1AC – Advantage – Democracy Promotion [A.] Current policy toward Cuba destroys effective democracy and humans rights promotion Amash, 2012[Brandon, Contributing writer of Prospect Journal of International Affairs at UCSD, EVALUATING THE CUBAN EMBARGO, 7-22-12, http://prospectjournal.org/2012/07/23/evaluating-the-cuban-embargo/] /Wyo-MBAyubi, Bissell, Korsah and Lerner suggest that “the purpose of sanctions is to bring about behavior seen as in conformity with the goals and standards of a society and to prevent behavior that is inconsistent with these goals and standards” (Ayubi 1). These goals and standards, in the Cuban context, would be democracy and a vested interest in human rights. However, the sanctions that the United States has placed on Cuba in the past half century have done little to address the systematic violations of human rights in Cuba.§ 3.1: The American embargo is not sufficient to democratize Cuba and improve human rights. Without the help and support of multilateral institutions, economic sanctions on Cuba have been ineffective. As other states trade and interact freely with Cuba, the lack of partnership with America is only a minor hindrance to Cuba’s economy. Moreover, the sanctions are detrimental to the United States economy, as Cuba could potentially be a geostrategic economic partner. More importantly, since economic sanctions are not directly related to the goal of improved human rights, the effect of these sanctions is also unrelated; continued economic sanctions against Cuba create no incentive for the Cuban government to promote better human rights, especially when the sanctions do not have international support. Empirically, it is clear that since its inception, the policy has not succeeded in promoting democratization or improving human rights. Something more must be done in order to improve the situation. § 3.2: American sanctions during the Cold War strengthened Castro’s ideological position and created opportunities for involvement by the Soviet Union, thereby decreasing the likelihood of democratization and improvement in human rights. Cuba’s revolution could not have come at a worse time for America. The emergence of a communist state in the western hemisphere allowed the Soviet Union to extend its influence, and the United States’ rejection of Cuba only widened the window of opportunity for Soviet involvement. The embargo also became a scapegoat for the Castro administration, which laid blame for poor human rights conditions on the embargo policy itself (Fontaine 18 – 22). Furthermore, as Ratliff and Fontaine suggest, isolating Cuba as an enemy of democracy during the Cold War essentially made the goals of democratization in the country unachievable (Fontaine 30). While the embargo may have been strategic during the Cold War as a bulwark against communism, the long-term effects of the policy have essentially precluded the possibility for democracy in Cuba. Even after the end of the Cold War, communism persists in Cuba and human rights violations are systemic; America’s policy has not achieved its goals and has become a relic of the Cold War era. The prospects for democracy and improvement in human rights seem as bleak as ever.

[B.] Removing the embargo bolsters US-Cuban relations and solve the promotion of democracy and human rights in Cuba and abroad Amash, 2012[Brandon, Contributing writer of Prospect Journal of International Affairs at UCSD, EVALUATING THE CUBAN EMBARGO, 7-22-12, http://prospectjournal.org/2012/07/23/evaluating-the-cuban-embargo/] /Wyo-MBAlthough America’s previous policies of intervention, use of force and economic sanctions have all failed at achieving democratization in Cuba, not all options have been exhausted. One policy alternative for promoting democracy and human rights in Cuba that the United States has not attempted is the exact opposite of the approach it has taken for the past half century. Namely, the United States should lift the

embargo on Cuba and reopen diplomatic relations in order to work internationally on improving human rights in Cuba. Unless Cuba, as a rogue state, is isolated internationally, rather than merely by the United States, the human rights situation in Cuba may never improve. A fresh policy of engagement towards Cuba has been delayed long enough. ¶ § 4.1: Reopening diplomatic relations with Cuba will decrease the chances of conflict and will promote cooperation between the two countries economically, politically and socially. Diplomatic relations and negotiations have proven to be effective in the past in similar situations, such as the renewed relations between Egypt and Israel following the Camp David Accords. As Huddleston and Pascual state, “a great lesson of democracy is that it cannot be imposed; it must come from within. […] Our policy should therefore encompass the political, economic, and diplomatic tools to enable the Cuban people to engage in and direct the politics of their country” (Huddleston 14). The mobilization of the Cuban people on the issues of democratization, which are inherently linked to the human rights violations in Cuba, is a first step to producing changes in Cuba. American engagement with the Cuban people, currently lacking under the embargo policy, will provide the impetus in Cuban society to produce regime change. Furthermore, integrating U.S.-Cuba relations on a multilateral level will ease the burden on the United States in fostering democracy and a better human rights record in the country, as other states will be more involved in the process. In contrast to a policy of isolation, normalized relations will allow America to engage Cuba in new areas, opening the door for democratization and human rights improvements from within the Cuban state itself. ¶ § 4.2: With diplomatic relations in place, the United States may directly promote human rights in the country through negotiations, conferences, arbitration and mediation. Providing the support, resources, and infrastructure to promote democratic systems in Cuba could produce immense improvements to the human rights situation in the nation. Normalizing diplomatic relations with the state will also allow America to truly support freedom of opinion and expression in Cuba, which it cannot currently promote under the isolationist policy. Furthermore, through diplomatic relations and friendly support, Cuba will be more willing to participate in the international system, as well as directly with the United States, as an ally. As the United States, along with the international community as a whole, helps and supports Cuba’s economic growth, Cuban society will eventually push for greater protection of human rights. ¶ § 4.3: Lifting economic sanctions will improve economic growth in Cuba, which correlates to democratization. Empirical evidence shows that a strong economy is correlated to democracy. According to the Modernization Theory of democratization, this correlation is a causal link: economic growth directly leads to democratization. Lifting the current economic sanctions on Cuba and working together to improve economic situations in the state will allow their economy to grow, increasing the likelihood of democracy in the state, and thus promoting greater freedom of expression, opinion and dissent.¶ § 4.4: A policy of engagement will be a long-term solution to promoting democracy and improving human rights in Cuba. This proposal, unique in that it is simply one of abandoning an antiquated policy and normalizing relations to be like those with any other country, does not present any large obstacles to implementation, either in the short run or the long run. The main challenge is in continuing to support such a policy and maintaining the normal diplomatic, economic and social relations with a country that has been isolated for such a long period of time. Although effects of such a policy may be difficult to determine in the short term, promoting democracy and improving human rights in Cuba are long-term solutions. As discussed above, engagement with the Cuban government and society, along with support from the international community, will provide the spark and guidance for the Cuban people to support and promote democracy, and thus give greater attention to human rights violations.¶ § 5. Conclusions:¶ Instead of continued economic sanctions on Cuba, the United States should reopen diplomatic relations with Cuba, work multilaterally and use soft power to promote democracy and greater attention to human rights. This policy approach will decrease the hostility between the United States and Cuba, and cause Cuba to be more willing to participate internationally with attention to human rights violations. After the end of the Cold War, United States foreign policy has found new directions, and the embargo, as a relic of a different time, must be removed should the United States wish to gain any true ground in promoting human rights in Cuba.

[C.] Lifting the embargo is key to the credibility of United States democracy promotion and hemispheric relationsHuddleston and Pascual, 2010[Vicki and Carlos, Leaders of Advisory group for policy recommendations on Cuba, Vicki is deputy assistant secretary for Africa at the Department of Defense and Carlos is ambassador to Mexico, Learning to Salsa: New Steps in U.S.-Cuba Relations, Brookings Institutions Press 2010] /Wyo-MB U.S. policy toward Cuba should advance the democratic aspirations of the Cuban people and strengthen U.S. credibility throughout the hemisphere. Our nearly 50-year-old policy toward Cuba has failed on both counts: it has resulted in a downward spiral of U.S. influence on the island and has left the United States isolated in the hemisphere and beyond. Our Cuba policy has become a bellwether, indicating the extent to which the United States will act in partnership with the region or unilaterally— and ineffectually. Inevitably, strategic contact and dialogue with the Cuban government will be necessary if the United States seeks to engage the Cuban people. This book proposes a new goal for U.S. policy toward Cuba: to support the emergence of a Cuban state where the Cuban people determine the political and economic future of their country through democratic means. A great lesson of democracy is that it cannot be imposed; it must come from within. The type of government at the helm of the island’s future will depend on Cubans. Our policy should therefore encompass the political, economic, and diplomatic tools to enable the Cuban people to engage in and direct the politics of their country. This policy will advance the interests of the United States in seeking stable relationships based on common hemispheric values that promote the well-being of each individual and the growth of civil society. To engage the Cuban government and Cuban people effectively, the United States will need to engage with other governments, the private sector, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). In so doing, U.S. policy toward Cuba would reflect the hemisphere’s and our own desire to encourage the Cuban government to adopt international standards of democracy, human rights, and transparency.

[D.] Effective democracy promotion is key to solve global conflictLagon, 2011[Mark, adjunct Senior Fellow for Human Rights Council of Foreign Relations, February 2011, Promoting Democracy: The Whys and Hows for the United States and the International Community, http://www.cfr.org/democracy-promotion/promoting-democracy-whys-hows-united-states-international-community/p24090] /Wyo-MBFurthering democracy is often dismissed as moralism distinct from U.S. interests or mere lip service to build support for strategic policies. Yet there are tangible stakes for the United States and indeed the world in the spread of democracy—namely, greater peace, prosperity, and pluralism. Controversial means for promoting democracy and frequent mismatches between deeds and words have clouded appreciation of this truth.¶ ¶ Democracies often have conflicting priorities, and democracy promotion is not a panacea. Yet one of the few truly robust findings in international relations is that established democracies never go to war with one another. Foreign policy “realists” advocate working with other governments on the basis of interests, irrespective of character, and suggest that this approach best preserves stability in the world. However, durable stability flows from a domestic politics built on consensus and peaceful competition, which more often than not promotes similar international conduct for governments.

[E.] Democracy promotion solves terrorismCurtis, 2011[Lisa, Senior Research Fellow for South Asia in the Asian Studies Center at The Heritage Foundation, Championing Liberty Abroad to Counter Islamist Extremism, 2-9-11, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/02/championing-liberty-abroad-to-counter-islamist-extremism] /Wyo-MBThe Obama Administration needs to prioritize the promotion of democracy and individual freedom as part of its foreign policy agenda. This is particularly important in Muslim countries where repression and

intolerance can foster development of extremist movements that feed global terrorism.¶ Recent statements from President Obama and other senior Administration officials signaling strong support for democratic development in other countries are encouraging. The Administration should continue to demonstrate its commitment to nurturing democratic development both through public statements and through aid programs that account for the particular circumstances of individual countries. In doing so, the U.S. would not only adhere to its founding principles and help to secure freedom for others, but also protect its national security by uprooting support for extremist ideologies that lead to global terrorism.

[F.] Relations with Cuba is key to winning the war on terrorUS-Cuba Policy and Business Blog 10 ("United States Cuba Relations - Terror Designation," January 5, http://uscuba.blogspot.com/2010/01/unitedstates-cuba-relations-terrorist.html)As long as we have poor relations with Cuba, we are effectively opening the door to our adversaries. It is in the strategic interests of our country to have normal relations with Cuba. As long as we deprive Cuba of socioeconomic engagement, Cuba will seek it elsewhere. Why do you think our adversaries are gaining a foothold on our doorstep in the Western hemisphere? That Cuba has a government we do not agree with or like how it treats its own citizens, our embargo and preventing U.S. citizens from freely visiting Cuba has not accomplished anything to change our island neighbor. Keeping Cuba on this list is simply an obstacle and not any real protection from our true enemy, Al Qaeda, and its weapon, terrorism . That is who we are at war with, not Cuba. ns in Havana.

[G.] Nuclear terrorist attack causes super power warRobert Ayson, Professor of Strategic Studies and Director of the Centre for Strategic Studies: New Zealand at the Victoria University of Wellington, 2010 (“After a Terrorist Nuclear Attack: Envisaging Catalytic Effects,” Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, Volume 33, Issue 7, July, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via InformaWorld)A terrorist nuclear attack, and even the use of nuclear weapons in response by the country attacked in the first place, would not necessarily represent the worst of the nuclear worlds imaginable. Indeed, there are reasons to wonder whether nuclear terrorism should ever be regarded as belonging in the category of truly existential threats. A contrast can be drawn here with the global catastrophe that would come from a massive nuclear exchange between two or more of the sovereign states that possess these weapons in significant numbers. Even the worst terrorism that the twenty-first century might bring would fade into insignificance alongside considerations of what a general nuclear war would have wrought in the Cold War period. And it must be

admitted that as long as the major nuclear weapons states have hundreds and even thousands of nuclear weapons at their disposal, there is always the possibility of a truly awful nuclear exchange taking place precipitated entirely by state possessors themselves. But these two nuclear worlds—

a non-state actor nuclear attack and a catastrophic interstate nuclear exchange—are not necessarily separable. It is just possible that some sort of terrorist attack, and especially an act of nuclear terrorism, could precipitate a chain of events leading to a massive exchange of nuclear weapons between two or more of the states that possess them . In this context, today’s and tomorrow’s terrorist groups might assume the place allotted during the early Cold War years to new state possessors of small nuclear arsenals who were seen as raising the risks of a catalytic nuclear war between the superpowers started by third parties. These risks were considered in the late 1950s and early 1960s as concerns grew about nuclear proliferation, the so-called n+1 problem. t may require a considerable amount of imagination to depict an especially plausible situation where an act of nuclear terrorism could lead to such a massive inter-state nuclear war. For example, in the event of a terrorist nuclear attack on the United States, it might well be wondered just how Russia and/or China could plausibly be brought into the picture, not least because they seem unlikely to be fingered as the most obvious state sponsors or encouragers of terrorist groups. They would seem far too responsible to be involved in supporting that sort of terrorist behavior that could just as easily threaten them as well. Some possibilities, however remote, do suggest themselves. For example, how might the United States react if it was thought or discovered that the fissile material used in the act of nuclear terrorism had come from Russian stocks,40 and if for some reason Moscow denied any responsibility for nuclear laxity? The correct attribution of that nuclear material to a particular country might not be a case of science fiction given the observation by Michael May et al. that while the debris resulting from a nuclear explosion would be “spread over a wide area in tiny fragments, its radioactivity makes it detectable, identifiable and collectable, and a wealth of information can be obtained from its analysis: the efficiency of the explosion, the materials used and, most important

… some indication of where the nuclear material came from.”41 Alternatively, if the act of nuclear terrorism came as a complete surprise, and American officials refused to believe that a terrorist group was fully responsible (or responsible at all) suspicion would shift immediately to state possessors . Ruling out Western ally countries like the United Kingdom and France, and probably Israel and India as well, authorities in

Washington would be left with a very short list consisting of North Korea , perhaps Iran if its program continues, and possibly Pakistan. But at what stage would Russia and China be definitely ruled out in this high stakes game of nuclear Cluedo? In particular, if the act of nuclear terrorism occurred against a backdrop of existing tension in Washington’s relations with Russia and/or China, and at a time when threats had already been traded between these major powers, would officials and political leaders not be tempted to assume the worst? Of course, the chances of this occurring would only seem to increase if the United States was already involved in some sort of limited armed

conflict with Russia and/or China, or if they were confronting each other from a distance in a proxy war, as unlikely as these developments may seem at the present time. The reverse might well apply too: should a nuclear terrorist attack occur in Russia or China during a period of heightened tension or even limited conflict with the United States, could Moscow and Beijing resist the pressures that might rise domestically to consider the United States as a possible perpetrator or encourager of the attack? Washington’s early response to a terrorist nuclear attack on its own soil might also raise the possibility of an unwanted (and nuclear aided) confrontation with Russia

and/or China. For example, in the noise and confusion during the immediate aftermath of the terrorist nuclear attack, the U.S. president might be expected to place the country’s armed forces, including its nuclear arsenal, on a higher stage of alert. In such a tense environment, when careful planning runs up against the friction of reality, it is just possible that Moscow and/or China might mistakenly read this as a sign of U.S. intentions to use force (and possibly nuclear force) against them. In that situation, the temptations to preempt such actions might grow, although it must be admitted that any preemption would probably still meet with a devastating response.

[H.] Lashout will be widespread and cause extinctionNicole Schwartz-Morgan, Assistant Professor of Politics and Economics at Royal Military College of Canada, 10/10/2001, “Wild Globalization and Terrorism,” http://www.wfs.org/mmmorgan.htmThe terrorist act can reactivate atavistic defense mechanisms which drive us to gather around clan chieftans. Nationalistic sentiment re-awakens, setting up an implacable frontier which divides "us" from "them," each group solidifying its cohesion in a rising hate/fear of the other group. (Remember Yugoslavia?) To be sure, the allies are trying for the moment to avoid the language of polarization , insisting that "this is not a war," that it is "not against Islam," "civilians will not be targeted." But the word "war" was pronounced, a word heavy with significance which forces the issue of partisanship. And it must be understood that the sentiment of partisanship, of belonging to the group, is one of the strongest of human emotions. Because the enemy has been named in the media (Islam), the situation has become emotionally volatile . Another spectacular attack, coming on top of an economic recession could easily radicalize the latent attitudes of the United States, and also of Europe, where racial prejudices are especially close to the surface and ask no more than a pretext to burst out. This is the Sarajevo syndrome: an isolated act of madness becomes the pretext for a war that is just as mad, made of ancestral rancor, measureless ambitions, and armies in search of a war. We should not be fooled by our expressions of good will and charity toward the innocent victims of this or other distant wars. It is our own comfortable circumstances which permit us these benevolent sentiments. If conditions change so that poverty and famine put the fear of starvation in our guts, the human beast will reappear. And if epidemic becomes a clear and present danger, fear will unleash hatred in the land of the free, flinging missiles indiscriminately toward any supposed havens of the unseen enem y . And on the other side, no matter how profoundly complex and differentiated Islamic nations and tribes may be, they will be forced to behave as one clan by those who see advantage in radicalizing the conflict, whether they be themselves merchants or terrorists.

Democracy Promotion – Inherency – Transition Now Cuban government reforms happening now—removal of the embargo key to sustain Cuban governmental and economic transitionBBC Worldwide, 2011[BBC Monitoring Latin America – Political Supplied by BBC Worldwide Monitoring, November 16, 2011 Wednesday, Think tank urges United States to do more for Cuba, Lexis] Wyo-MBWashington, 15 November: The Washington-based think tank, Centre for Democracy in the Americas, is urging the United States to do more to encourage market reforms and restructuring now underway in Cuba.¶ "After fifty years of sanctions, and a generation after the demise of the Cold War, it is incumbent upon US policy makers to understand the changes taking place in Cuba today and respond accordingly," it said in a new report, adding that "the success or failure of the reform process will largely be determined in Havana, not Washington".¶ Although Cuba's economy is still largely state-controlled, under President Raul Castro it has taken steps to reduce the size of government by allowing Cuban citizens to operate their own small businesses and form cooperatives. Castro has also ended some state subsidies and began phasing out others, such as the ration card. Other market-oriented reforms, such as allowing Cubans to buy and sell homes and cars, were enacted this fall.¶ But the report notes advocates for reform of US policy towards Cuba, the big change announced by Castro - laying off more than one million workers, about a fifth of the state payroll - was "halted before it ever really got underway".¶ The report says that Cuba's problems "stem from the limited ways in which its economy produces wealth, its heavy reliance on imports to feed its population, growing domestic economic inequality, and the lack of opportunities for citizens to productively use knowledge acquired through advanced education". This year, the Cuba government is expecting economic growth of 2.9 per cent, an improvement over 2010 when the economy grew by 2.1 per cent. The study notes that many in the United States question the sincerity of Cuba's reform efforts and whether they are permanent.¶ Cuba experimented with economic liberalization in the 1990s after the collapse of the Soviet bloc sent its economy into a downward spiral. It allowed self-employment in 160 occupations, and by 1996 more than 200,000 Cubans had licenses to work for themselves. But as Cuba emerged from the post-Soviet crisis in the late 1990s, it began to roll back the reforms .¶ "Despite doubts on both sides of the Florida Straits, the evidence leads us to conclude that Cuba's reform process is here to stay," the report noted, recommending that US policymakers acknowledge that Cuba's reforms are real. For more than 50 years, the centrepiece of US policy on Cuba has been the embargo against the Spanish-speaking Caribbean island in an effort to choke off the government economically. "In the final analysis, ending the embargo and normalizing relations with Cuba ought to be a foreign policy priority of the United States," says the report. To lift the embargo would take an act of Congress.

