation solves best.

Dion 12 – Worked for The Associated Press, the Kansas City Star and the Providence Journal as a writer, book reviewer and columnist , Marc Dion, Creators Syndicate, “U.S. trade embargo with Cuba needs to change,” 2012, http://www.creators.com/opinion/daily-editorials/u-s-trade-embargo-with-cuba-needs-to-change.html, accessed 6/30/13, IS)

Fifty years ago today, rebel forces captured the city of Santa Clara in central Cuba, sending the island nation's dictator, Fulgencio Batista, into a New Year's Eve panic. He fled for exile in the Dominican Republic. A week later, a bearded 32-year-old lawyer named Fidel Castro marched triumphantly into Havana to claim his prize.¶ El Comandante is still there and still in charge, although earlier this year, he surrendered day-to-day control of the nation to his brother, Raul. Fidel Castro has survived 10 U.S. presidents starting with John F. Kennedy, who severed diplomatic relations with Cuba in 1961, when it entered the Soviet Union's embrace.¶ The world has changed drastically in 50 years, but the United States and Cuba remain fierce political adversaries. Their populations, paradoxically, are intertwined, even as the U.S. economic embargo restricts the flow of people, money and products to and from the tropical island of 11 million people.¶ The embargo is an anachronistic vestige of Cold War politics that no longer serves much purpose. Castro's ill health, along with the beginning of President-elect Barack Obama's administration, offers a special opening to relax significantly — if not outright reverse — its damaging effects.¶ Relaxing or removing the embargo should be part of gradual diplomacy: As the Cuban government begins to restore political, economic and civil liberties to its people, the United States should loosen its economic sanctions.¶ Cuba is not the socialist paradise that Fidel Castro promised. He created a police state that represses free speech, free elections and the ability to accumulate personal wealth. It may be, as Castro boasts, that no Cuban lacks the basics of life. But most of them don't have much more than that.¶ Although a U.S. president can ease travel and cultural exchanges via executive order, it would take congressional action to end sanctions imposed by the 1996 Helms-Burton Act.¶ That's long been regarded as political suicide in Florida, a key electoral state. But a recent Florida International University poll found that a majority of the Cubans in Miami-Dade County support normalizing relations with Cuba and lifting the economic embargo.¶ About 35 percent of the Cubans in South Florida broke ranks with the Republican party to vote for Obama, a Democrat. His support was especially strong among younger Cuban-American voters, many of whom don't share the animosities of their fathers and mothers.¶ Lifting the embargo would be in the best interests of the United States in several ways:¶ — Economic. Although Cuba is just a blip on the global economic radar, it is a mere 90 miles from Florida and offers new markets to U.S. farmers and businesses.¶ — Strategic. Lifting the embargo would re-establish U.S. credibility throughout the Caribbean, Central and South America. It would deflect Cuba's public flirtations with Russia, China and Venezuela.¶ — Brainpower. Cubans are poor but well-educated and literate at levels above other developing Latin American countries. It offers a trove of doctors and teachers, as well as a population hungry for access to the democratizing effects of the Internet, cell phones and personal technology.¶ — Humanitarian. Two generations of families in both countries have been tormented and divided. Families should be reunited, and Americans should be allowed to enjoy the ecological and cultural splendor of the island.¶ Cuba poses no direct military threat; the memories of the Bay of Pigs attack in 1961 and the missile crisis of 1962 are just that: memories.¶ The blockade serves only the interests of Cuba's leaders. They can — and do — blame the many failings of a 50-year communist regime on what they call El Bloqueo. In many respects, the Castro revolution has survived not despite U.S. opposition, but because of it.¶ The best ambassadors for democracy in Cuba are American tourists, American businesses and American cultural representatives. The Cuban people may have been isolated from the world for 50 years, but they are smart and pragmatic. The United States should reach out to them, not only in their interest, but also in our own.

Directory: rest -> wikis -> openev -> spaces -> 2013 -> pages