Democracy Promotion – Solvency – New Strategy Key US Policy to Cuba fails to promote human rights and democracy, removing embargo is key to a new strategy Amash, 2012[Brandon, Contributing writer of Prospect Journal of International Affairs at UCSD, EVALUATING THE CUBAN EMBARGO, 7-22-12, http://prospectjournal.org/2012/07/23/evaluating-the-cuban-embargo/] /Wyo-MBCuba has a long record of violating the fundamental human rights of freedom of opinion, thought, expression, and the right to dissent; the Universal Declaration of Human Rights clearly protects these rights in Articles 19 and 21. Article 19 states that “everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” Article 21 similarly states that “everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country […]” (UDHR). The purpose of this proposal is to provide the United States with an alternative foreign policy approach toward Cuba that will improve human rights conditions and foster democracy in the country. Namely, I argue that the embargo policy should be abandoned and replaced with a policy based on modeling appropriate behavior, providing support and resources to developing democratic systems and encouraging participation in multilateral institutions. In the following pages, I will describe the historical context of the situation, critique the embargo policy and advocate for the normalization of relations with Cuba as a stronger approach to improving human rights and espousing democracy.¶ It is essential to carefully consider this proposal as a viable policy alternative for promoting democracy and protecting human rights in Cuba because the current embargo policy has proven to be ineffective in advancing these goals. Developing more effective approaches to similar situations of democratization and promotion of ideals has been a foreign policy goal of the United States since before the Cold War. However, despite the vast shifts in the international climate following the end of the Cold War, U.S. policy towards Cuba has not adapted. As such, this proposal highlights the need for a fresh policy toward our neighbor and bitter rival.

Squo embargo tanks US-Cuban relations, and the embargo fails to promote democracy and human rightsAmash, 2012[Brandon, Contributing writer of Prospect Journal of International Affairs at UCSD, EVALUATING THE CUBAN EMBARGO, 7-22-12, http://prospectjournal.org/2012/07/23/evaluating-the-cuban-embargo/] /Wyo-MBThe United States and Cuba have been on unstable terms since the colonization of both countries by the British and Spanish Empires, respectively. Following Cuba’s independence from Spain and the ensuing Spanish-American War, Cuban-American relations began to deteriorate: Cubans resented American intervention in their independence, afraid of leaving one empire only to be conquered by another. However, the human rights violations in question did not become a problem until after the Cuban Revolution in the 1950s, following the rise of Fidel Castro’s communist regime. After the revolution, Cuban laws imposed limits on the freedoms of expression and association, effectively undermining the basic human rights of freedom of opinion and dissent. According to Clark, De Fana and Sanchez, “given the totalitarian nature of the country, in which all communications media are in the hands of the omnipotent State-Party, it is physically impossible to express any dissenting political opinion […]” (Clark 65). Threatened by these blatantly antidemocratic policies, America had to do something.¶ The United States placed trade embargoes, economic sanctions, and travel bans on Cuba in an attempt to combat the communist regime and human rights violations (Carter 334). Today, diplomatic relations with Cuba remain extremely strained, although America’s embargo policy has tightened and relaxed in concert with its domestic political climate. Most recently, President Obama has reversed “tighter restrictions on Cuban

American family travel and remittances,” as well as announcing “that U.S. telecommunications companies may seek licenses to do business in Cuba” (Carter 336). However, despite the ever-evolving policy and the fluid international climate, little progress has been made in improving the human rights situation in Cuba, let alone the overall promotion of democratic ideals. The embargo policy is based on the idea “that economic denial will bring about continued economic failure in Cuba, thereby creating popular dissatisfaction with the government while simultaneously weakening the government’s ability to repress this popular dissent, leading to the destabilization of the regime and, ultimately, its collapse” (Seaman 39). In the following section, I will explain how these objectives have not been realized.

Ending the embargo is the only way to mobilize the public in Cuba to push for democratic reformPerez, 2010[Louis, e J. Carlyle Sitterson professor of history and the director of the Institute for the Study of the Americas at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Want change in Cuba? End U.S. embargo, 9-21-10, http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/09/20/perez.cuba.embargo/index.html] /Wyo-MBThe Obama administration, he said, wanted "to promote respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms ... in ways that will empower the Cuban people and advance our national interests."¶ Fine words. But if the administration really wanted to do something in the national interest, it would end the 50-year-old policy of political and economic isolation of Cuba.¶ The Cuban embargo can no longer even pretend to be plausible.On the contrary, it has contributed to the very conditions that stifle democracy and human rights there. For 50 years, its brunt has fallen mainly on the Cuban people.¶ This is not by accident. On the contrary, the embargo was designed to impose suffering and hunger on Cubans in the hope that they would rise up and overturn their government.¶ "The only foreseeable means of alienating internal support," the Department of State insisted as early as April 1960, "is through disenchantment and disaffection based on economic dissatisfaction and hardship."¶ The United States tightened the screws in the post-Soviet years with the Torricelli Act and the Helms-Burton Act -- measures designed, Sen. Robert Torricelli said, "to wreak havoc on that island."¶ The post-Soviet years were indeed calamitous. Throughout the 1990s, Cubans faced growing scarcities, deteriorating services and increased rationing. Meeting the needs of ordinary life took extraordinary effort.¶ And therein lies the problem that still bedevils U.S. policy today. Far from inspiring the Cuban people to revolution, the embargo keeps them down and distracted.¶ Dire need and urgent want are hardly optimum circumstances for a people to contemplate the benefits of democracy. A people preoccupied with survival have little interest or inclination to bestir themselves in behalf of anything else.¶ In Cuba, routine household errands and chores consume overwhelming amounts of time and energy, day after day: hours in lines at the local grocery store or waiting for public transportation.¶ Cubans in vast numbers choose to emigrate. Others burrow deeper into the black market, struggling to make do and carry on. Many commit suicide. (Cuba has one of the highest suicide rates in the world; in 2000, the latest year for which we have statistics, it was 16.4 per 100,000 people.)¶ A June 2008 survey in The New York Times reported that less than 10 percent of Cubans identified the lack of political freedom as the island's main problem. As one Cuban colleague recently suggested to me: "First necessities, later democracy."¶ The United States should consider a change of policy, one that would offer Cubans relief from the all-consuming ordeal of daily life. Improved material circumstances would allow Cubans to turn their attention to other aspirations.¶ Ending the embargo would also imply respect for the Cuban people, an acknowledgment that they have the vision and vitality to enact needed reforms, and that transition in Cuba, whatever form it may take, is wholly a Cuban affair.¶ A good-faith effort to engage Cuba, moreover, would counter the common perception there that the United States is a threat to its sovereignty. It would deny Cuban leaders the chance to use U.S. policy as pretext to limit public debate and stifle dissent -- all to the good of democracy and human rights.¶ And it would serve the national interest.

Democracy Promotion – AT: Emboldens Hardliners Removing the sanctions prevents emboldening hardliners in Cuba and opens up the possibility of effective democratic transitionsBandow, 2012[Douglas, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a former special assistant to former US president Ronald Reagan, Time to End the Cuba Embargo, 12-11-12, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/time-end-cuba-embargo] /Wyo-MBIt is far past time to end the embargo.¶ During the Cold War, Cuba offered a potential advanced military outpost for the Soviet Union. Indeed, that role led to the Cuban missile crisis. With the failure of the U.S.-supported Bay of Pigs invasion, economic pressure appeared to be Washington’s best strategy for ousting the Castro dictatorship.¶ However, the end of the Cold War left Cuba strategically irrelevant. It is a poor country with little ability to harm the United States. The Castro regime might still encourage unrest, but its survival has no measurable impact on any important U.S. interest.¶ The regime remains a humanitarian travesty, of course. Nor are Cubans the only victims: three years ago the regime jailed a State Department contractor for distributing satellite telephone equipment in Cuba. But Havana is not the only regime to violate human rights. Moreover, experience has long demonstrated that it is virtually impossible for outsiders to force democracy. Washington often has used sanctions and the Office of Foreign Assets Control currently is enforcing around 20 such programs, mostly to little effect.¶ The policy in Cuba obviously has failed. The regime remains in power. Indeed, it has consistently used the embargo to justify its own mismanagement, blaming poverty on America. Observed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: “It is my personal belief that the Castros do not want to see an end to the embargo and do not want to see normalization with the United States, because they would lose all of their excuses for what hasn’t happened in Cuba in the last 50 years.” Similarly, Cuban exile Carlos Saladrigas of the Cuba Study Group argued that keeping the “embargo, maintaining this hostility, all it does is strengthen and embolden the hardliners.”¶ Cuban human rights activists also generally oppose sanctions. A decade ago I (legally) visited Havana, where I met Elizardo Sanchez Santa Cruz, who suffered in communist prisons for eight years. He told me that the “sanctions policy gives the government a good alibi to justify the failure of the totalitarian model in Cuba.”¶ Indeed, it is only by posing as an opponent of Yanqui Imperialism that Fidel Castro has achieved an international reputation. If he had been ignored by Washington, he never would have been anything other than an obscure authoritarian windbag.

Only a risk that maintaining the embargo does more harm than goodBandow, 2012[Douglas, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a former special assistant to former US president Ronald Reagan, Time to End the Cuba Embargo, 12-11-12, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/time-end-cuba-embargo] /Wyo-MBThere is essentially no international support for continuing the embargo. For instance, the European Union plans to explore improving relations with Havana. Spain’s Deputy Foreign Minister Gonzalo de Benito explained that the EU saw a positive evolution in Cuba. The hope, then, is to move forward in the relationship between the European Union and Cuba.¶ The administration should move now, before congressmen are focused on the next election. President Obama should propose legislation to drop (or at least significantly loosen) the embargo. He also could use his authority to relax sanctions by, for instance, granting more licenses to visit the island.¶ Ending the embargo would have obvious economic benefits for both Cubans and Americans. The U.S. International Trade Commission estimates American losses alone from the embargo as much as $1.2 billion annually.¶ Expanding economic opportunities also might increase pressure within Cuba for further economic reform. So far the regime has taken small steps, but rejected significant change. Moreover, thrusting more Americans into Cuban society could help undermine the ruling system. Despite Fidel Castro’s decline, Cuban politics remains largely static. A few

human rights activists have been released, while Raul Castro has used party purges to entrench loyal elites.¶ Lifting the embargo would be no panacea. Other countries invest in and trade with Cuba to no obvious political impact. And the lack of widespread economic reform makes it easier for the regime rather than the people to collect the benefits of trade, in contrast to China. Still, more U.S. contact would have an impact. Argued trade specialist Dan Griswold, “American tourists would boost the earnings of Cubans who rent rooms, drive taxis, sell art, and operate restaurants in their homes. Those dollars would then find their way to the hundreds of freely priced farmers markets, to carpenters, repairmen, tutors, food venders, and other entrepreneurs.”¶ The Castro dictatorship ultimately will end up in history’s dustbin. But it will continue to cause much human hardship along the way.¶ The Heritage Foundation’s John Sweeney complained nearly two decades ago that “the United States must not abandon the Cuban people by relaxing or lifting the trade embargo against the communist regime.” But the dead hand of half a century of failed policy is the worst breach of faith with the Cuban people.¶ Lifting sanctions would be a victory not for Fidel Castro, but for the power of free people to spread liberty. As Griswold argued, “commercial engagement is the best way to encourage more open societies abroad.” Of course, there are no guarantees. But lifting the embargo would have a greater likelihood of success than continuing a policy which has failed. Some day the Cuban people will be free. Allowing more contact with Americans likely would make that day come sooner.

Democracy Promotion – Internal Link – Latin American key to Global Democracy Promotion

Empowering democracy promotion in Latin America is a key part of global democracy promotionCurtis, 2011[Lisa, Senior Research Fellow for South Asia in the Asian Studies Center at The Heritage Foundation, Championing Liberty Abroad to Counter Islamist Extremism, 2-9-11, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/02/championing-liberty-abroad-to-counter-islamist-extremism] /Wyo-MBAs the U.S. promotes democratic principles and institutions abroad, it also needs to be aware of efforts by autocratic forces to counter democratic progress. Leaders of autocratic regimes, especially those who rely on economic windfalls from extractive industries or are part of an oligarchy whose interests are served by the state’s wealth, seek to undercut support for indigenous democratic movements and have become increasingly adept at doing so. Authoritarian regimes often invest significant resources into managing and manipulating the media to promote anti-democratic values. Autocrats are also becoming skilled in establishing “pseudo-democracies” and using the word “democracy” to argue for anti-democratic standards.[28] The U.S. needs to better understand these anti-democratic forces in individual countries and actively counter their strategies.¶ United States Institute of Peace Vice President Steven Heydemann has recently written about a phenomenon he calls “authoritarian learning.” Heydemann asserts that authoritarian states are beginning to organize themselves into a group that is systematically seeking to counterbalance Western, liberal democratic order. He argues that Iran, Russia, Venezuela, China, and other authoritarian states coordinate their policies and share success stories of deflecting pressure to democratize. They share this “authoritarian learning” with Arab regimes to help them resist Western pressure for political reform.[29] China’s rapid economic growth under an autocratic regime has made the authoritarian model of governance more appealing and thus poses a serious challenge to democratic reform.[30]¶ A recent Freedom House survey confirms a global decline in political rights and civil liberties as the number of countries practicing democracy fell for the fourth consecutive year. The decline is attributed to restrictions on the free flow of information in China, brutal crackdowns on protesters in Iran and Egypt, and murder of human rights activists in Russia.[31] Freedom House also emphasizes that instituting democracy involves far more than holding elections.[32] It means developing a vibrant and free civil society, functioning and credible political parties, and active and free media.¶ There is the added complication of politicization of institutions that are supposed to monitor and oversee democratic processes. A recent example is the widespread perception of political interference by Afghan President Hamid Karzai in the country’s Electoral Complaints Commission, which has tainted Afghanistan’s 2010 parliamentary elections. In February 2010, Karzai used an emergency decree to give himself authority to appoint all provincial complaints commissioners.[33]¶ The U.S. does not have the luxury of ignoring autocratic regimes and often must engage with them to achieve specific U.S. foreign policy objectives. At the same time, the U.S. should not shy away from supporting civil society leaders and defenders of human rights in these countries. In some cases, U.S. diplomatic leverage has played a significant role in nudging an autocratic regime in a more democratic direction.[34] For example, in the 1980s, American diplomats pursued two-track policies of maintaining state-to-state relations with autocratic regimes in Latin America while pushing for democratic change when opportunities arose.[35]¶ In pursuing this two-track approach, U.S. public statements take on more weight. U.S. presidential statements in support of democracy promotion empower civil society leaders seeking democratic change and undermine their opponents.[36]

Democracy Promotion – Impact – Terrorism Democracy promotion is key to solve extremism, terrorism, and anti-americanismCurtis, 2011[Lisa, Senior Research Fellow for South Asia in the Asian Studies Center at The Heritage Foundation, Championing Liberty Abroad to Counter Islamist Extremism, 2-9-11, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/02/championing-liberty-abroad-to-counter-islamist-extremism] /Wyo-MBThe Obama Administration needs to continue its new-found commitment to supporting democratic ideals and institutions around the globe, especially in Muslim-majority countries where extremist movements threaten liberal freedoms and, in some cases, the stability of the state.¶ Encouraging democratic values will not only help to protect citizens from human rights abuses by authoritarian regimes, but also provide a bulwark against Islamist extremist movements. Part of the effort to counter extremist ideology will necessarily include demonstrating that Muslim-majority countries and democratic principles are compatible. The strategy should also involve countering Islamists, who may not publicly support terrorism but still seek to subvert democratic systems and pursue an ideology that leads to discrimination against religious minorities.¶ The wave of protests against authoritarian rule currently sweeping the Middle East is forcing the Obama Administration to make tough decisions on how the U.S. will promote democracy and concepts of liberty while guarding against the possibility of abrupt political changes that anti-American Islamists can exploit to their advantage. The stakes could not be higher for U.S. interests, especially since the outcome of the current wave of unrest could profoundly affect both Islamist movements throughout the Muslim world and support for al-Qaeda and its terrorist agenda.

Democracy promotion is a critical long term strategy to fight terrorismCurtis, 2011[Lisa, Senior Research Fellow for South Asia in the Asian Studies Center at The Heritage Foundation, Championing Liberty Abroad to Counter Islamist Extremism, 2-9-11, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/02/championing-liberty-abroad-to-counter-islamist-extremism] /Wyo-MBThe fight against extremism is largely an ideological battle, and the principles of democratic governance and rule by the people are a powerful antidote to Islamist extremists’ message of intolerance, hatred, and repression. Daniel Benjamin, current Coordinator for Counterterrorism at the State Department, noted in a 2008 academic paper that “[t]he U.S. needs a long-term strategy that makes Muslim societies less incubators for radicalism and more satisfiers of fundamental human needs.”[15] In a joint report prepared for the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign, the presidents of the International Republican Institute and the National Democratic Institute emphasized the importance of democratizing societies as a way to reduce extremism by allowing avenues of dissent, alternation of power, and protections for minorities.[16]¶

Former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith, in an academic paper in 2010, also points to the need to promote ideas favorable to individual rights in Muslim societies. Rather than focus solely on messaging Muslim communities, Feith argues that U.S. policy must also develop effective ways to stimulate debate among Muslims themselves on the extremist ideologies promoted by al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.[17] More specifically, the “[k]ey objective is not to induce Muslims to like the U.S. but to encourage them to reject understandings of Islam that condone and even encourage violence and subversion against the U.S. and the West.”[18]¶ The U.S. needs to implement strategies to counter Islamists who may not publicly condone terrorism but still seek to subvert democratic systems.[19] To do so successfully, the U.S. will need to engage with Muslim groups and leaders, but it must navigate this terrain carefully. The American model of religious liberty includes a favorable view of religious practice, both private and public, and assumes that religious leaders will take an active role in society.[20] While they may participate in the political process, Islamists’ ideology often leads to discrimination against

religious minorities and other anti-democratic measures and fuels support for terrorism. After all, Islamist ideology helped to form the basis for the development of al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.

Democracy Promotion – Impact – Laundry List Human rights and democracy promotion establish stable partners for the United States that are key to solve climate change, food security, global health issues, and conflict USAID, 2013[US agency for international development, IMPORTANCE OF DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS, & GOVERNANCE TO DEVELOPMENT, 5-13-13, http://www.usaid.gov/what-we-do/democracy-human-rights-and-governance/importance-democracy-human-rights-governance] /Wyo-MBUSAID recognizes that long-term, sustainable development is closely linked to sound democratic governance and the protection of human rights. We view the democracy, human rights, and governance (DRG) sector not in isolation but as a critical framework in which all aspects of development must advance together. ¶ Our projects in health, education, climate change, and food security will not be effective and sustainable unless we work to:¶ Support legitimate, inclusive and sound governance.¶

Protect the basic rights of citizens.¶ Support stable and peaceful democratic transitions.¶ USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah has called for a “united approach” to integrate democracy, human rights, and governance considerations with socio-economic sectors in pursuit of broader U.S. development objectives. ¶ The Administrator recognizes that inclusive, accountable, and democratic governments are necessary and critical for ensuring that communities can withstand conflict and/or other shocks and that development gains are not lost, as well as creating stable partners for the United States.

Democracy Promotion – Impact – Economic Growth Democracy promotion solves economic growthLagon, 2011[Mark, adjunct Senior Fellow for Human Rights Council of Foreign Relations, February 2011, Promoting Democracy: The Whys and Hows for the United States and the International Community, http://www.cfr.org/democracy-promotion/promoting-democracy-whys-hows-united-states-international-community/p24090] /Wyo-MBThere has long been controversy about whether democracy enhances economic development. The dramatic growth of China certainly challenges this notion. Still, history will likely show that democracy yields the most prosperity. Notwithstanding the global financial turbulence of the past three years, democracy’s elements facilitate long-term economic growth. These elements include above all freedom of expression and learning to promote innovation, and rule of law to foster predictability for investors and stop corruption from stunting growth. It is for that reason that the UN Development Programme (UNDP) and the 2002 UN Financing for Development Conference in Monterey, Mexico, embraced good governance as the enabler of development. These elements have unleashed new emerging powers such as India and Brazil and raised the quality of life for impoverished peoples. Those who argue that economic development will eventually yield political freedoms may be reversing the order of influences—or at least discounting the reciprocal relationship between political and economic liberalization.¶ Finally, democracy affords all groups equal access to justice—and equal opportunity to shine as assets in a country’s economy. Democracy’s support for pluralism prevents human assets—including religious and ethnic minorities, women, and migrants—from being squandered. Indeed, a shortage of economic opportunities and outlets for grievances has contributed significantly to the ongoing upheaval in the Middle East. Pluralism is also precisely what is needed to stop violent extremism from wreaking havoc on the world.

Democracy Promotion – Impact – War Effective democracy promotion solves war, terrorism and instabilityEpstien et al, 2007[Susan B. Epstein, Nina M. Serafino, and Francis T. Miko Specialists in Foreign Policy Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division Congressional research service, Democracy Promotion: Cornerstone of U.S. Foreign Policy?, 12-26-7, http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl34296.pdf] /Wyo-MBA common rationale offered by proponents of democracy promotion, including¶ former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and current Secretary of State¶ Condoleezza Rice, is that democracies do not go to war with one another. This is¶ sometimes referred to as the democratic peace theory. Experts point to European¶ countries, the United States, Canada, and Mexico as present-day examples.¶ According to President Clinton’s National Security Strategy of Engagement and¶ Enlargement: “Democracies create free markets that offer economic opportunity,¶ make for more reliable trading partners, and are far less likely to wage war on one¶ another.”22¶ Some have refined this democracy peace theory by distinguishing between¶ mature democracies and those in transition, suggesting that mature democracies do¶ not fight wars with each other, but that countries transitioning toward democracy are¶ more prone to being attacked (because of weak governmental institutions) or being¶ aggressive toward others. States that made transitions from an autocracy toward¶ early stages of democracy and were involved in hostilities soon after include France¶ in the mid-1800s under Napoleon III, Prussia/Germany under Bismarck (1870-1890),¶ Chile shortly before the War of the Pacific in 1879, Serbia’s multiparty constitutional¶ monarchy before the Balkan Wars of the late 20th Century, and Pakistan’s military guided pseudo-democracy before its wars with India in 1965 and 1971.23¶ The George W. Bush Administration asserts that democracy promotion is a¶ long-term antidote to terrorism. The Administration’s Strategy for Winning the War¶ on Terror asserts that inequality in political participation and access to wealth¶ resources in a country, lack of freedom of speech, and poor education all breed¶ volatility. By promoting basic human rights, freedoms of speech, religion, assembly,¶ association and press, and by maintaining order within their borders and providing¶ an independent justice system, effective democracies can defeat terrorism in the long¶ run, according to the Bush White House.24¶ Another reason given to encourage democracies (although debated by some¶ experts) is the belief that democracies promote economic prosperity. From this¶

perspective, as the rule of law leads to a more stable society and as equal economic¶ opportunity for all helps to spur economic activity, economic growth, particularly of¶ per capita income, is likely to follow. In addition, a democracy under this scenario¶ may be more likely to be viewed by other countries as a good trading partner and by¶ outside investors as a more stable environment for investment, according to some¶ experts. Moreover, countries that have developed as stable democracies are viewed¶ as being more likely to honor treaties, according to some experts.25

Democracy Promotion – Impact – Laundry List DEMOCRACY IS NECESSARY TO AVERT NUCLEAR WAR AND EXTINCTIONCARNEGIE COMMISSION ON PREVENTING DEADLY CONFLICT, “Promoting Democracy in the 1990’s,” October 1995. Available from the World Wide Web at: http://www.carnegie.org/sub/pubs/deadly/dia95_01.html, accessed 2/20/04.OTHER THREATS This hardly exhausts the lists of threats to our security and well-being in the coming years and decades. In the former Yugoslavia nationalist aggression tears at the stability of Europe and could easily spread. The flow of illegal drugs intensifies through increasingly powerful international crime syndicates that have made common cause with authoritarian regimes and have utterly corrupted the institutions of tenuous, democratic ones. Nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons continue to proliferate. The very source of life on Earth, the global ecosystem, appears increasingly endangered. Most of these new and unconventional threats to security are associated with or aggravated by the weakness or absence of democracy, with its provisions for legality, accountability, popular sovereignty, and openness. LESSONS OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY The experience of this century offers important lessons. Countries that govern themselves in a truly democratic fashion do not go to war with one another. They do not aggress against their neighbors to aggrandize themselves or glorify their leaders. Democratic governments do not ethnically "cleanse" their own populations, and they are much less likely to face ethnic insurgency. Democracies do not sponsor terrorism against one another. They do not build weapons of mass destruction to use on or to threaten one another. Democratic countries form more reliable, open, and enduring trading partnerships. In the long run they offer better and more stable climates for investment. They are more environmentally responsible because they must answer to their own citizens, who organize to protest the destruction of their environments. They are better bets to honor international treaties since they value legal obligations and because their openness makes it much more difficult to breach agreements in secret. Precisely because, within their own borders, they respect competition, civil liberties, property rights, and the rule of law, democracies are the only reliable foundation on which a new world order of international security and prosperity can be built.

SQ bad for Demo

Status quo undermines democracyGriswold 02 associate director of the Cato Institute’s Center for Trade Policy Studies [Daniel T. Griswold, No: The Embargo Harms Cubans and Gives Castro an Excuse for the Policy Failures of His Regime, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/no-embargo-harms-cubans-gives-castro-excuse-policy-failures-regime]

If the goal of U.S. policy toward Cuba is to help its people achieve freedom and a better life, the economic embargo has failed completely. Its economic effect is to make the people of Cuba worse-off by depriving them of lower-cost food and other goods that could be bought from the United States. It means less independence for Cuban workers and entrepreneurs, who could be earning dollars from American tourists and fueling private-sector growth. Meanwhile, Castro and his ruling elite enjoy a comfortable, insulated lifestyle by extracting any meager surplus produced by their captive subjects.Cuban families are not the only victims of the embargo. Many of the dollars Cubans could earn from U.S. tourists would come back to the United States to buy American products, especially farm goods. The American Farm Bureau estimates that Cuba could “eventually become a $1 billion agricultural-export market for products of U.S. farmers and ranchers.” The embargo stifles another $250 million in potential annual exports of fertilizer, herbicides, pesticides and tractors. According to a study last year by the U.S. International Trade Commission, the embargo costs American firms between $684 million and $1.2 billion per year.As a foreign-policy tool, the embargo actually enhances Castro’s standing by giving him a handy excuse for the manifest failures of his oppressive communist system. He can rail for hours about the suffering the embargo inflicts on Cubans, even though the damage done by his domestic policies is far worse. If the embargo were lifted, the Cuban people would be a bit less deprived and Castro would have no one else to blame for the shortages and stagnation that will persist without real market reforms.

Key to Spread

Engaging Cuba key to spread Democracy – now is key. Need to change the embargoHinderdael 11 M.A. candidate at SAIS Bologna Center, concentrating in American Foreign Policy and Energy, Resources, and Environment [Klaas Hinderdael, Breaking the Logjam: Obama's Cuba Policy and a Guideline for Improved Leadership, by http://bcjournal.org/volume-14/breaking-the-logjam.html?printerFriendly=true]

During his inaugural address, US president Barack Obama stated, in an attempt to ease tensions with some of America’s more traditional adversaries, “we will extend a hand, if you are willing to unclench your fist.”1 Indeed, when countries have indicated a readiness to make domestic reforms, the Obama administration has shown an increased willingness to engage them.Cuba, in particular, offers policymakers an ideal case study of how the administration has reacted to internal reforms. It also demonstrates how the administration, in an attempt to bolster its position as the world’s leader, has relied primarily upon soft power to develop its ties with other countries.In light of Raúl Castro2 charting a new course for Cuba, recent US policy initiatives have been aimed at a limited engagement and an easing of tensions with Cuban leadership. While these efforts constitute a vital first step in the transformation of US-Cuban relations, it is in America’s best interest to more firmly “extend a hand.” In fact, Cuba provides President Obama an opportunity to highlight the potential benefits of America’s foreign policy of engagement.In 2002, Cuban American scholar Louis Pérez Jr. noted that the US embargo policy has been “derived from assumptions that long ago ceased to have relevance to the post-Cold War environment, designed as a response to threats that are no longer present, against adversaries that no longer exist.”3 to be sure, American policymakers have been unable to sufficiently adjust Cuba policy to the realities of post-Cold War relations with the island.The economic embargo, which has been in place for half a century, coupled with either diplomatic isolation or limited engagement, has failed to force democratization on the island. If anything, it has taught that democracy cannot be imposed or coerced, but must grow from within. In this light, ending the embargo and engaging Cuba will allow the united States to better influence a process of political reform on the island. Conversely, as America stalls, other countries are playing a larger role in what traditionally has been considered America’s backyard.Fortunately for American policymakers, recent and drastic shifts in the realities of US-Cuban relations show that there is much to gain, and surprisingly little to lose, from transforming US-Cuba policy. Though for too long domestic politics has trumped international security goals, pragmatic leaders will soon grasp the full extent of these new realities.At a time when the United States runs a large trade deficit and holds a rising national debt, President Obama’s foreign policy of engagement could provide essential political, economic, and strategic gains for America. In order to capitalize on these opportunities, the administration should end the embargo and open diplomatic relations with Cuba .

Lift Boosts Civil Society Reforms

Plan boosts democracy in Cuba – economic change within sparks civil society reformsVásquez & Rodríguez 12 director & assistant director of the Project on Global Economic Liberty at the Cato Institute [Ian Vásquez and L. Jacobo Rodríguez, Trade Embargo In and Castro Out, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/trade-embargo-castro-out]

Perhaps the biggest shortcoming of U.S. policy toward Cuba is its false assumption that democratic capitalism can somehow be forcibly exported from Washington to Havana. That assumption is explicitly stated in the Helms-Burton law, whose first purpose is “to assist the Cuban people in regaining their freedom and prosperity, as well as in joining the community of democratic countries that are flourishing in the Western Hemisphere.”But the revolution in democratic capitalism that has swept the Western Hemisphere has had little to do with Washington’s efforts to export democracy. Rather, it has had to do with Latin America’s hard-earned realization that the free-enterprise system is the only system capable of providing self-sustaining growth and increasing prosperity.Even though Cuba—unlike other communist countries, such as China or Vietnam, with which the United States actively trades— has not undertaken meaningful market reforms, an open U.S. trade policy is more likely to subvert its system than is an embargo. Proponents of the Cuban embargo vastly underestimate the extent to which increased foreign trade and investment can undermine Cuban communism even if that business is conducted with state entities.Cuban officials appear to be well aware of the danger. For example, Cuba’s opening of its tourism industry to foreign investment has been accompanied by measures that restrict ordinary Cubans from visiting foreign hotels and tourist facilities. As a result, Cubans have come to resent their government for what has become known as “tourism apartheid.” In recent years, Cuban officials have also issued increasing warnings against corruption, indicating the regime’s fear that unofficial business dealings, especially with foreigners, may weaken allegiance to the government and even create vested interests that favor more extensive market openings.Further undercutting the regime’s authority is the widespread dollar economy that has emerged as a consequence of the foreign presence and remittances from abroad (those from the United States now banned by the Helms-Burton bill). The dollarization of the Cuban economy—which the Cuban government has been forced to legalize as a result of its inability to control it—has essentially eliminated the regime’s authority to dictate the country’s monetary policy.Replacing the all-encompassing state with one that allows greater space for voluntary interaction requires strengthening elements of civil society, that is, groups not dependent on the state. That development is more likely to come about in an environment of increased interaction with outside groups than in an environment of isolation and state control.Supporters of the embargo casually assume that Castro wants an end to the embargo because he believes that step would solve his economic problems. Despite his rhetoric, Castro more likely fears the lifting of the U.S. sanctions. It is difficult to believe, for example, that he did not calculate a strong U.S. response when he ordered the attack on two planes flown by Cuban-Americans in early 1996. But as long as Castro can point to the United States as an external enemy, he will be successful in barring dissent, justifying control over the economy, and stirring up nationalist and anti-U.S. sentiments in Cuba. It is time for Washington to stop playing into Castro’s hands and instead pull the rug out from under him by ending the embargo.

Democracy

Cuba Key

Cuba democracy leads to global democratizationAffairsToday 6/4/13 (Global Student Business Journal, “The Cuban Spring?”, http://affairstoday.co.uk/the-cuban-spring/) (JN)

Cuba is one of a handful of countries that still call themselves a communist country. Nonetheless, a black-market was vibrant for years and now the government allows some kind of farmers’ market. In a move that slightly resembles the new economic policy tested by Lenin in the Soviet Union, Cuba is turning towards the advantages of markets. After Fidel had to ‘resign’, the communists lost power every day. But what does the recent development stand for? Is it the undeniable failure of any suppression of a market, is it the result of a new leadership, or a spill-over of global democratization

Lifting Good

The plan solves democracy in Cuba –lifting the embargo spreads democracy through economics & interactionsSeaman 2010 (David Seaman, Research Assistant and Lecturer at the University of Osnabrück – Department of social sciences, “U.S. Democracy Promotion- The Case of Cuba” - 2010)

The failure of the U.S. policy to bring about the collapse of the Cuban¶ Government and its negative counterproductive consequences on promoting¶ democracy in Cuba is clear. Cuban democracy activist Miriam Leiva puts it¶ bluntly: "If it [U.S. Government] wants to help the Cuban people, it should¶ lift the embargo and allow trade, tourism , and academic exchanges, and¶ Cubans should be allowed to travel without restriction to the United States¶ and send money to their families [in Cuba]" (cited in House of Representatives¶ 2007a, H6835). Since the mid-1990s, numerous legislation has been¶ introduced in the U.S. Congress seeking to overturn Washington's failed¶ embargo policy and replace it with a policy better inclined to promote¶ democratic change in Cuba. In 2007, for example, House Representatives¶ Rangel and Lee introduced the "Free Trade With Cuba Act." The proposed¶ bill recognized both the "counterproductive" nature of the· embargo and the¶ hypocrisy of the U.S. Government in "using economic, cultural, academic,¶ and scientific engagement to support its policy of promoting democratic and¶ human rights reforms" in states such as China and Vietnam, while pursuing¶ a strategy of isolation and aggression against Cuba (Ibid., 2007b). The act¶ would repeal both the CDA and Libertad acts and require the U.S. president¶ to conduct negotiations with the Cuban Government on property claims and¶

respect for human rights. Like all other congressional initiatives to reform¶ U.S. policy toward Cuba, however, the legislation was referred to several¶ congressional subcommittees where it died.

Embargo Hurts

Current policy undermines US credibility and empowers the regimeHuddleston 2009(Vicki huddleston, Visiting Fellow The Brookings institution, Carlos pascual, Vice president and Director of Foreign policy The Brookings institution, “CUBA:A New policy of Critical and Constructive Engagement, “ April 2009http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2009/4/cuba/0413_cuba.pdf)

This paper proposes a new goal for U.S. policy toward Cuba: to support the emergence of a Cuban state where the Cuban people determine the political and economic future of their country through democratic means. A great lesson of democracy is that it cannot be imposed; it must come from within; the type of government at the helm of the island’s future will depend on Cubans. Our policy should therefore encompass the political, economic, and diplomatic tools to enable the Cuban people to engage in and direct the politics of their country. This policy will advance the interests of the United States in seeking stable relationships based on common hemispheric values that promote the well-being of each individual and the growth of civil society. To engage the Cuban government and Cuban people effectively, the United States will need to engage with other governments, the private sector, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). in so doing, U.S. policy toward Cuba would reflect the hemisphere’s and our own desire to encourage the Cuban government to adopt international standards of democracy, human rights, and transparency. Engagement does not mean approval of the Cuban government’s policies, nor should it indicate a wish to control internal developments in Cuba; legitimate changes in Cuba will only come from the actions of Cubans. If the United States is to play a positive role in Cuba’s future, it must not indulge in hostile rhetoric nor obstruct a dialogue on issues that would advance democracy, justice, and human rights as well as our broader national interests. perversely, the policy of seeking to isolate Cuba, rather than achieving its objective, has contributed to undermining the well-being of the Cuban people and to eroding U.S. influence in Cuba and latin America. it has reinforced the Cuban government’s power over its citizens by increasing their dependence on it for every aspect of their livelihood. By slowing the flow of ideas and information, we have unwittingly helped Cuban state security delay Cuba’s political and economic evolution toward a more open and representative government. And, by too tightly embracing Cuba’s brave dissidents, we have provided the Cuban authorities with an excuse to denounce their legitimate efforts to build a more open society.

Stops Democracy – Embargo policy fails, legitimizes regime, and scares Cubans away from DemocracySeaman 2010 (David Seaman, Research Assistant and Lecturer at the University of Osnabrück – Department of social sciences, “U.S. Democracy Promotion- The Case of Cuba” - 2010)

The above analysis of the U.S. top-down approach to democracy promotion¶ in Cuba highlights several factors at work within the economic, social, and¶ political levels in Cuba, which help explain the embargo's ineptness in¶ achieving its stated goal. As a consequence of these factors, the top-down¶ strategy serves more to counteract, rather than promote, moves toward¶ democratization in Cuba.Firstly, while the embargo does hurt Cuba economically , significantly¶ hindering the degree of economic development the Cuban state would¶ clearly like to achieve , it has failed to create the economic misery that¶ would incite massive revolt against the regime as the U.S has long hoped¶ for. This is due to several reasons. In the absence of international sanctions¶ the Cuban Government has proven itself capable of adapting to changing¶ economic situations and negotiating new trade partners to fill the void¶ created by the collapse of the Soviet Union. The U.S. law allowing for the¶ export of agriculture products to Cuba

has itself further weakened the¶ U nited S tates' unilateral measures aimed at strangling the Cuban economy.¶ Furthermore, the U.S. Cuba immigration policy serves to deflate both economic¶ and political pressures that weigh on the Cuban Government by¶ allowing Cubans an escape from the poor economic situation the embargo¶ helps create.Secondly , the restrictions on U.S. tourist travel, educational exchanges,¶ and religious work serve to keep the island further isolated from alternative,¶ international influences and ideas. Moreover, this policy also helps bolster¶ the stability of the Cuban Government by reinforcing the regime's strategy¶ of regulating Cubans' access to information. It should also be noted - and¶ this ties in with the next factor - that even if the U.S. were to move towards¶ a policy of allowing full engagement and exchange between peoples, its¶ success may very well be hampered by those structures existing within the¶ top-down approach that encourage reactionary defense, rather than positive¶ behavioral change on the side of Cubans.Therefore, thirdly , the adamant push to export a U.S. defined and U.S .¶ guided democratic transition in Cuba serves more to spread negative anxiety¶ and doubt among Cubans concerning a future democratization than to¶ encourage positive alternatives to the revolution and provide incentives for¶ democratic political change. Consequently, this aspect of the U.S. policy has¶ the short-term effect of internally toughening and stabilizing the regime¶ (Hoffmann 2001b, 13). More than just falling short of promoting democratic¶ prospects among political leaders and ordinary Cubans, the U.S. policy¶ serves to empower the Cuban Government. The regime in Havana merely¶ has to point to the harsh policies of Washington to legitimize its rule and¶ promote a nationalist environment against the hostile U.S. enemy. This¶ factor enables the Cuban Government to deflect system blame arising from¶ poor economic performance, and provides it with an extra source of¶ performance legitimacy derived from fending off imperial aggression.

Sanctions Cause Bad Democracies

Sanctions cause bad democracies – They breed defiance and weak nationsSeaman 2010 (David Seaman, Research Assistant and Lecturer at the University of Osnabrück – Department of social sciences, “U.S. Democracy Promotion- The Case of Cuba” - 2010)

At first glance, the logic of the U.S. policy of promoting economic¶ destruction, premised on the belief that it will hasten the collapse of the¶ Cuban regime, may not seem too implausible. Denying Cuba the resources¶ it needs for economic development should lead to sustained economic¶ hardships, thereby increasing popular socioeconomic dissatisfaction among¶ Cubans. While also denying to the Cuban Government financial resources¶ and hard currency, the regime should no longer be in a position to finance¶ the strengthening of its coercion-apparatus in order to repress political dissent,¶ which may eventually force a top-down opening for political change,¶ or even outright transition - albeit even 50 years later. However, there are¶ several drawbacks to this approach as a democracy promotion strategy.Firstly, undermining economic development as a way of promoting¶ democracy will more than likely have negative economic consequences on¶ any future democratic government that may emerge. As Burnell (2004, 104)¶ points out: "Where an economic wasteland is created so as to bring down a¶ regime, that is a very inauspicious foundation on which to try to build a new¶ democracy." The available evidence analyzing the relationship between economic¶ development and democracy suggests that poor democracies stand¶ more chance of dying than wealthier democracies. A group of scholars¶ using data analysis from a study of 135 countries between the years 1950¶ and 1990 found that, "when poor countries stagnate, whatever democracies¶ happen to spring up tend to die quickly. Poverty breeds poverty and¶ dictatorship " (Przeworski et al. 1997, 305). Almost fifty years ago Seymour¶ Lipset (1959 , 75) proposed that "the more well-to-do a nation , the greater¶ the chances that it will sustain democracy." Since Lipset's seminal article,¶ several studies testing large sets of data have found evidence supporting his¶ premise that a positive relationship between economic prosperity and¶ democracy exists (see Londregan/Poole 1990; Przeworski/Limongi 1997;¶ Biox/Stokes 2003). Thus, while economic failure may indeed undermine the¶ survival of an authoritarian regime and bring about its collapse, the economic¶ success of an authoritarian regime may be more likely to create an¶ encouraging foundation for the survival of an incoming democratic regime¶ (Huntington 1991, 35).Secondly, It is not so much a country's level of wealth alone that is¶ thought to sustain democracy , but rather the various socioeconomic byproducts¶ of industrialization and successful economic development such as¶ urbanization , increased economic independence and security, rising education¶ levels, and the development of a well-educated, socially organized¶ middle-class. All these factors are thought to modernize the social sphere¶ and facilitate the development and spread of democratic beliefs, norms and¶

values within a society (Lipset 1959, 84). Several scholars, therefore , have¶ emphasized the democratizing aspects of these socioeconomic changes¶ within non-democratic states, thereby arguing that successful economic¶ modernization will generate pressures for democratization (Huntington¶ 1991; Diamond 2003; Biox/Strokes 2003). Accordingly, democracy promotion¶ strategies that seek to undermine a country's economic development¶ would also be undermining the development of these democratizing byproducts.Democracy promoters wishing to influence political change by supporting¶ successful economic development in non-democracies have several¶ options, such as development aid and trade liberalization attached with¶ conditionality and political dialogue, as well as the encouragement of¶ f oreign d irect

i nvestment (Dauderstadt/Lerch 2005, 7). This is not to say¶ that such a strategy will lead to democratization, nor necessarily to the development¶ of democracy-supporting socioeconomic by-products suggested¶ by the modernization theory . Burnell (2005, 105), for example, warns of the¶ negative side effects of opening up a country to the global economy ,¶ particularly when this leads to growing socioeconomic inequalities within¶ society, which can undermine any positive perceptions of economic¶ liberalization. Furthermore, Bueno de Mesquita and Downs (2005) have¶ highlighted the strategies of several autocratic states, in particular China and¶ Russia, which have found ways to enjoy the benefits of substantial economic¶ development while simultaneously deflecting, or at least postponing,¶ pressure for political liberalization by simply regulating the availability of¶ the key "strategic goods" that are required by opposition groups for the¶ development of "strategic coordination."Thirdly, the strategy of undermining economic development to promote¶ a transition to democracy may itself be counteracted by the very policy¶ instrument used to achieve this goal: economic sanctions. The use of economic¶ coercion as a policy instrument, as we shall see, is perhaps not as¶ suited as some would like to believe for the ambitious goal of promoting¶ democracy in non-democratic states.Economic sanctions as a form of statecraft have been increasingly used¶ throughout modern history . In the last several decades economic sanctions¶ have often been imposed both unilaterally and multilaterally with the goal of¶ bringing about the demise of authoritarian leaders. Fidel Castro is not the¶ only autocrat to have successfully defied economic sanctions. U nited¶ N ations sanctions failed to bring about the collapse of Saddam Hussein 's¶ Ba'ath regime. Kim IL Sung, in the face of long enduring sanctions,¶ continues to hold on to power in North Korea and was not deterred from¶ acquiring nuclear capabilities. Most recently economic sanctions have failed¶ to strangle the military junta in Burma, which continues to survive.

Embargo Keeps in Power

Top Cuban officials ready to remove Castro but deterred by embargo, lifting keyRatliff & Fontaine 2k (Ratliff, William - research fellow at Stanford University, PhD (Chinese/Latin American histories) from U of Washington; Roger Fontaine. Former Director of Latin American Affairs, National Security Council.) "A Strategic Flip-Flop in the Caribbean." Lift the Embargo on Cuba (2000). p40

If the embargo were lifted, for some time the state apparatus might well benefit more than the average Cuban from expanded tourism, trade, and investment. But in time increasing amounts would go beyond the state, and although economics will not single-handedly liberate Cuba, it may contribute some to that end. This is so, in part, because the repressive Cubans within the state apparatus are subject to influences that can tilt their allegiances in positive ways. Cuban Interior Ministry (Minint) founding member Rodrı´guez Menier has reported that it was precisely the top levels of the Minint that by the late 1980s were the most receptive to substantial reform. These were the best-informed bureaucrats in Cuba and those most directly charged with protecting and promoting Fidel. Little wonder these Minint officials were the largest group purged in 1989–90 when talk of reform ricocheted off walls from Moscow to Havana and came to a head during what was known as the “Ochoa affair,” when Castro executed a prominent Cuban general for alleged dealing in drugs.83 Increased contacts could have this kind of impact again and the next time Castro might not crush it so easily. Indeed, some inside “reports” and media stories indicate that, as in Minint in the late 1980s, some top Cuban leaders today are willing, indeed anxious, to support reform and get rid of Castro but are deterred because they fear a vindictive Washington. As noted earlier, the most prominent dissident in Cuba today has said that even most activist dissidents think the sanctions should be lifted.

Civil Society Key

Civil Society Key – It’s the most effective way to created democracySeaman 2010 (David Seaman, Research Assistant and Lecturer at the University of Osnabrück – Department of social sciences, “U.S. Democracy Promotion- The Case of Cuba” - 2010)

Furthermore, scholars have argued that, notwithstanding limitations, a¶ strong civil society plays an essential role in transitions from authoritarianism¶ to democracy (Diamond 1994; Schmitter 1997; Merkel/Lauth 1998;¶ Paxton 2002). In the realm of democracy promotion, Diamond (1995 , Ch. 2)¶ has stated that external "aid to challenging groups in civil society (including¶ groups in exile) is often the most effective way of pressuring for democratic¶ change in a country with an entrenched authoritarian regime ." To be sure,¶ the democracy promotion strategy of aiding civil society within nondemocratic¶

regimes as well as in emerging democracies has increasingly¶ grown in size and scope over the past decades. It is also a strategy to which¶ the U.S. has given much credence as part of its Cuba policy, as displayed¶ most recently by the $45 .7 million the U.S. Congress has set aside for this¶ task. Thus, a second aspect of this study is to inquire into the nature of the¶ relationship between civil society and democratization and how the external¶ promotion of civil society groups may interact within this relationship . Both¶ the considerable degree of state control over civic organizations in Cuba¶ (Bertelsmann Stiftung 2007, 10) and the precarious relations between Washington¶ and Havana raise questions concerning the efficacy and consequence¶ of U.S. assistance to civil society groups in Cuba.

**Democracy**

Module – Democracy The Embargo supports the regime, and prevents the spread of democracy.

Lloyd, Correspondant for Politics Daily, 11[Delia, Summer 2011, Politics Daily, “Ten Reasons to Lift the Cuba Embargo,”http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/24/ten-reasons-to-lift-the-cuba-embargo/ EJH]It's counter-productive. Isolating Cuba has been more than ineffective. It's also provided the Castro brothers with a convenient political scapegoat for the country's ongoing economic problems, rather than drawing attention to their own mismanagement. Moreover, in banning the shipment of information-technology products, the United States has effectively assisted the Cuban government in shutting out information from the outside world, yet another potential catalyst for democratization.

Democracy promotion is key to US leadership and conflict de-escalationLynn-Jones, Editor of International Security for Belfer Center Studies in International Security, 98 (Sean, “Why the United States Should Spread Democracy,” Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University, March 1998, http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/2830/why_the_united_states_should_spread_democracy.html, 6-30-13)

C. America''s Goal: Liberal DemocracyGiven the variety of definitions of democracy and the distinction between democracy and liberalism, what type of government should the United States attempt to spread? Should it try to spread democracy, defined procedurally, liberalism, or both? Ultimately, U.S. policies should aim to encourage the spread of liberal democracy. Policies to promote democracy should attempt to increase the number of regimes that respect the individual liberties that lie at the heart of liberalism and elect their leaders. The United States therefore should attempt to build support for liberal principles-many of which are enshrined in international human-rights treaties-as well as encouraging states to hold free and fair elections.Supporting the spread of liberal democracy does not, however, mean that the United States should give the promotion of liberalism priority over the growth of electoral democracy. In most cases, support for electoral democracy can contribute to the spread of liberalism and liberal democracy. Free and fair elections often remove leaders who are the biggest impediments to the spread of democracy. In Burma, for example, the people would almost certainly remove the authoritarian SLORC regime from power if they had a choice at the ballot box. In South Africa, Haiti, and Chile, for example, elections removed antidemocratic rulers and advanced the process of democratization. In most cases, the United States should support elections even in countries that are not fully liberal. Elections will generally initiate a process of change toward democratization. American policy should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good by insisting that countries embrace liberal principles before holding elections. Such a policy could be exploited by authoritarian rulers to justify their continued hold on power and to delay elections that they might lose. In addition, consistent U.S. support for electoral democracy will help to bolster the emerging international norm that leaders should be accountable to their people. Achieving this goal is worth the risk that some distasteful leaders will win elections and use these victories at the ballot box to legitimize their illiberal rule.The United States also should attempt to build support for liberal principles, both before and after other countries hold elections. Policies that advance liberalism are harder to develop and pursue than those that

aim to persuade states to hold free and fair elections, but the United States can promote liberalism as well as electoral democracy, as I argue below.II. The Benefits of the Spread of DemocracyMost Americans assume that democracy is a good thing and that the spread of democracy will be beneficial. Because the virtues of democracy are taken for granted, they are rarely fully enumerated and considered. Democracy is not an unalloyed good, so it is important not to overstate or misrepresent the benefits of democratization. Nevertheless, the spread of democracy has many important benefits. This section enumerates how the spread of democracy will improve the lives of the citizens of new democracies, contribute to international peace, and directly advance the national interests of the United States.A. Democracy is Good for the Citizens of New DemocraciesThe United States should attempt to spread democracy because people generally live better lives under democratic governments. Compared to inhabitants of nondemocracies, citizens of democracies enjoy greater individual liberty, political stability, freedom from governmental violence, enhanced quality of life, and a much lower risk of suffering a famine. Skeptics will immediately ask: Why should the United States attempt to improve the lives of non-Americans? Shouldn''t this country focus on its own problems and interests? There are at least three answers to these questions.First, as human beings, American should and do feel some obligation to improve the well-being of other human beings. The bonds of common humanity do not stop at the borders of the United States.19 To be sure, these bonds and obligations are limited by the competitive nature of the international system. In a world where the use of force remains possible, no government can afford to pursue a foreign policy based on altruism. The human race is not about to embrace a cosmopolitan moral vision in which borders and national identities become irrelevant. But there are many possibilities for action motivated by concern for individuals in other countries. In the United States, continued public concern over human rights in other countries, as well as governmental and nongovernmental efforts to relieve hunger, poverty, and suffering overseas, suggest that Americans accept some bonds of common humanity and feel some obligations to foreigners. The emergence of the so-called "CNN Effect"-the tendency for Americans to be aroused to action by television images of suffering people overseas-is further evidence that cosmopolitan ethical sentiments exist. If Americans care about improving the lives of the citizens of other countries, then the case for promoting democracy grows stronger to the extent that promoting democracy is an effective means to achieve this end.Second, Americans have a particular interest in promoting the spread of liberty. The United States was founded on the principle of securing liberty for its citizens. Its founding documents and institutions all emphasize that liberty is a core value. Among the many observers and political scientists who make this point is Samuel Huntington, who argues that America''s "identity as a nation is inseparable from its commitment to liberal and democratic values."20 As I argue below, one of the most important benefits of the spread of democracy-and especially of liberal democracy-is an expansion of human liberty. Given its founding principles and very identity, the United States has a large stake in advancing its core value of liberty. As Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott has argued: "The United States is uniquely and self-consciously a country founded on a set of ideas, and ideals, applicable to people everywhere. The Founding Fathers declared that all were created equal-not just those in Britain''s 13 American colonies-and that to secure the `unalienable rights'' of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, people had the right to establish governments that derive `their just powers from the consent of the governed.''"21Third, improvements in the lives of individuals in other countries matter to Americans because the United States cannot insulate itself from the world. It may be a cliché to say that the world is becoming more interdependent, but it is undeniable that changes in communications technologies, trade flows, and the environment have opened borders and created a more interconnected world. These trends give the United States a greater stake in the fate of other societies, because widespread misery abroad may create political turmoil, economic instability, refugee flows, and environmental damage that will affect Americans. As I argue below in my discussion of how promoting democracy serves U.S. interests, the spread of democracy will directly advance the national interests of the United States. The growing

interconnectedness of international relations means that the United States also has an indirect stake in the well-being of those in other countries, because developments overseas can have unpredictable consequences for the United States.For these three reasons, at least, Americans should care about how the spread of democracy can improve the lives of people in other countries.1. Democracy Leads to Liberty and Liberty is GoodThe first way in which the spread of democracy enhances the lives of those who live in democracies is by promoting individual liberty, including freedom of expression, freedom of conscience, and freedom to own private property.22 Respect for the liberty of individuals is an inherent feature of democratic politics. As Samuel Huntington has written, liberty is "the peculiar virtue of democracy."23 A democratic political process based on electoral competition depends on freedom of expression of political views and freedom to make electoral choices. Moreover, governments that are accountable to the public are less likely to deprive their citizens of human rights. The global spread of democracy is likely to bring greater individual liberty to more and more people. Even imperfect and illiberal democracies tend to offer more liberty than autocracies, and liberal democracies are very likely to promote liberty. Freedom House''s 1997 survey of "Freedom in the World" found that 79 out of 118 democracies could be classified as "free" and 39 were "partly free" and, of those, 29 qualified as "high partly free." In contrast, only 20 of the world''s 73 nondemocracies were "partly free" and 53 were "not free."24The case for the maximum possible amount of individual freedom can be made on the basis of utilitarian calculations or in terms of natural rights. The utilitarian case for increasing the amount of individual liberty rests on the belief that increased liberty will enable more people to realize their full human potential, which will benefit not only themselves but all of humankind. This view holds that greater liberty will allow the human spirit to flourish, thereby unleashing greater intellectual, artistic, and productive energies that will ultimately benefit all of humankind. The rights-based case for liberty, on the other hand, does not focus on the consequences of increased liberty, but instead argues that all men and women, by virtue of their common humanity, have a right to freedom. This argument is most memorably expressed in the American Declaration of Independence: "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness ..."The virtues of greater individual liberty are not self-evident. Various political ideologies argue against making liberty the paramount goal of any political system. Some do not deny that individual liberty is an important goal, but call for limiting it so that other goals may be achieved. Others place greater emphasis on obligations to the community. The British Fabian Socialist Sidney Webb, for example, articulated this view clearly: "The perfect and fitting development of each individual is not necessarily the utmost and highest cultivation of his own personality, but the filling, in the best possible way, of his humble function in the great social machine."25 To debate these issues thoroughly would require a paper far longer than this one.26 The short response to most critiques of liberty is that there appears to be a universal demand for liberty among human beings. Particularly as socioeconomic development elevates societies above subsistence levels, individuals desire more choice and autonomy in their lives. More important, most political systems that have been founded on principles explicitly opposed to liberty have tended to devolve into tyrannies or to suffer economic, political, or social collapse.2. Liberal Democracies are Less Likely to Use Violence Against Their Own People.Second, America should spread liberal democracy because the citizens of liberal democracies are less likely to suffer violent death in civil unrest or at the hands of their governments.27 These two findings are supported by many studies, but particularly by the work of R.J. Rummel. Rummel finds that democracies-by which he means liberal democracies-between 1900 and 1987 saw only 0.14% of their populations (on average) die annually in internal violence. The corresponding figure for authoritarian regimes was 0.59% and for totalitarian regimes 1.48%.28 Rummel also finds that citizens of liberal democracies are far less likely to die at the hands of their governments. Totalitarian and authoritarian regimes have been responsible for the overwhelming majority of genocides and mass murders of civilians in the twentieth century. The states that have killed millions of their citizens all have been authoritarian or totalitarian: the

Soviet Union, the People''s Republic of China, Nazi Germany, Nationalist China, Imperial Japan, and Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. Democracies have virtually never massacred their own citizens on a large scale, although they have killed foreign civilians during wartime. The American and British bombing campaigns against Germany and Japan, U.S. atrocities in Vietnam, massacres of Filipinos during the guerrilla war that followed U.S. colonization of the Philippines after 1898, and French killings of Algerians during the Algerian War are some prominent examples.29There are two reasons for the relative absence of civil violence in democracies: (1) Democratic political systems-especially those of liberal democracies constrain the power of governments, reducing their ability to commit mass murders of their own populations. As Rummel concludes, "Power kills, absolute power kills absolutely ... The more freely a political elite can control the power of the state apparatus, the more thoroughly it can repress and murder its subjects."30 (2) Democratic polities allow opposition to be expressed openly and have regular processes for the peaceful transfer of power. If all participants in the political process remain committed to democratic principles, critics of the government need not stage violent revolutions and governments will not use violence to repress opponents.313. Democracy Enhances Long-Run Economic PerformanceA third reason for promoting democracy is that democracies tend to enjoy greater prosperity over long periods of time. As democracy spreads, more individuals are likely to enjoy greater economic benefits. Democracy does not necessarily usher in prosperity, although some observers claim that "a close correlation with prosperity" is one of the "overwhelming advantages" of democracy.32 Some democracies, including India and the Philippines, have languished economically, at least until the last few years. Others are among the most prosperous societies on earth. Nevertheless, over the long haul democracies generally prosper. As Mancur Olson points out: "It is no accident that the countries that have reached the highest level of economic performance across generations are all stable democracies."33Authoritarian regimes often compile impressive short-run economic records. For several decades, the Soviet Union''s annual growth in gross national product (GNP) exceeded that of the United States, leading Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev to pronounce "we will bury you." China has posted double-digit annual GNP increases in recent years. But autocratic countries rarely can sustain these rates of growth for long. As Mancur Olson notes, "experience shows that relatively poor countries can grow extraordinarily rapidly when they have a strong dictator who happens to have unusually good economic policies, such growth lasts only for the ruling span of one or two dictators."34 The Soviet Union was unable to sustain its rapid growth; its economic failings ultimately caused the country to disintegrate in the throes of political and economic turmoil. Most experts doubt that China will continue its rapid economic expansion. Economist Jagdish Bhagwati argues that "no one can maintain these growth rates in the long term. Sooner or later China will have to rejoin the human race."35 Some observers predict that the stresses of high rates of economic growth will cause political fragmentation in China.36Why do democracies perform better than autocracies over the long run? Two reasons are particularly persuasive explanations. First, democracies-especially liberal democracies-are more likely to have market economies, and market economies tend to produce economic growth over the long run. Most of the world''s leading economies thus tend to be market economies, including the United States, Japan, the "tiger" economies of Southeast Asia, and the members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Two recent studies suggest that there is a direct connection between economic liberalization and economic performance. Freedom House conducted a World Survey of Economic Freedom for 1995-96, which evaluated 80 countries that account for 90% of the world''s population and 99% of the world''s wealth on the basis of criteria such as the right to own property, operate a business, or belong to a trade union. It found that the countries rated "free" generated 81% of the world''s output even though they had only 17% of the world''s population.37 A second recent study confirms the connection between economic freedom and economic growth. The Heritage Foundation has constructed an Index of Economic Freedom that looks at 10 key areas: trade policy, taxation, government intervention, monetary policy, capital flows and foreign investment, banking policy, wage and price controls, property rights, regulation, and black market activity. It has found that countries classified as "free" had annual 1980-

1993 real per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (expressed in terms of purchasing power parities) growth rates of 2.88%. In "mostly free" countries the rate was0.97%, in "mostly not free" ones -0.32%, and in "repressed" countries -1.44%.38 Of course, some democracies do not adopt market economies and some autocracies do, but liberal democracies generally are more likely to pursue liberal economic policies.Second, democracies that embrace liberal principles of government are likely to create a stable foundation for long-term economic growth. Individuals will only make long-term investments when they are confident that their investments will not be expropriated. These and other economic decisions require assurances that private property will be respected and that contracts will be enforced. These conditions are likely to be met when an impartial court system exists and can require individuals to enforce contracts. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has argued that: "The guiding mechanism of a free market economy ... is a bill of rights, enforced by an impartial judiciary."39 These conditions also happen to be those that are necessary to maintain a stable system of free and fair elections and to uphold liberal principles of individual rights. Mancur Olson thus points out that "the conditions that are needed to have the individual rights needed for maximum economic development are exactly the same conditions that are needed to have a lasting democracy. ... the same court system, independent judiciary, and respect for law and individual rights that are needed for a lasting democracy are also required for security of property and contract rights."40 Thus liberal democracy is the basis for long-term economic growth.A third reason may operate in some circumstances: democratic governments are more likely to have the political legitimacy necessary to embark on difficult and painful economic reforms.41 This factor is particularly likely to be important in former communist countries, but it also appears to have played a role in the decisions India and the Philippines have taken in recent years to pursue difficult economic reforms.424. Democracies Never Have FaminesFourth, the United States should spread democracy because the citizens of democracies do not suffer from famines. The economist Amartya Sen concludes that "one of the remarkable facts in the terrible history of famine is that no substantial famine has ever occurred in a country with a democratic form of government and a relatively free press."43 This striking empirical regularity has been overshadowed by the apparent existence of a "democratic peace" (see below), but it provides a powerful argument for promoting democracy. Although this claim has been most closely identified with Sen, other scholars who have studied famines and hunger reach similar conclusions. Joseph Collins, for example, argues that: "Wherever political rights for all citizens truly flourish, people will see to it that, in due course, they share in control over economic resources vital to their survival. Lasting food security thus requires real and sustained democracy."44 Most of the countries that have experienced severe famines in recent decades have been among the world''s least democratic: the Soviet Union (Ukraine in the early 1930s), China, Ethiopia, Somalia, Cambodia and Sudan. Throughout history, famines have occurred in many different types of countries, but never in a democracy.Democracies do not experience famines for two reasons. First, in democracies governments are accountable to their populations and their leaders have electoral incentives to prevent mass starvation. The need to be reelected impels politicians to ensure that their people do not starve. As Sen points out, "the plight of famine victims is easy to politicize" and "the effectiveness of democracy in the prevention of famine has tended to depend on the politicization of the plight of famine victims, through the process of public discussion, which generates political solidarity."45 On the other hand, authoritarian and totalitarian regimes are not accountable to the public; they are less likely to pay a political price for failing to prevent famines. Moreover, authoritarian and totalitarian rulers often have political incentives to use famine as a means of exterminating their domestic opponents.Second, the existence of a free press and the free flow of information in democracies prevents famine by serving as an early warning system on the effects of natural catastrophes such as floods and droughts that may cause food scarcities. A free press that criticizes government policies also can publicize the true level of food stocks and reveal problems of distribution that might cause famines even when food is plentiful.46 Inadequate information has contributed to several famines. During the 1958-61 famine in

China that killed 20-30 million people, the Chinese authorities overestimated the country''s grain reserves by 100 million metric tons. This disaster later led Mao Zedong to concede that "Without democracy, you have no understanding of what is happening down below."47 The 1974 Bangladesh famine also could have been avoided if the government had had better information. The food supply was high, but floods, unemployment, and panic made it harder for those in need to obtain food.48The two factors that prevent famines in democracies-electoral incentives and the free flow of information-are likely to be present even in democracies that do not have a liberal political culture. These factors exist when leaders face periodic elections and when the press is free to report information that might embarrass the government. A full-fledged liberal democracy with guarantees of civil liberties, a relatively free economic market, and an independent judiciary might be even less likely to suffer famines, but it appears that the rudiments of electoral democracy will suffice to prevent famines.The ability of democracies to avoid famines cannot be attributed to any tendency of democracies to fare better economically. Poor democracies as well as rich ones have not had famines. India, Botswana, and Zimbabwe have avoided famines, even when they have suffered large crop shortfalls. In fact, the evidence suggests that democracies can avoid famines in the face of large crop failures, whereas nondemocracies plunge into famine after smaller shortfalls. Botswana''s food production fell by 17% and Zimbabwe''s by 38% between 1979-81 and 1983-84, whereas Sudan and Ethiopia saw a decline in food production of 11-12% during the same period. Sudan and Ethiopia, which were nondemocracies, suffered major famines, whereas the democracies of Botswana and Zimbabwe did not.49 If, as I have argued, democracies enjoy better long-run economic performance than nondemocracies, higher levels of economic development may help democracies to avoid famines. But the absence of famines in new, poor democracies suggests that democratic governance itself is sufficient to prevent famines.The case of India before and after independence provides further evidence that democratic rule is a key factor in preventing famines. Prior to independence in 1947, India suffered frequent famines. Shortly before India became independent, the Bengal famine of 1943 killed 2-3 million people. Since India became independent and democratic, the country has suffered severe crop failures and food shortages in 1968, 1973, 1979, and 1987, but it has never suffered a famine.50B. Democracy is Good for the International SystemIn addition to improving the lives of individual citizens in new democracies, the spread of democracy will benefit the international system by reducing the likelihood of war. Democracies do not wage war on other democracies. This absence-or near absence, depending on the definitions of "war" and "democracy" used-has been called "one of the strongest nontrivial and nontautological generalizations that can be made about international relations."51 One scholar argues that "the absence of war between democracies comes as close as anything we have to an empirical law in international relations."52 If the number of democracies in the international system continues to grow, the number of potential conflicts that might escalate to war will diminish. Although wars between democracies and nondemocracies would persist in the short run, in the long run an international system composed of democracies would be a peaceful world. At the very least, adding to the number of democracies would gradually enlarge the democratic "zone of peace."1. The Evidence for the Democratic PeaceMany studies have found that there are virtually no historical cases of democracies going to war with one another. In an important two-part article published in 1983, Michael Doyle compares all international wars between 1816 and 1980 and a list of liberal states.53 Doyle concludes that "constitutionally secure liberal states have yet to engage in war with one another."54 Subsequent statistical studies have found that this absence of war between democracies is statistically significant and is not the result of random chance.55 Other analyses have concluded that the influence of other variables, including geographical proximity and wealth, do not detract from the significance of the finding that democracies rarely, if ever, go to war with one another.56Most studies of the democratic-peace proposition have argued that democracies only enjoy a state of peace with other democracies; they are just as likely as other states to go to war with nondemocracies.57 There are, however, several scholars who argue that democracies are inherently less likely to go to war

than other types of states.58 The evidence for this claim remains in dispute, however, so it would be premature to claim that spreading democracy will do more than to enlarge the democratic zone of peace.2. Why there is a Democratic Peace: The Causal LogicTwo types of explanations have been offered for the absence of wars between democracies. The first argues that shared norms prevent democracies from fighting one another. The second claims that institutional (or structural) constraints make it difficult or impossible for a democracy to wage war on another democracy.a. Normative ExplanationsThe normative explanation of the democratic peace argues that norms that democracies share preclude wars between democracies. One version of this argument contends that liberal states do not fight other liberal states because to do so would be to violate the principles of liberalism. Liberal states only wage war when it advances the liberal ends of increased individual freedom. A liberal state cannot advance liberal ends by fighting another liberal state, because that state already upholds the principles of liberalism. In other words, democracies do not fight because liberal ideology provides no justification for wars between liberal democracies.59 A second version of the normative explanation claims that democracies share a norm of peaceful conflict resolution. This norm applies between and within democratic states. Democracies resolve their domestic conflicts without violence, and they expect that other democracies will resolve inter-democratic international disputes peacefully.60b. Institutional/Structural ExplanationsInstitutional/structural explanations for the democratic peace contend that democratic decision-making procedures and institutional constraints prevent democracies from waging war on one another. At the most general level, democratic leaders are constrained by the public, which is sometimes pacific and generally slow to mobilize for war. In most democracies, the legislative and executive branches check the war-making power of each other. These constraints may prevent democracies from launching wars. When two democracies confront one another internationally, they are not likely to rush into war. Their leaders will have more time to resolve disputes peacefully.61 A different sort of institutional argument suggests that democratic processes and freedom of speech make democracies better at avoiding myths and misperceptions that cause wars.62c. Combining Normative and Structural ExplanationsSome studies have attempted to test the relative power of the normative and institutional/structural explanations of the democratic peace.63 It might make more sense, however, to specify how the two work in combination or separately under different conditions. For example, in liberal democracies liberal norms and democratic processes probably work in tandem to synergistically produce the democratic peace.64 Liberal states are unlikely to even contemplate war with one another. They thus will have few crises and wars. In illiberal or semiliberal democracies, norms play a lesser role and crises are more likely, but democratic institutions and processes may still make wars between illiberal democracies rare. Finally, state-level factors like norms and domestic structures may interact with international-systemic factors to prevent wars between democracies. If democracies are better at information-processing, they may be better than nondemocracies at recognizing international situations where war would be foolish. Thus the logic of the democratic peace may explain why democracies sometimes behave according to realist (systemic) predictions.C. The Spread of Democracy is Good for the United StatesThe United States will have an interest in promoting democracy because further democratization enhances the lives of citizens of other countries and contributes to a more peaceful international system. To the extent that Americans care about citizens of other countries and international peace, they will see benefits from the continued spread of democracy. Spreading democracy also will directly advance the national interests of the United States, because democracies will not launch wars or terrorist attacks against the United States, will not produce refugees seeking asylum in the United States, and will tend to ally with the United States.1. Democracies Will Not Go to War with the United States

First, democracies will not go to war against the United States, provided, of course, that the United States remains a democracy. The logic of the democratic peace suggests that the United States will have fewer enemies in a world of more democracies. If democracies virtually never go to war with one another, no democracy will wage war against the United States. Democracies are unlikely to get into crises or militarized disputes with the United States. Promoting democracy may usher in a more peaceful world; it also will enhance the national security of the United States by eliminating potential military threats. The United States would be more secure if Russia, China, and at least some countries in the Arab and Islamic worlds became stable democracies.2. Democracies Don''t Support Terrorism Against the United StatesSecond, spreading democracy is likely to enhance U.S. national security because democracies will not support terrorist acts against the United States. The world''s principal sponsors of international terrorism are harsh, authoritarian regimes, including Syria, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Libya, and Sudan.65Some skeptics of the democratic-peace proposition point out that democracies sometimes have sponsored covert action or "state terrorism" against other democracies. Examples include U.S. actions in Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954, and Chile in 1973.66 This argument does not undermine the claim that democracies will not sponsor terrorism against the United States. In each case, the target state had dubious democratic credentials. U.S. actions amounted to interference in internal affairs, but not terrorism as it is commonly understood. And the perpetrator of the alleged "state terrorist" acts in each case was the United States itself, which suggests that the United States has little to fear from other democracies.3. Democracies Produce Fewer RefugeesThird, the spread of democracy will serve American interests by reducing the number of refugees who flee to the United States. The countries that generate the most refugees are usually the least democratic. The absence of democracy tends to lead to internal conflicts, ethnic strife, political oppression, and rapid population growth-all of which encourage the flight of refugees.67 The spread of democracy can reduce refugee flows to the United States by removing the political sources of decisions to flee.The results of the 1994 U.S. intervention in Haiti demonstrate how U.S. efforts to promote democratization can reduce refugee flows. The number of refugees attempting to flee Haiti for the United States dropped dramatically after U.S. forces deposed the junta led by General Raoul Cedras and restored the democratically elected government of Jean-Bertrand Aristide, even though Haiti''s economic fortunes did not immediately improve.68In addition to reducing the number of countries that generate refugees, the spread of democracy is likely to increase the number of countries that accept refugees, thereby reducing the number of refugees who will attempt to enter the United States.694. Democracies will Ally with the United StatesFourth, the global spread of democracy will advance American interests by creating more potential allies for the United States. Historically, most of America''s allies have been democracies. In general, democracies are much more likely to ally with one another than with nondemocracies.70 Even scholars who doubt the statistical evidence for the democratic-peace proposition, agree that "the nature of regimes ... is an important variable in the understanding the composition of alliances ... democracies have allied with one another."71 Thus spreading democracy will produce more and better alliance partners for the United States.5. American Ideals Flourish When Others Adopt ThemFifth, the spread of democracy internationally is likely to increase Americans'' psychological sense of well-being about their own democratic institutions. Part of the impetus behind American attempts to spread democracy has always come from the belief that American democracy will be healthier when other countries adopt similar political systems. To some extent, this belief reflects the conviction that democracies will be friendly toward the United States. But it also reflects the fact that democratic principles are an integral part of America''s national identity. The United States thus has a special interest in seeing its ideals spread.726. Democracies Make Better Economic Partners

Finally, the United States will benefit from the spread of democracy because democracies will make better economic partners. Democracies are more likely to adopt market economies, so democracies will tend to have more prosperous and open economies. The United States generally will be able to establish mutually beneficial trading relationships with democracies. And democracies provide better climates for American overseas investment, by virtue of their political stability and market economies.

Ext – Kills Democracy

The embargo has failed, and is an excuse for the regime. Bangdow, former assistant to President Reagan, 2012[Doug, 12-11-2012, The CATO Institute, “Time to End the Cuba Embargo,” http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/time-end-cuba-embargo EJH]The regime remains a humanitarian travesty, of course. Nor are Cubans the only victims: three years ago the regime jailed a State Department contractor for distributing satellite telephone equipment in Cuba. But Havana is not the only regime to violate human rights. Moreover, experience has long demonstrated that it is virtually impossible for outsiders to force democracy. Washington often has used sanctions and the Office of Foreign Assets Control currently is enforcing around 20 such programs, mostly to little effect. The policy in Cuba obviously has failed. The regime remains in power. Indeed, it has consistently used the embargo to justify its own mismanagement, blaming poverty on America. Observed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: “It is my personal belief that the Castros do not want to see an end to the embargo and do not want to see normalization with the United States, because they would lose all of their excuses for what hasn’t happened in Cuba in the last 50 years.” Similarly, Cuban exile Carlos Saladrigas of the Cuba Study Group argued that keeping the “embargo, maintaining this hostility, all it does is strengthen and embolden the hardliners.”

The embargo strengthens the regime – opening embargo stimulates agriculture and hastens fall of communism – empiricsGriswold , Director of the CATO Institute’s Center for Trade Policy Studies, 09 (Daniel, 8/15/09, guardian.co.uk, “The US embargo of Cuba is a failure,” http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/jun/15/cuba-us-trade-embargo-obama 6/23/13, RJ)After nearly 50 years, America's cold war embargo against Cuba appears to be thawing at last. Earlier this spring, the Obama administration relaxed controls on travel and remittances to the communist island by Cuban Americans, and last week it agreed to open the door for Cuba's re-entry to the Organisation of American States. Admitting Cuba to the OAS may be premature, given the organisation's charter that requires its members to be democracies that respect human rights, but changes to the US economic embargo are long overdue. The embargo has been a failure by every measure. It has not changed the course or nature of the Cuban government. It has not liberated a single Cuban citizen. In fact, the embargo has made the Cuban people a bit more impoverished, without making them one bit more free. At the same time, it has deprived Americans of their freedom to travel and has cost US farmers and other producers billions of dollars of potential exports. As a tool of US foreign policy, the embargo actually enhances the Castro government's standing by giving it a handy excuse for the failures of the island's Caribbean-style socialism. Brothers Fidel and Raul can rail for hours about the suffering the embargo inflicts on Cubans, even though the damage done by

their communist policies has been far worse. The embargo has failed to give us an ounce of extra leverage over what happens in Havana.¶ In 2000, Congress approved a modest opening of the embargo. The Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act allows cash-only sales

to Cuba of US farm products and medical supplies. The results of this modest opening have been quite amazing. Since 2000, total sales of farm products to Cuba have increased from virtually zero to $691m in 2008. The top US exports by value are corn, meat and

poultry, wheat and soybeans. From dead last, Cuba is now the number six customer in Latin America for US agricultural products. Last year, American farmers sold more to the 11.5 million people who live in Cuba than to the 200 million people in Brazil.¶

According to the US international trade commission, US farm exports would increase another $250m if restrictions were lifted on export financing. This should not be interpreted as a call for export-import bank subsidies. Trade with Cuba must be entirely commercial and market driven. Lifting the embargo should not mean that US taxpayers must now subsidise exports to Cuba. But neither should the government stand in the way.¶ USITC estimates do not capture the long-term export potential to Cuba from normalised relations. The Bahamas, Dominican Republic, Jamaica and Guatemala spend an average of 2.8% of their GDP to buy farm exports from the US. If Cuba spent the same share of its GDP on US farm exports, exports could more than double the current level, to $1.5bn a year.¶ Advocates of the embargo argue that trading with Cuba will only put dollars into the coffers of the Castro regime. And it's true that the government in Havana, because it controls the economy, can skim off a large share of the remittances and tourist dollars spent in Cuba. But of course, selling more US products to Cuba would quickly relieve the Castro regime of those same dollars.¶ If more US tourists were permitted to visit Cuba, and at the same time US exports to Cuba were further liberalised, the US economy could reclaim dollars from the Castro regime as fast as the regime could acquire them.

In effect, the exchange would be of agricultural products for tourism services, a kind of "bread for beaches", "food for fun" trade relationship.¶ Meanwhile, the increase in Americans visiting Cuba would dramatically increase contact between Cubans and

Americans. The unique US-Cuban relationship that flourished before Castro could be renewed, which would increase US influence and potentially hasten the decline of the communist regime.¶ Congress and President

Barack Obama should act now to lift the embargo to allow more travel and farm exports to Cuba. Expanding our freedom to travel to, trade with and invest in Cuba would make Americans better off and would help the Cuban people and speed the day when they can enjoy the freedom they deserve.

The embargo has failed – removal of the embargo would undermine the regimeGriswold, director of CATO Institute’s Center for Trade Policy Studies, 05(Daniel, 8/12/05, CATO Institute, “Four Decades of Failure: The U.S. Embargo Against Cuba,” http://www.cato.org/publications/speeches/four-decades-failure-us-embargo-against-cuba, 6/23/13. RJ)The real dividing line in U.S. policy toward Cuba is how best to undermine the Castro regime and hasten the island’s day of liberation. For almost half a century, the U.S. government has tried to isolate Cuba economically in an effort to undermine the regime and deprive it of resources. Since 1960, Americans have been barred from trading with, investing in, or traveling to Cuba. The embargo had a national security rationale before 1991, when Castro served as the Soviet Union’s proxy in the Western Hemisphere. But all that changed with the fall of Soviet communism. Today, more than a decade after losing billions in annual economic aid from its former sponsor, Cuba is only a poor and dysfunctional nation of 11 million that poses no threat to American or regional security.¶ A 1998 report by the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency concluded that, “Cuba does not pose a significant military threat to the U.S. or to other countries in the region.” The report declared Cuba’s military forces “residual” and “defensive.” Some officials in the Bush administration have charged that Castro’s government may be supporting terrorists abroad, but the evidence is pretty shaky. And even if true, maintaining a comprehensive trade embargo would be a blunt and ineffective lever for change.¶ As a foreign policy tool, the embargo actually enhances Castro”s standing by giving him a handy excuse for the failures of his homegrown Caribbean socialism. He can rail for hours about the suffering the embargo inflicts on Cubans, even though the damage done by his domestic policies is far worse. If the embargo were lifted, the Cuban people would be a bit less deprived and Castro would have no one else to blame for the shortages and stagnation that will persist without real market reforms.¶ If the goal of U.S. policy toward Cuba is to help its people achieve freedom and a better life, the economic embargo has completely failed. Its economic effect is to make the people of Cuba worse off by depriving them of lower-cost food and other goods that could be bought from the United States. It means less independence for Cuban workers and entrepreneurs, who could be earning dollars from American tourists and fueling private-sector growth. Meanwhile, Castro and his ruling elite enjoy a comfortable, insulated lifestyle by extracting any meager surplus produced by their captive subjects.

Ext – Plan Solves Solves democracy- direct linkages and NGOs. [Delia, Summer 2011, Politics Daily, “Ten Reasons to Lift the Cuba Embargo,”http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/24/ten-reasons-to-lift-the-cuba-embargo/ EJH]It's good politics. Supporters of the trade embargo -- like Cuban-American Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) -- have long argued that easing the restrictions would only reward Castro for the regime's ongoing repression of political dissidents. We need to keep up the economic pressure on Cuba, so this logic goes, in order to keep pressure on the regime to do something about human rights. But there's a long-standing empirical relationship between trade and democracy. The usual logic put forth to explain this relationship is that trade creates an economically independent and politically aware middle class, which, in turn, presses for political reform. It's not clear that this argument actually holds up when subjected to close causal scrutiny (although the reverse does seem to be true -- i.e., democratic reform creates pressure for trade liberalization). Still, it's difficult to disagree with the proposition that by enabling visiting scholars and religious groups to stay in Cuba for up to two years (as the presidential order would allow) rather than a matter of weeks (as is currently the case) we'd be helping, not hurting, democracy in Cuba. First, easing the current travel restrictions would allow for far deeper linkages between non-governmental organizations from both countries, which some see as a powerful mechanism for democratic reform. Second, because American visitors would be staying on the island longer, scholars and activists alike would gain much better insight into where the pressure points for democracy actually exist.

Plan key to democracy – the embargo trades off with security spendingDodd, Former Democratic Senator of Connecticut, 05 (Christopher J., New York Times Upfront, “Should the U.S. end its Cuba embargo?,” ELibrary, Accessed 6/24/13, RJ)The United States is the only nation that still has a trade embargo against Cuba. After four decades, it's clear that our policy has failed to achieve its goals: the end of Fidel Castro's regime and a peaceful transition to democracy. Today, Cuba remains under totalitarian rule, with Castro still firmly in power.¶ The real victims of our policies are the 11 million innocent Cuban men, women, and children. Our embargo has exacerbated already-miserable living conditions for Cuban citizens. Cuba's economy has suffered because it is prohibited from exporting goods to the U.S. In addition, most Cubans have very limited access to American products. Moreover, our policies restrict Americans' right to travel freely to Cuba, making exchange between our two cultures essentially impossible.¶ There are many other countries whose governments arc not freely elected. Yet none of our policies toward these nations resemble our treatment of Cuba. With the Cold War over and Cuba posing no threat to the U.S., there is no justification for our outdated approach to Cuba. To make matters worse, we are spending extraordinary resources to enforce the embargo-resources that could be used to secure our nation against terrorism .¶ It's time for a fundamental change in our Cuba policy. We can start by ending the trade embargo and by lifting the ban on travel to Cuba by American citizens. Only by engaging the Cuban people, and by building bridges between our citizens and theirs, will we succeed in bringing freedom and democracy to our neighbor.

Engagement Key

Engagement guides Cuba to Democracy.

Amash, writer for international of international affairs at UCSD, 2012[Brandon, 7-23-12, Prospect, EVALUATING THE CUBAN EMBARGO, http://prospectjournal.org/2012/07/23/evaluating-the-cuban-embargo/, 6-29-13, GZ]A policy of engagement will be a long-term solution to promoting democracy and improving human rights in Cuba. This proposal, unique in that it is simply one of abandoning an antiquated policy and normalizing relations to be like those with any other country, does not present any large obstacles to implementation, either in the short run or the long run. The main challenge is in continuing to support such a policy and maintaining the normal diplomatic, economic and social relations with a country that has been isolated for such a long period of time. Although effects of such a policy may be difficult to determine in the short term, promoting democracy and improving human rights in Cuba are long-term solutions. As discussed above, engagement with the Cuban government and society, along with support from the international community, will provide the spark and guidance for the Cuban people to support and promote democracy, and thus give greater attention to human rights violations.

1AC Democracy Advantage

Lifting embargo starts democracy chainArzeno 12—MBA in military art and science strategy Mario A. Arzeno, M.B.A. of military art and science strategy, University of Miami. She is also a member of the Inter American Defense board. Created on March 30th, 1942, the Inter-American Defense Board (IADB) is the oldest regional defense organization in the world. Its main purpose is to provide the OAS and its member states with technical and educational advice and consultancy services on matters related to military and defense issues in the Hemisphere in order to contribute to the fulfillment of the OAS Charter. The IADB enjoys technical autonomy in carrying out the purpose and functions contained in these Statutes, taking into account the mandates of the OAS (General Assembly, Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, and Permanent Council) Currently, the IADB has 27 Member States and its structure is composed by the Council of Delegates, by the Secretariat and by the Inter-American Defense College, bringing together civilian and military representatives of various American countries. (“THE U.S. EMBARGO ON CUBA: A TIME FOR CHANGE?”, BiblioScholar, 9/18/12, Page 51, Print, Accessed 7/3/13, jtc)

Critics argue free markets do not promote democracy. However, free trade and open markets do promote open economies and societies with greater freedom for their people, with better opportunities and less poverty. Less poverty equals stability. Charles William Maynes, President of the Eurasia Foundation and a leading political scientist in the United States calls this idea of free markets promoting democracy “Liberal Internationalism.” He argues open markets lead to the formation of a middle class; the middle class then brings pressure on non-democratic governments to open the political process; once that opening occurs, democracy develops. With Cuba’s proximity to the United States, democracy is inevitable. It will be a slow process. Nevertheless, it will happen, as it has in countless other countries like the Dominican Republic, Chile, Argentina, El Salvador and the other thirty-one out of thirtytwo countries in the Latin American region. The first step before any real change happens in Cuba must be engagement within our own borders with the Cuban American National Foundation (CANF). The CANF is without question the center of gravity for this issue. The CANF is single handedly preventing progress in the Cuba policy. Clausewitz defines a center of gravity as “the hub of all power and movement, on which everything else depends. That is the point against which all our energies should be directed.” The United States should focus its energy on encouraging the CANF to reform its uncompromising stance against Castro. 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 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: Diplomatic. Open dialogue with the government of Cuba. Fidel Castro says he¶ wants to open negotiations with the U.S. The U.S. should capitalize on this new stance of openness and use it to its advantage. The U.S. has open dialogue with China; Cuba should be no different. This idea will also open doors to establish relationships with the progressive Cuban leadership willing to consider change. The Bush Administration should also consider supporting the Cuba Working Group’s 9-Point Plan as a tool to initiate reform. Information. Reform TV and Radio Marti by taking it out of the Cuban American National Foundation’s span of influence . Place it under the control of a non-partisan government organization that can develop a robust and meaningful information campaign¶ targeted towards the Cuban people and reform. Conduct an information campaign within our own borders to educate the American public on the costs and benefits of helping the Cuban people. Military. Militarily engage Cuba by including it in one of the Unified Commands. Develop long term bilateral cooperation with the Cuban military and incorporate their armed forces in multilateral cooperation throughout the Caribbean region. Economic. Incrementally lift the embargo beginning with the lifting of the travel ban and the

restrictions on the sale of food and medicine, followed by reforming the Torricelli Bill and the Helms-Burton Act.

Attempt to undermine Cuban regime without promoting democracy will result in war

Amash 12- Brandon Amash, writer at the Prospect Journal, (“EVALUATING THE CUBAN EMBARGO,” 7/23/12, http://prospectjournal.org/2012/07/23/evaluating-the-cuban-embargo/, 6/28/13, CAS)

§ 3.3: The current policy may drag the United States into a military conflict with Cuba. Military conflict may be inevitable in the future if the embargo’s explicit goal — creating an insurrection in Cuba to overthrow the government — is achieved, and the United States may not be ready to step in. As Ratliff and Fontaine detail, “Americans are not prepared to commit the military resources […]” (Fontaine 57), especially after unpopular wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Much like America’s current situation with isolated rogue states such as Iran and North Korea, Cuba’s isolation may also lead to war for other reasons, like the American occupation of Guantanamo Bay. These consequences are inherently counterproductive for the democratization of Cuba and the improvement of human rights.

Cuban instability results in Latin American instability, terrorism, democratic backsliding, and distracts the US from hotspots including

Africa, the Caucus, and North Korea Gorrell 5- Tim Gorrell, Lieutenant Colonel (“CUBA: THE NEXT UNANTICIPATED ANTICIPATED STRATEGIC CRISIS?” 3/18/05, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA433074, Accessed: 7/4/13, zs)

Regardless of the succession, under the current U.S. policy, Cuba’s problems of a post Castro transformation only worsen. In addition to Cubans on the island, there will be those in exile who will return claiming authority. And there are remnants of the dissident community within Cuba who will attempt to exercise similar authority. A power vacuum or absence of order will create the conditions for instability and civil war .

Whether Raul or another successor from within the current government can hold power is debatable. However, that individual will nonetheless extend the current policies for an indefinite period, which will only compound the Cuban

situation. When Cuba finally collapses anarchy is a strong possibility if the U.S. maintains the “wait and see” approach.

The U.S. then must deal with an unstable country 90 miles off its coast. In the midst of this chaos, thousands will

flee the island. During the Mariel boatlift in 1980 125,000 fled the island.26 Many were criminals; this time the number could be

several hundred thousand flee ing to the U.S., creating a refugee crisis. ¶ Equally important, by adhering to a negative

containment policy, the U.S. may be creating its next series of transnational criminal problems. Cuba is along the axis of

the drug-trafficking flow into the U.S. from Columbia. The Castro government as a matter of policy does not support the drug trade. In fact, Cuba’s actions have shown that its stance on drugs is more than hollow rhetoric as indicated by its increasing seizure of drugs – 7.5 tons in 1995, 8.8 tons in 1999, and 13 tons in 2000.27 While there may be individuals within the government and outside who engage in drug

trafficking and a percentage of drugs entering the U.S. may pass through Cuba, the Cuban government is not the path of least resistance for the flow of drugs. If there were no Cuban restraints, the flow of drugs to the U.S. could be greatly facilitated by a Cuba base of operation and accelerate considerably. ¶ In the midst of an unstable Cuba, the opportunity for radical fundamentalist groups to operate in the region increases. If these groups can export terrorist activity from Cuba to the U.S. or throughout the hemisphere then the

war against this extremism gets more complicated . Such activity could increase direct attacks and

disrupt the economies, threatening the stability of the fragile democracies that are budding throughout the region. In light of a failed state in the region, the U.S. may be forced to deploy military forces to Cuba, creating the conditions for another insurgency . The ramifications of this action could very well fuel greater anti-American sentiment throughout the Americas. A proactive policy now can mitigate these potential future problems.¶ U.S. domestic political support is also turning against the current negative policy. The Cuban American population in the U.S. totals 1,241,685 or 3.5% of the population.28 Most of these exiles reside in Florida; their influence has been a factor in determining the margin of victory in the past two presidential elections. But this election strategy may be flawed, because recent polls of Cuban Americans reflect a decline for President Bush based on his policy crackdown. There is a clear softening in the Cuban-American community with regard to sanctions. Younger Cuban Americans do not necessarily subscribe to the hard-line approach. These changes signal an opportunity for a new approach to U.S.-Cuban relations. (Table 1)¶ The time has come to look realistically at the Cuban issue. Castro will rule until

he dies. The only issue is what happens then? The U.S. can little afford to be distracted by a failed state 90 miles off its coast. The administration, given the present state of world affairs, does not have the luxury or the resources to pursue the traditional American model of crisis management. The President and other government and military leaders have warned that

the GWOT will be long and protracted. These warnings were sounded when the administration did not anticipate operations in Iraq

consuming so many military, diplomatic and economic resources. There is justifiable concern that Africa and the Caucasus region are

potential hot spots for terrorist activity , so these areas should be secure. North Korea will continue to be an

unpredictable crisis in waiting. We also cannot ignore China . What if China resorts to aggression to

resolve the Taiwan situation? Will the U.S. go to war over Taiwan? Additionally, Iran could conceivably be the next target for U.S. pre-emptive action. These are known and potential situations that could easily require all or many of the elements of national power to resolve. In view of such global issues, can the U.S. afford to sustain the status quo and simply let the Cuban situation play out? The U.S. is at a crossroads: should the policies of the past 40 years remain in effect with vigor? Or should the U.S. pursue a new approach to Cuba in an effort to facilitate a manageable transition to post-Castro Cuba?

Democracy solves political stability and global conflict Griswold 07 --- Daniel Griswold is director of the Cato Institute's Center for Trade Policy Studies (“Trade, Democracy and Peace: The Virtuous Cycle”, April 20, 2007, http://www.cato.org/publications/speeches/trade-democracy-peace-virtuous-cycle, accessed July 10, 2013, MY)The good news does not stop there. Buried beneath the daily stories about suicide bombings and insurgency movements is an underappreciated but encouraging fact: The world has somehow become a more peaceful place.¶ A little-noticed headline on an Associated Press story a while back reported, “War declining worldwide, studies say.” In 2006, a survey by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute found that the number of armed conflicts around the world has been in decline for the past half-century. Since the early 1990s, ongoing conflicts have dropped from 33 to 17, with all of them now civil conflicts within countries. The Institute’s latest report found that 2005 marked the second year in a row that no two nations were at war with one another. What a remarkable and wonderful fact.¶ The death toll from war has also been falling. According to the Associated Press report, “The number killed in battle has fallen to its lowest point in the post-World War II period, dipping below 20,000 a year by one measure. Peacemaking missions, meanwhile, are growing in number.” Current estimates of people killed by war are down sharply from annual tolls ranging from 40,000 to 100,000 in the 1990s, and from a peak of 700,000 in 1951 during the Korean War.¶ Many causes lie behind the good news—the end of the Cold War and the spread of democracy, among them—but expanding trade and globalization appear to be playing a major role in promoting world peace. Far from stoking a “World on Fire,” as one misguided American author argued in a forgettable book, growing commercial ties between nations have had a dampening effect on armed conflict and war. I would argue that free trade and globalization have promoted peace in three main ways.¶ First, as I argued a moment ago, trade and globalization have reinforced the trend toward democracy, and democracies tend not to pick fights with each other. Thanks in part to globalization, almost two thirds of the world’s countries today are democracies—a record high. Some studies have cast doubt on the idea that democracies are less likely to fight wars. While it’s true that democracies rarely if ever war with each other, it is not such a rare occurrence for democracies to engage in wars with non-democracies. We can still hope that has more countries turn to democracy, there will be fewer provocations for war by non-democracies.¶ A second and even more potent way that trade has promoted peace is by promoting more economic integration. As national economies become more intertwined with each other, those nations have more to lose should war break out. War in a globalized world not only means human casualties and bigger government, but also ruptured trade and investment ties that impose lasting damage on the economy. In short, globalization has dramatically raised the economic cost of war.¶ The 2005 Economic Freedom of the World Report contains an insightful chapter on “Economic Freedom and Peace” by Dr. Erik Gartzke, a professor of political science at Columbia University. Dr. Gartzke compares the propensity of countries to engage in wars and their level of economic freedom and concludes that economic freedom, including the freedom to trade, significantly decreases the probability that a country will experience a military dispute with another country. Through econometric analysis, he found that, “Making economies freer translates into making countries more peaceful. At the extremes, the least free states are about 14 times as conflict prone as the most free.”¶ By the way, Dr. Gartzke’s analysis found that economic freedom was a far more important variable in determining a countries propensity to go to war than democracy.¶ A third reason why free trade promotes peace is because it allows nations to acquire wealth through production and exchange rather than conquest of territory and resources. As economies develop, wealth is increasingly measured in terms of intellectual property, financial assets, and human capital. Such assets cannot be easily seized by armies. In contrast, hard assets such as minerals and farmland are becoming relatively less important in a high-tech, service economy. If people need resources outside their national borders, say oil or timber or farm products, they can acquire them peacefully by trading away what they can produce best at home. In short, globalization and the development it has spurred have rendered the spoils of war less valuable.¶ Of course, free trade and globalization do not guarantee peace. Hot-blooded nationalism and ideological fervor can overwhelm cold economic calculations. Any relationship involving human beings will be messy and non-linier. There will always be exceptions and outliers in such complex relationships involving economies and governments. But deep trade and investment ties among nations make war less attractive.¶ A Virtuous Cycle of Democracy, Peace and Trade¶ The global trends we’ve witnessed in the spread of trade, democracy and peace tend to reinforce each other in a grand and virtuous cycle. As trade and development encourage more representative government, those governments provide more predictability and incremental reform, creating a better climate for trade and investment to flourish. And as the spread of trade and democracy foster peace, the decline of war creates a more hospitable environment for trade and economic growth and political stability.

Democracy Advantage 2ACEconomic growth in Cuba leads to democracyAmash 12-- Brandon Amash, Prospect Journal writer at UCSD (“EVALUATING THE CUBAN EMBARGO”, Prospect Jounral of International Affairs at UCSD, 7/23/12, http://prospectjournal.org/2012/07/23/evaluating-the-cuban-embargo/, Accessed 7/3/12, jtc)Lifting economic sanctions will improve economic growth in Cuba, which correlates to democratization. Empirical evidence shows that a strong economy is correlated to democracy. According to the Modernization Theory of democratization, this correlation is a causal link: economic growth directly leads to democratization. Lifting the current economic sanctions on Cuba and working together to improve economic situations in the state will allow their economy to grow, increasing the likelihood of democracy in the state, and thus promoting greater freedom of expression, opinion and dissent.

Lifting embargo opens way for democracy in CubaGriswold 05 --Daniel Griswold, Director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute (“Four Decades of Failure: The U.S. Embargo against Cuba”, 10/12/05, Cato Institute Speeches, http://www.cato.org/publications/speeches/four-decades-failure-us-embargo-against-cuba, Accessed 6/27/13 jtc)Economic sanctions rarely work. Trade and investment sanctions against Burma, Iran, and North Korea have failed to change the behavior of any of those oppressive regimes; sanctions have only deepened the deprivation of the very people we are trying to help. Our research at the Cato Institute confirms that trade and globalization till the soil for democracy. Nations open to trade are more likely to be democracies where human rights are respected. Trade and the development it creates give people tools of communication-cell phones, satellite TV, fax machines, the Internet-that tend to undermine oppressive authority. Trade not only increases the flow of goods and services but also of people and ideas. Development also creates a larger middle class that is usually the backbone of democracy.¶ President Bush seems to understand this powerful connection between trade and democracy when he talks about China or the Middle East. In a speech on trade early in his first term, the president noted that trade was about more than raising incomes. “Trade creates the habits of freedom,” the president said, and those habits begin “to create the expectations of democracy and demands for better democratic institutions . Societies that open to commerce across their borders are more open to democracy within their borders. And for those of us who care about values and believe in values—not just American values, but universal values that promote human dignity—trade is a good way to do that.”¶

The president has rightly opposed efforts in Congress to impose trade sanctions against China because of its poor human rights record. In sheer numbers, the Chinese government has jailed and killed far more political and religious dissenters than has the Cuban government. And China is arguably more of a national security concern today than Castro’s pathetic little workers’ paradise. Yet China has become our third largest trading partner while we maintain a blanket embargo on commercial relations with Cuba. President Bush understands that economic engagement with China offers the best hope for encouraging human rights and political reforms in that country, yet he has failed to apply that same, sound thinking to Cuba.

Lifting the embargo would force the Cuban government to provide economic opportunity and supplies to its people, therefore promoting democracy. Cave 12 - Damien Cave, foreign correspondent for the New York Times who covers Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean [“Easing of Restraints in Cuba Renews Debate on U.S. Embargo”, New York Times, 11/19/12, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/20/world/americas/changes-in-cuba-create-support-for-easing-embargo.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0, accessed: 7/4/13, JK]

Still, in a country where Cubans “resolve” their way around government restrictions every day (private deals with customs agents are common), many Cubans anticipate real benefits should the United States change course. Mr. López, a meticulous mechanic who wears plastic gloves to avoid dirtying his fingers, said legalizing imports and investment would create a flood of the supplies that businesses needed, overwhelming the government’s controls while lowering prices and creating more work apart from the state. Other Cubans, including political dissidents, say softening the embargo would increase the pressure for more rapid change by undermining one of the government’s main excuses for fai

ling to provide freedom, economic opportunity or just basic supplies. “Last month, someone asked me to redo their kitchen, but I told them I couldn’t do it because I didn’t have the materials,” said Pedro José, 49, a licensed carpenter in Havana who did not want his last name published to avoid government pressure. “Look around — Cuba is destroyed,” he added, waving a hand toward a colonial building blushing with circles of faded pink paint from the 1950s. “There is a lot of work to be done.”

Lifitng the embargo solves democracy and the economy Bandow 12 --- Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a former special assistant to former US president Ronald Reagan (“Time to End the Cuba Embargo”, December 11, 2012, Cato Institute, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/time-end-cuba-embargo, accessed July 4, 2013, MY)The administration should move now, before congressmen are focused on the next election. President Obama should propose legislation to drop (or at least significantly loosen) the embargo. He also could use his authority to relax sanctions by, for instance, granting more licenses to visit the island.¶ Ending the embargo would have obvious economic benefits for both Cubans and Americans. The U.S. International Trade Commission estimates American losses alone from the embargo as much as $1.2 billion annually. ¶ Expanding economic opportunities also might increase pressure within Cuba for further economic reform. So far the regime has taken small steps, but rejected significant change. Moreover, thrusting more Americans into Cuban society could help undermine the ruling system. Despite Fidel Castro’s decline, Cuban politics remains largely static. A few human rights activists have been released, while Raul Castro has used party purges to entrench loyal elites.¶ Lifting the embargo would be no panacea. Other countries invest in and trade with Cuba to no obvious political impact. And the lack of widespread economic reform makes it easier for the regime rather than the people to collect the benefits of trade, in contrast to China. Still, more U.S. contact would have an impact. Argued trade specialist Dan Griswold, “American tourists would boost the earnings of Cubans who rent rooms, drive taxis, sell art, and operate restaurants in their homes. Those dollars would then find their way to the hundreds of freely priced farmers markets, to carpenters, repairmen, tutors, food venders, and other entrepreneurs.” ¶ The Castro dictatorship ultimately will end up in history’s dustbin. But it will continue to cause much human hardship along the way.¶ The Heritage Foundation’s John Sweeney complained nearly two decades ago that “the United States must not abandon the Cuban people by relaxing or lifting the trade embargo against the communist regime.” But the dead hand of half a century of failed policy is the worst breach of faith with the Cuban people.¶ Lifting sanctions would be a victory not for Fidel Castro, but for the power of free people to spread liberty. As Griswold argued, “commercial engagement is the best way to encourage more open societies abroad .” Of course, there are no guarantees. But lifting the embargo would have a greater likelihood of success than continuing a policy which has failed. Some day the Cuban people will be free. Allowing more contact with Americans likely would make that day come sooner.

Democracy Advantage Extensions

Embargo strengthens the Cuba dictatorship Keenan 9– John Keenan, John Keenan is a freelance writer. His work has been published in the Guardian, New Statesman, Times Literary Supplement, Literary Review and Catholic Herald, (“Cuba’s embargo must go”, theguardian, November 24 2009, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/nov/23/embargo-cuba-human-rights, Accessed: 7/3/2013, EH)

This month Europe celebrated the twentieth anniversary of the collapse of the iron curtain. Tribute was paid the role the US played in helping to speed the demise of totalitarian regimes. But just 90 miles off the coast of Florida, the Cuban government continues to ruthlessly suppress any sign of dissent - and the US administration's misguided embargo merely strengthens the dictatorship's hand.¶ Now Human Rights Watch (HRW), the New York-based NGO, has called for the US to scrap its failed policy in favour of "more effective forms of pressure". HRW's new report, New Castro, Same Cuba, proves that Raul Castro shares his brother's extreme distaste for opposition.¶ Since taking the reins of power from his ailing sibling in 2006, Raul has deepened the repression of his opponents, particularly through the vigorous use of a provision in the criminal code which allows people to be jailed if it is suspected that they might commit a crime in the future. The catch-all pre-criminal state of "dangerousness" is defined as any behaviour that contradicts socialist norms. HRW's report states that more than 40 people have been jailed for "dangerousness", including handing out copies of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, staging rallies, and attempting to form independent trade unions.¶ HRW has called for the embargo to be scrapped and replaced by a multi-lateral coalition comprised of the US, the EU, Canada, and Latin American to pressure Cuba to immediately and unconditionally release its political prisoners. The coalition, HRW says, should give the Cuban government six months to meet this demand or face sanctions, travel bans and asset freezes.¶ The report was published in a week which saw the 64-year-old Cuban dissident Martha Beatriz Roque end her hunger strike over fears for her health. Roque and five other dissidents staged a sit-in protest 40 days ago, complaining that government agents stole a camera from her.¶ A statement issued by the protesters explained: "The camera we want back is not the final purpose of this protest, it is a symbol of our rights and the rights of the people, which day after day are violated by government actions."¶ And this weekend the husband of the dissident blogger Yoani Sanchez said he was attacked by government supporters as he waited to confront state security agents accused of detaining and beating his wife two weeks ago.¶ The intimidation, persecution and incarceration of the Castro government's opponents is ignored by those who like to believe that Cuba is a plucky little island standing up to the might of Uncle Sam. This ignorant and patronising view allows the dictatorship to manipulate the policies of foreign governments in its favour.¶ When North Korea and Burma ruthlessly extinguish any dissent they are rightly castigated as pariah states. When Cuba does the same, the world looks away. ¶ The co-called Cuban exiles in Miami and New Jersey need to drop their noisy support for the US policy of regime change - it serves only to shore up the government they despise.¶ Anyone who cares about human rights should encourage their governments to take up HRW's call for a new unified approach to Cuba's human rights failures. The Cuban government will change its ways only if it is forced to.¶ Cuba ratified the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in 1995. It has been allowed to flout that convention with impunity.

Lifting the Embargo does not benefit the dictatorship Taylor 13 (Steven L. Taylor, Professor and Chair of Political Science at Troy University. Has a Ph.D. from The University of Texas. “More Evidence of the Silliness of US Policy Towards Cuba”. Outside the Beltway. April 9 2013, http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/more-evidence-of-the-silliness-of-us-policy-towards-cuba/, accessed: 6/27/13, EH)

A visit to Cuba by US pop singer Beyonce and her rap star husband Jay-Z is coming under scrutiny in connection with the US economic embargo.¶ [...]¶ Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Mario Diaz-Balart, both members of Congress from Florida, asked the US treasury department to clarify what licence the two stars had obtained to travel to Cuba.¶ "Cuba’s tourism industry is wholly state-controlled; therefore, US dollars spent on Cuban tourism directly fund the machinery of oppression that brutally represses the Cuban people," they wrote.¶ [...]¶ Americans are not allowed to visit Cuba and spend money there unless they have special US government permission, according to guidance on the US treasury

website.¶ Granted: it terms of the letter of the law, the Representatives have a point. However , this just underscored the silliness of said law .¶ US policy towards Cuba is one remarkable mix of counter-

productiveness and pettiness.¶ Counter-productive because lifting the embargo would hasten liberalization

in Cuba (so, we are helping perpetuate the repressive government in question) and petty because the Cold War ended over two decades ago and the Cuban Missile Crisis was half a century ago.2

Lifting the embargo now is key to creating a free-market Goodman 13 (Joshua Goodman, Staff Writer for Bloomberg.com, “Obama Can Bend Cuba Embargo to Help Open Economy, Groups Say”, Bloomberg.com, Feb 20 2013, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-20/obama-should-bend-cuba-embargo-to-buoy-free-markets-reports-say.html, Accessed: 6/27/13, EH)

President Barack Obama should break free of the embargo on Cuba and assert his authority to promote a free-market overhaul taking place on the communist island.¶ The recommendation is contained in concurrent reports to be published today by the Cuba Study Group and the Council of the Americas, two groups seeking to end a decades-old deadlock on U.S. policy toward Cuba.¶ Among steps Obama can take without violating sanctions passed by Congress are opening U.S. markets, as well as authorizing the sale of American goods and services, to the estimated 400,000 private entrepreneurs that have arisen since Cuban President Raul Castro started cutting state payrolls in 2011. The reports also recommend allowing U.S. credit card and insurance companies to provide basic financial services to licensed U.S. travelers to Cuba.¶ “We’ve been sitting on the sidelines with our hands tied by an antiquated law that’s being too strictly interpreted,” said Chris Sabatini, an author of the report and senior policy director for the Council of the

Americas, a business-backed group based in New York. “There’s more Obama can do to be a catalyst for meaningful economic change .”¶ Obama in 2009 allowed companies for the first time to provide communications services to the

Caribbean island of 11 million and lifted a travel ban for Cuban-Americans. The loosening of restrictions, while heralded by the White House as a way to undermine the Castro government’s control of information, was seen as insufficient by potential investors including Verizon Communications Inc. and AT&T Inc.¶ Economic Overhaul¶ Now, in a second term, and with private business expanding in Cuba, Obama has a freer hand to do more, said Sabatini. An exception to the embargo allowing U.S. businesses and consumers to trade with non-state enterprises in Cuba would be small in scale though help empower a growing, viable constituency for change on the island, he said.¶ Since his brother Fidel started handing over power in 2006, Castro has relaxed state control of the economy in the biggest economic overhaul since the 1959 revolution. To provide jobs for the 1 million state workers being laid off, the government began allowing the buying and selling of homes and the creation of farming co-operatives and other private businesses. The latest sign of change are new rules that took effect in January allowing most Cubans to bypass requirements they obtain an exit visa or invitation from abroad to leave the island.¶ Castro in December said that he hopes that productivity gains will boost economic growth this year to at least 3.7 percent. Gross domestic product expanded 3.1 percent in 2012.¶ Repeal Legislation¶

The Washington-based Cuba Study Group urges Obama to gain even more leverage by getting Congress to repeal the so-called Helms-Burton act of 1996 and other legislation that conditions the easing of sanctions on regime change.

Lifting embargo solves – trade is key Lloyd 11— Delia Lloyd, Contributor for Politics Daily and Former Political Science professor at the University of Chicago (“Ten Reasons to Lift the Cuban Embargo”, Politics Daily, 2011[no month/day given], http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/24/ten-reasons-to-lift-the-cuba-embargo/?icid=main|aim|dl8|sec1_lnk3|166115, Accessed: 6/28/13, EH)

2. It's good politics. Supporters of the trade embargo -- like Cuban-American Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) -- have long argued that easing the restrictions would only reward Castro for the regime's ongoing repression of political dissidents. We need to keep up the economic pressure on Cuba, so this logic goes, in order to keep pressure on the regime to do something

about human rights. But there's a long-standing empirical relationship between trade and democracy. The

usual logic put forth to explain this relationship is that trade creates an economically independent and politically aware middle class, which, in turn, presses for political reform. It's not clear that this argument actually holds up when subjected to close causal scrutiny (although the reverse does seem to be true -- i.e., democratic reform creates pressure for trade liberalization). Still, it's difficult to disagree with the proposition that by enabling visiting scholars and religious groups to stay in Cuba for up to two years (as the presidential order would allow) rather than a matter of weeks (as is currently the case) we'd be helping, not hurting, democracy in Cuba. First, easing the current travel restrictions would allow for far deeper linkages between non-governmental organizations from both countries, which some see as a powerful mechanism for democratic reform. Second, because American visitors would

be staying on the island longer, scholars and activists alike would gain much better insight into where the pressure points for democracy actually exist.

Doesn’t link to pink tide and Lifting the embargo leads to democratization of CubaGriswold 09 – Daniel Griswold, director of the Cato Institute’s Center for Trade Policy Studies (“The US embargo of Cuba is a Failure”, theguardian, June 15 2009, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/jun/15/cuba-us-trade-embargo-obama, Accessed: 7/2/13, EH)

After nearly 50 years, America's cold war embargo against Cuba appears to be thawing at last. Earlier this spring, the Obama administration relaxed controls on travel and remittances to the communist island by Cuban Americans, and last week it agreed to open the door for Cuba's re-entry to the Organisation of American States.¶ Admitting Cuba to the OAS may be premature, given the organisation's charter that requires its members to be democracies that respect human rights, but changes to the US economic embargo are long overdue.¶ The embargo has been a failure by every measure. It has not changed the course or nature of the Cuban government. It has not liberated a single Cuban citizen. In fact, the embargo has made the Cuban people a bit more impoverished, without making them one bit more free . At the same time, it has deprived Americans of their freedom to travel and has cost US farmers and other producers billions of dollars of potential exports.¶ As a tool of US foreign policy, the embargo actually enhances the Castro government's standing by giving it a handy excuse for the failures of the island's Caribbean-style socialism. Brothers Fidel and Raul can rail for hours about the suffering the embargo inflicts on Cubans, even though the damage done by their communist policies has been far worse. The embargo has failed to give us an ounce of extra leverage over what happens in Havana.¶ In 2000, Congress approved a modest opening of the embargo. The Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act allows cash-only sales to Cuba of US farm products and medical supplies. The results of this modest opening have been quite amazing. Since 2000, total sales of farm products to Cuba have increased from virtually zero to $691m in 2008. The top US exports by value are corn, meat and poultry, wheat and soybeans. From dead last, Cuba is now the number six customer in Latin America for US agricultural products. Last year, American farmers sold more to the 11.5 million people who live in Cuba than to the 200 million people in Brazil.¶ According to the US international trade commission, US farm exports would increase another $250m if restrictions were lifted on export financing. This should not be interpreted as a call for export-import bank subsidies. Trade with Cuba must be entirely commercial and market driven. Lifting the embargo should not mean that US taxpayers must now subsidise exports to Cuba. But neither should the government stand in the way.¶ USITC estimates do not capture the long-term export potential to Cuba from normalised relations. The Bahamas, Dominican Republic, Jamaica and Guatemala spend an average of 2.8% of their GDP to buy farm exports from the US. If Cuba spent the same share of its GDP on US farm exports, exports could more than double the current level, to $1.5bn a year.¶ Advocates of the embargo argue that trading with Cuba will only put dollars into the coffers of the Castro regime. And it's true that the government in Havana, because it controls the economy, can skim off a large share of the

remittances and tourist dollars spent in Cuba. But of course, selling more US products to Cuba would quickly relieve the Castro regime of those same dollars.¶ If more US tourists were permitted to visit Cuba, and at the same time US exports to

Cuba were further liberalised, the US economy could reclaim dollars from the Castro regime as fast as the regime could acquire them. In effect, the exchange would be of agricultural products for tourism services, a kind of "bread for beaches", "food for fun" trade relationship.¶ Meanwhile, the increase in Americans visiting Cuba would dramatically increase contact between Cubans and Americans. The unique US-Cuban relationship that flourished before Castro could be renewed, which would increase US influence and potentially hasten the decline of the communist regime.¶ Congress and President Barack Obama should act now to lift the embargo to allow more travel and farm exports to Cuba . Expanding our freedom to travel to, trade with and invest in Cuba would make Americans better off and would help the Cuban

people and speed the day when they can enjoy the freedom they deserve.

Embargo fails, lifting it is moral and defeats Cuban communismKirkland 13 – Rhiannon M. Kirkland, Intern at the Washington Monthly (“Against the Pointless and Execrable Cuba Embargo”, Washington monthly, April 15 2013, http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ten-miles-square/2013/04/against_the_pointless_and_exec044130.php, Accessed: 7/3/13, EH)Jay-Z and Beyonce went to Cuba for their fifth wedding anniversary, causing a huge kerfuffle over whether or not they went there legally. Marco Rubio and others question how “educational” their trip really was, and why the Treasury Department might authorize such a trip. This is dumb. What difference does it make if music royalty—or anyone else for that matter—visit Cuba and why is the embargo still going on?The policy is ineffective, after all—the Castros are still in power all these years later. Add to this the moral implications of systematically impoverishing a nation because they happen to have a leader you disagree with.The embargo became permanent on Feb. 7, 1962 and has existed in one form or another since then. In the past twenty years it has been strengthened and relaxed depending on the prevailing political tides. In 1992 and 1996 it was extended to countries that traded with Cuba in retaliation for the downing of two American

civilian aircrafts by Cuba. In 2001 it was loosened to allow the sale of food to Cuba following Hurricane Michelle, a measure that remains in place and has build up a trading relationship worth $710 million by 2008.Otherwise restrictions were tightened under George Bush. Remittance allowances were decimated from $3,000 to $300, and family members were only allowed to visit for a maximum of two weeks every three years. President Obama has relaxed things somewhat by returning to the pre-Bush status quo. Now Americans can send remittances to non-family members and can visit for educational or religious purposes.In the time since Raul Castro replaced his more radical brother in 2008 he has undertaken over numerous reforms in areas including property rights, economics and travel. There are still human rights abuses including the holding of dissidents and journalist, but some forward progress is being made.Historical warming that took place between in Vietnam-US relations and Sino-American relations provide good examples of how warming between the US and Cuba might unfold, and would be far more effective than the current policy.Vietnam and the U.S. had a gruesome relationship in the Cold War; despite these differences relations were normalized in 1995 and a trade deal was signed in 2000. Trade in 2012 totaled between $22-24 billion.Beijing and Washington spent the early years of the cold war at odds before a warming of relations that paved the way for today’s relatively warm ties. President Richard Nixon’s visit in 1972 brought the Shanghai Communique, which was effectively “an agree to disagree” policy, and the start of the normalization of relations. Trade between the US and China went from $5 billion in 1980 to $536.2 billion in 2012. Imagine how different the world would be—especially for the average Chinese person—if Sino-American relations were still almost non-existent?Most other countries don’t have their own Cuba embargoes, with tourism from the EU and Canada providing about $2.7 billion in revenue. There is no point in

resisting anymore, and standing alone in the world for an old project that has failed. The US will truly have won the battle against communism when Starbucks and McDonalds franchises line the streets of Havana the way they do Beijing. Ending the embargo is the first step.But fundamentally, no matter what other benefits there might be, it is morally sick to continue collectively punishing the Cuban people for such long-passed disputes. It’s long since time they fully joined the community of nations

Removing embargo impetus to democracyHuddelston 08—Vicki Huddelston, former State Department official, Brookings Institution expert on Latin America and Africa, and is the current Chief of the American Interests section in Cuba (“Cuba's Road to Democracy?”, CBN News, http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2008/March/Cubas-Road-to-Democracy-/, Accessed 7/4/13, jtc)Brookings Institute's Huddleston disagrees.¶ ¶ "The more you open up, the more you'll unbalance the regime," she said. She instead says the U.S, should first end the travel and communication embargo. Allowing Americans to visit Cuba would promote the exchange of information and speed the spread of democratic ideals. ¶ ¶ "Anything that empowers the Cuban people. We're talking about building up democracy, so we want freedom of information, free flow of money, remittances to the Cuban people," Huddleston said.

Cuba heading towards reform—US needs to help, link to democracyCave 12—Damien Cave, foreign correspondent for The New York Times in Mexico City, finalists for the 2008 Pulitzer Prize in international reporting (“Easing of Restraints in Cuba Renews Debate on U.S. Embargo”, The New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/20/world/americas/changes-in-cuba-create-support-for-easing-embargo.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&, 11/19/12, Accessed 7/3/12, jtc)Even as defenders of the embargo warn against providing the Cuban government with “economic lifelines,” some Cubans and exiles are advocating a fresh approach. The Obama administration already showed an openness to engagement with Cuba in 2009 by removing restrictions on travel and remittances for Cuban Americans. But with Fidel Castro, 86, retired and President Raúl Castro, 81, leading a bureaucracy that is divided on the pace and scope of change, many have begun urging President Obama to go further and update American policy by putting a priority on assistance for Cubans seeking more economic independence from the government.¶ “Maintaining this embargo, maintaining this hostility, all it does is strengthen and embolden the hard-liners,” said Carlos Saladrigas, a Cuban exile and co-chairman of the Cuba Study Group in Washington, which advocates engagement with Cuba. “What we should be doing is helping the reformers.”

Embargo leads to military conflict—prevents democracyAmash 12-- Brandon Amash, Prospect Journal writer at UCSD (“EVALUATING THE CUBAN EMBARGO”, Prospect Jounral of International Affairs at UCSD, 7/23/12, http://prospectjournal.org/2012/07/23/evaluating-the-cuban-embargo/, Accessed 7/3/12, jtc)The current policy may drag the United States into a military conflict with Cuba. Military conflict may be inevitable in the future if the embargo’s explicit goal — creating an insurrection in Cuba to overthrow the government — is achieved, and the United States may not be ready to step in. As Ratliff and Fontaine detail, “Americans are not prepared to commit the military resources […]” (Fontaine 57), especially after unpopular wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Much like America’s current situation with isolated rogue states such as Iran and North Korea, Cuba’s isolation may also lead to war for other reasons, like the American occupation of Guantanamo Bay. These consequences are inherently counterproductive for the democratization of Cuba and the improvement of human rights.

Tourism promotes democracy in CubaSullivan 3/29 --- Mark P. Sullivan, Specialist in Latin American Affairs for the Congressional Research Office (“Cuba: U.S. Policy and Issues for the 113th Congress”, March 29, 2013, FAS, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R43024.pdf, accessed June 28, 2013, MY)The first people-to-people trips began in August 2011. In May 2012, the Treasury Department tightened its restrictions on people-to-people travel by making changes to its license guidelines. The revised guidelines require an organization applying for a people-to-people license to describe how the travel “would enhance contact with the Cuban people, and/or support civil society in Cuba, and/or promote the Cuban people’s independence from Cuban authorities.” The revised guidelines also require specification on how meetings with prohibited officials of the Cuban government would advance purposeful travel by enhancing contact with the Cuban people, supporting civil society, or promoting independence from Cuban authorities. Major arguments made for lifting the Cuba travel ban altogether are that it abridges the rights of ordinary Americans to travel; it hinders efforts to influence conditions in Cuba and may be aiding Castro by helping restrict the flow of information; and Americans can travel to other countries with communist or authoritarian governments. Major arguments in opposition to lifting the Cuba travel ban are that more American travel would support Castro’s rule by providing his government with potentially millions of dollars in hard currency; that there are legal provisions allowing travel to Cuba for humanitarian purposes that are used by thousands of Americans each year; and that the President should be free to restrict travel for foreign policy reasons.

And it’s the most pragmatic approach Sullivan 3/29 --- Mark P. Sullivan, Specialist in Latin American Affairs for the Congressional Research Office (“Cuba: U.S. Policy and Issues for the 113th Congress”, March 29, 2013, FAS, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R43024.pdf, accessed June 28, 2013, MY)In light of Fidel Castro’s departure as head of government and the gradual economic changes being made by Raúl Castro, some observers called for a reexamination of U.S. policy toward Cuba. In this new context, two broad policy approaches have been advanced to contend with change in Cuba: a status-quo approach that maintains the U.S. dual-track policy of isolating the Cuban government while providing support to the Cuban people; and an approach aimed at influencing the attitudes of the Cuban government and Cuban society through increased contact and engagement. ¶ In general, those who advocate easing U.S. sanctions on Cuba make several policy arguments. They assert that if the United States moderated its policy toward Cuba—through increased travel, trade, and dialogue—then the seeds of reform would be planted, which would stimulate forces for peaceful change on the island. They stress the importance to the United States of avoiding violent change in Cuba, with the prospect of a mass exodus to the United States. They argue that since the demise of Cuba’s communist government does not appear imminent, even without Fidel Castro at the helm, the United States should espouse a more pragmatic approach in trying to bring about change in Cuba. Supporters of changing policy also point to broad international

support for lifting the U.S. embargo, to the missed opportunities for U.S. businesses because of the unilateral nature of the embargo, and to the increased suffering of the Cuban people because of the embargo. Proponents of change also argue that the United States should be consistent in its policies with the world’s few remaining communist governments, including China and Vietnam.

Sanctions are a double standard and free trade promotes democracyGrisworld 05 --- Daniel Griswold is director of the Cato Institute's Center for Trade Policy Studies (“Four Decades of Failure: The U.S. Embargo against Cuba”, October 12, 2005, http://www.cato.org/publications/speeches/four-decades-failure-us-embargo-against-cuba, accessed July 3, 2013, MY)Economic sanctions rarely work. Trade and investment sanctions against Burma, Iran, and North Korea have failed to change the behavior of any of those oppressive regimes; sanctions have only deepened the deprivation of the very people we are trying to help. Our research at the Cato Institute confirms that trade and globalization till the soil for democracy. Nations open to trade are more likely to be democracies where human rights are respected. Trade and the development it creates give people tools of communication-cell phones, satellite TV, fax machines, the Internet-that tend to undermine oppressive authority. Trade not only increases the flow of goods and services but also of people and ideas. Development also creates a larger middle class that is usually the backbone of democracy.¶ President Bush seems to understand this powerful connection between trade and democracy when he talks about China or the Middle East. In a speech on trade early in his first term, the president noted that trade was about more than raising incomes. “Trade creates the habits of freedom,” the president said, and those habits begin “to create the expectations of democracy and demands for better democratic institutions. Societies that open to commerce across their borders are more open to democracy within their borders. And for those of us who care about values and believe in values—not just American values, but universal values that promote human dignity—trade is a good way to do that.”¶ The president has rightly opposed efforts in Congress to impose trade sanctions against China because of its poor human rights record. In sheer numbers, the Chinese government has jailed and killed far more political and religious dissenters than has the Cuban government. And China is arguably more of a national security concern today than Castro’s pathetic little workers’ paradise. Yet China has become our third largest trading partner while we maintain a blanket embargo on commercial relations with Cuba. President Bush understands that economic engagement with China offers the best hope for encouraging human rights and political reforms in that country, yet he has failed to apply that same, sound thinking to Cuba. ¶ In fact, the Venezuelan government of Hugo Chavez is doing more to undermine America’s national interest today than either Cuba or China. Chavez shares Castro’s hatred for democratic capitalism, but unlike Castro he has the resources and money to spread his influence in the hemisphere. Chavez is not only bankrolling Cuba with discounted oil but he is also supporting anti-Americans movements in Nicaragua and other countries in our neighborhood. Yet we buy billions of dollars of oil a year from Venezuela’s state oil company, we allow huge Venezuelan investments in our own energy sector, and Americans—last time I checked—can travel freely to Venezuela. The one big difference between Venezuela and Cuba is that we don’t have half a million politically active Venezuelan exiles living in a swing state like Ohio.¶ This is not an argument for an embargo against Venezuela, but for greater coherence in U.S. foreign policy. In a world still inhabited by a number of unfriendly and oppressive regimes, there is simply nothing special about Cuba that warrants the drastic option of a total embargo.

The embargo has strengthened Castro’s ideological position and has prevented democratization in Cuba. Amash 12 - Brandon Amash, writer for the Prospect Journal of International Affairs at the University of California at San Diego [“Evaluating the Cuban Embargo”, Prospect Journal, 7/23/12, http://prospectjournal.org/2012/07/23/evaluating-the-cuban-embargo/, accessed: 7/4/13, JK]

American sanctions during the Cold War strengthened Castro’s ideological position and created opportunities for involvement by the Soviet Union, thereby decreasing the likelihood of democratization and improvement in human rights.Cuba’s revolution could not have come at a worse time for America. The emergence of a communist state in the western hemisphere allowed the Soviet Union to extend its influence, and the United States’ rejection of Cuba only widened the window of opportunity for Soviet involvement. The embargo also became a scapegoat for the Castro administration, which laid blame for poor human rights conditions on the embargo policy itself (Fontaine 18 – 22). Furthermore,

as Ratliff and Fontaine suggest, isolating Cuba as an enemy of democracy during the Cold War essentially made the goals of democratization in the country unachievable (Fontaine 30).

Only engaging in economic activity with Cuba will lead to democratization in Cuba. Dodd No Date - Christopher J. Dodd, US Senator of Connecticut [“Should the U.S End its Cuba Embargo?” Scholastic, http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/article/should-us-end-its-cuba-embargo, accessed: 7/4/13, JK]

The United States is the only nation that still has a trade embargo against Cuba. After four decades, it's clear that our policy has failed to achieve its goals: the end of Fidel Castro's regime and a peaceful transition to democracy. Today, Cuba remains under totalitarian rule, with Castro still firmly in power. The real victims of our policies are the 11 million innocent Cuban men, women, and children. Our embargo has exacerbated already-miserable living conditions for Cuban citizens. Cuba's economy has suffered because it is prohibited from exporting goods to the U.S. In addition, most Cubans have very limited access to American products. Moreover, our policies restrict Americans' right to travel freely to Cuba, making exchange between our two cultures essentially impossible. There are many other countries whose governments are not freely elected. Yet none of our policies toward these nations resemble our treatment of Cuba . With the Cold War over and Cuba posing no threat to the U.S.. there is no justification for our outdated approach to Cuba. To make matters worse, we are spending extraordinary resources to enforce the embargo resources that could be used to secure our nation against terrorism. It's time for a fundamental change in our Cuba policy. We can start by ending the trade embargo and by lifting the ban on travel to Cuba by American citizens. Only by engaging the Cuban people, and by building bridges between our citizens and theirs, will we succeed in bringing freedom and democracy to our neighbor.

Embargo does not encourage democracy or human rights.Lewis 13 Bill Lewis, Digital Journalist based in Washington, DC, United States, United States. Joined on Sep 23, 2012Expertise in Personal finance, Books, Politics, Automotive, Internet (“Op-Ed: Why the United States should end its embargo on Cuba,” Digital Journal, April 17, 2013, http://digitaljournal.com/article/348218, Date Accessed: June 28, 2013, SD)For over 50 years the United States has held firm on its embargo against Cuba, even as the world condemned it for doing so. It is now time that the United States accept that the embargo has failed and move on.When Fidel Castro came to power in 1959 and installed an authoritarian communist regime aligned with the Soviet Union, the United States began applying diplomatic and economic pressure to the small island nation 90 miles off of the Florida coast. After the Cuban Missile Crisis President John F. Kennedy took the pressure a step further by imposing a full trade embargo and urging US allies to do the same. At the time, the embargo seemed the logical thing to do in order to pressure Castro to make political reforms and to stop what many saw as an inevitable spread of communism during the height of the Cold War. Over 50 years later, however, many have begun to question the efficacy of the embargo and believe the time has come to end it.Before going over the many reasons why the United States should end the embargo on Cuba it is important to understand the goal of the embargo – both past and present. The Council on Foreign Relations notes that the embargo was initially placed on Cuba in an attempt to pressure Havana into making democratic reforms and aligning itself with the United States, as opposed to the Soviet Union which it had allied with. In the aftermath of the Cuban Missile Crisis fears of Cuba being used as a forward base for the Soviet Union to threaten the United States and to spread communism in the region seemed to be fully realized – with some validity – and it seemed prudent for the United States and its allies to squash any possible threat that Cuba might represent. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the reason given for the continuation of the embargo has been twofold according to the Washington Times; a continued desire to put pressure on Havana to make democratic reforms and end human rights violations, and Cuba’s continued status as a supporter of terror organizations. Let us then review each of these in order to determine if the embargo has been effective and if its continuation is justified.The first reason given for the continued embargo on Cuba is that it is the only way for the United States to put pressure on Havana to end human rights violations and make democratic reforms. Proponents further state that we have a moral responsibility to show our support for Cuban citizens through the embargo. While this seems to make sense on face value this argument falls apart under close scrutiny. To begin with, the embargo is not supported or enforced by the majority of the world. In fact, according to Brett Wilkins of the Digital Journal, “Israel and the tiny Pacific island nation of Palau (population 20,000)” were the only other nations to have voted against a resolution in the UN calling for an end to the embargo in 2012 (the 21st such annual resolution). This simple fact alone means that whatever effect we might hope the embargo would have toward pressuring Havana disappears. Cuba’s largest industry – tourism – is booming due to European and Canadian travelers who flock to the islands many beaches. Additionally, trade with countries like Venezuela ensure a steady supply of oil and the European Union has begun working on closer trade ties with Cuba. Even U.S. companies find it easy to circumvent the embargo by routing the trades through foreign branches. It cannot be denied, however, that Cuba’s economy has been affected by the embargo – even if not to the point that we would hope. In fact, Havana reports that they have lost more than a trillion dollars since the implementation of the embargo. The issue is, however, that even if the embargo had been fully enforced and crippling to the Cuban economy it would likely have failed because trade sanctions and embargoes are notoriously ineffectual at causing reform.The sad reality is that the first people to be hurt by any embargo are the innocent civilians; the very people who we are purportedly trying to help by forcing reforms. When a country such as Cuba begins to feel the effect of an

embargo they do not cut amenities for the leader or military readiness – though Cuba did cut its military slightly when the embargoes were first put in place it was never truly a military threat and it’s military was never a concern; a look at nations like North Korea whose military is at the core of concerns is an indicator of the effect of sanctions on a country's military. Instead they slash programs that improve the lives of their citizens. Worse, they then blame the United States for causing all of their economic woes; thus relieving them of the need to show action toward improving the situation. Therefore, rather than weakening Castro’s government through the sanctions as we had hoped, we in fact strengthen it by allowing it to use the United States as a scapegoat. It is for this reason that human rights groups have actually called for an end to the embargo pointing to the hardship it causes the Cuban people without any real effect on the control the government has over them.As for the moral responsibility that we have to stand with the citizens of Cuba against an oppressive regime, to put it simply, what a bunch of hogwash. If we really want to stand with the citizens of Cuba, then rather than imposing an embargo that has hurt the people while strengthening the government we should take the same stance we did with the Marshal Plan which was used in post World War II Europe. Faced with the same potential problem – the potential spread of communism – we poured millions of dollars of aid and trade into European nations to help them rebuild and get their economies strong again. We used the same tactic in South Korea and several other countries since; and it has continued to work gloriously. While the issue has changed since the fall of the USSR the solution remains the same. By allowing trade with Cuba and ensuring that the people gain access to the many great things that capitalism and democracy allow we give the best chance that the people will call for reforms. It won’t happen overnight and it won’t be easy; however, it will surely be more effective than an embargo that has been in place for over 50 years with no success whatsoever. Furthermore, given that Raul Castro has already begun making some reforms – albeit small ones – the time seems ripe for the US to make a move.The final argument given for continuing the embargo is the fact that Cuba remains on the United State's list as a state sponsor of terrorist organizations for their supposed support of groups like FARC and the ELN. There are, however, a few issues with this line of thought. First of all, as the Council on Foreign Relations indicates many experts state that there is no proof that Cuba has supported these organizations. Second, while the United States labels these organizations terrorist groups others call them freedom fighters and would point out that the government they are fighting against – Columbia – is incredibly corrupt and has been accused of supporting drug cartels. In the end, however, both of these points are moot because of the third; which happens to be the same argument made above. If in fact Cuba is supporting these groups, and if in fact these groups are terrorist organizations our embargo against Cuba does nothing to stop them from supporting these groups and in fact may even prevent reforms that would lead to them ending any support currently given.There are two more important reasons that we should end the embargo against Cuba. First, as I mentioned earlier in this article the United States stands alone – outside of the support of Israel and Palau – in enforcing this embargo; but more importantly we stand alone in seeing any justification for it. When we first began the embargo many nations stood with us because of the Cold War and the threat from the Soviet Union, however, since the fall of the USSR it has become a black eye for the United States. Rather than looking like a nation protecting its national interest – as is the right of any nation – the United States looks like a larger nation bullying a smaller neighbor because it doesn’t like their politics and the US has in fact been condemned by the UN for doing so. While this has yet to cause us any serious issues it does detract from the United States' international image which is an important part of any diplomatic effort they undertake.Second, is the extreme cost of continuing the embargo. According to the CATO Institute the, “U.S. International Trade Commission estimates American losses alone from the embargo [are] as much as $1.2 billion annually.” Further, Forbes reports that “according to the Government Accountability Office, the U.S. government devotes hundreds of millions of dollars and tens of thousands of man-hours to administering the embargo each year” further increasing the cost. That’s a lot of money to be throwing at a policy that isn’t actually working.No one will argue that reforms don’t need to take place in Cuba, however, the method we are choosing to use is not only ineffectual but actually hurts those we are trying to help. It is high time that we recognize the embargo for what it is – failed policy – and move on.

Lifting Embargo key to democracy and human rights.Perez 10 Louis A. Perez Jr., Louis A. Pérez, Jr., Ph.D.¶ Louis A. Pérez Jr. is the J. Carlyle Sitterson Professor of History in the College of Arts and Sciences. His principal teaching fields include twentieth-century Latin America, the Caribbean, and Cuba. Professor Pérez has written and edited fifteen books, and his articles have appeared in the principal journals of the profession. (“Want Change in Cuba? End U.S. Embargo”, CNN, September 21, 2010, http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/09/20/perez.cuba.embargo/index.html, Accessed: July 2, 2013, SD)¶ CNN) -- In April 2009, the White House released a presidential memorandum declaring that democracy and human rights in Cuba were "national interests of the United States."¶ Assistant Secretary of State Arturo Valenzuela repeated the message in May of this year to the Cuban-American National Foundation in Miami.¶ The Obama administration, he said, wanted "to promote respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms ... in ways that will empower the Cuban people and advance our national interests." ¶ Fine words. But if the administration really wanted to do something in the national interest, it would end the 50-year-old policy of political and economic isolation of Cuba.¶ The Cuban embargo can no longer even pretend to be plausible. ¶ On the contrary, it has contributed to the very conditions that stifle democracy and human rights there. For 50 years, its brunt has fallen mainly on the Cuban people.¶ This is not by accident. On the contrary, the embargo was designed to impose suffering and hunger on Cubans in the hope that they would rise up and overturn their government. ¶ "The only foreseeable means of alienating internal support," the Department of State insisted as early as April 1960, "is through disenchantment and disaffection based on economic dissatisfaction and hardship."¶ The United States tightened the screws in the post-Soviet years with the Torricelli Act and the Helms-Burton Act

-- measures designed, Sen. Robert Torricelli said, "to wreak havoc on that island." ¶ The post-Soviet years were indeed calamitous. Throughout the 1990s, Cubans faced growing scarcities, deteriorating services and increased rationing. Meeting the needs of ordinary life took extraordinary effort.¶ And therein lies the problem that still bedevils U.S. policy today. Far from inspiring the Cuban people to revolution, the embargo keeps them down and distracted. ¶ Dire need and urgent want are hardly optimum circumstances for a people to contemplate the benefits of democracy. A people preoccupied with survival have little interest or inclination to bestir themselves in behalf of anything else. ¶ In Cuba, routine household errands and chores consume overwhelming amounts of time and energy, day after day: hours in lines at the local grocery store or waiting for public transportation.¶ Cubans in vast numbers choose to emigrate. Others burrow deeper into the black market, struggling to make do and carry on. Many commit suicide. (Cuba has one of the highest suicide rates in the world; in 2000, the latest year for which we have statistics, it was 16.4 per 100,000 people.)¶ A June 2008 survey in The New York Times reported that less than 10 percent of Cubans identified the lack of political freedom as the island's main problem. As one Cuban colleague recently suggested to me: "First necessities, later democracy." ¶ The United States should consider a change of policy, one that would offer Cubans relief from the all-consuming ordeal of daily life. Improved material circumstances would allow Cubans to turn their attention to other aspirations.¶ Ending the embargo would also imply respect for the Cuban people, an acknowledgment that they have the vision and vitality to enact needed reforms, and that transition in Cuba, whatever form it may take, is wholly a Cuban affair.¶ A good-faith effort to engage Cuba, moreover, would counter the common perception there that the United States is a threat to its sovereignty. It would deny Cuban leaders the chance to use U.S. policy as pretext to limit public debate and stifle dissent -- all to the good of democracy and human rights. ¶ And it would serve the national interest.

The embargo hurts US soft powerFranks 12- James Franks, VP of franchising and reporter at Reuters,( Cuba says ending U.S. embargo would help both countries, Reuters.com, September 20, 2012, http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/20/us-cuba-usa-embargo-idUSBRE88J15G20120920, Accessed: July 3, 2013, KH)

The embargo, fully in place since 1962, has done $108 billion in damage to the Cuba economy, but also has violated the constitutional rights of Americans and made a market of 11 million people off limits to U.S. companies, Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez told reporters."The blockade is, without doubt, the principal cause of the economic problems of our country and the essential obstacle for (our) development," he said, using Cuba's term for the embargo."The blockade provokes suffering, shortages, difficulties that reach each Cuban family, each Cuban child," Rodriguez said.He spoke at a press conference that Cuba stages each year ahead of what has become an annual vote in the United Nations on a resolution condemning the embargo. The vote is expected to take place next month.Last year, 186 countries voted for the resolution, while only the United States and Israel supported the embargo, Rodriguez said.Lifting the embargo would improve the image of the United States around the world, he said, adding that it would also end what he called a "massive, flagrant and systematic violation of human rights."That violation includes restrictions on U.S. travel to the island that require most Americans to get U.S. government permission to visit and a ban on most U.S. companies doing business in Cuba, he said."The prohibition of travel for Americans is an atrocity from the constitutional point of view," Rodriguez said.Cuba has its own limits on travel that make it difficult for most of its citizens to leave the country for any destination.Rodriguez said the elimination of the embargo would provide a much-needed tonic for the sluggish U.S. economy."In a moment of economic crisis, lifting the blockade would contribute to the United States a totally new market of 11 million people. It would generate employment and end the situation in which American companies cannot compete in Cuba," he said.

Obama, who said early in his presidency that he wanted to recast long-hostile U.S.-Cuba relations, has been a disappointment to the Cuban government, which expected him to do more to dismantle the embargo.He has lifted some restrictions on travel and all on the sending of remittances to the island, but Rodriguez said he has broadened the embargo and its enforcement in other areas.Fines against U.S. and foreign companies and individuals who have violated the embargo have climbed from $89 million in 2011 to $622 million so far this year, he said.U.S.-Cuba relations thawed briefly under Obama, but progress came to a halt when Cuba arrested U.S. contractor Alan Gross in Havana in December 2009.Gross was subsequently sentenced to 15 years in prison for setting up Internet networks in Cuba under a controversial U.S. program that Cuba views as subversive.Rodriguez dodged questions about how U.S. policy toward Cuba might change if Obama is re-elected in November or if Republican candidate Mitt Romney wins the presidency, but said whoever is in office will have a chance to make history."Any American president would have the opportunity to make a historic change," he said. "He would go into history as the man who rectified a policy that has failed."

Embargo does not promote democracy --- decades of failure disprove.Bandow, 2012. Doug Bandow, Senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a former special assistant to former US president Ronald Reagan. (“Time to End the Cuba Embargo,” National Interest, 12/11/2012, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/time-end-cuba-embargo. Accessed: July 4, 2013, KH)

The policy in Cuba obviously has failed. The regime remains in power. Indeed, it has consistently

used the embargo to justify its own mismanagement, blaming poverty on America . Observed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: “It is my personal belief that the Castros do not want to see an end to the embargo and do not want to see normalization with the United States, because they would lose all of their excuses for what hasn’t happened in Cuba in the last 50 years.” Similarly, Cuban exile Carlos

Saladrigas of the Cuba Study Group argued that keeping the “embargo, maintaining this hostility, all

it does is strengthen and embolden the hardliners .”

Cuban human rights activists also generally oppose sanctions . A decade ago I (legally) visited Havana,

where I met Elizardo Sanchez Santa Cruz , who suffered in communist prisons for eight years. He told

me that the “sanctions policy gives the government a good alibi to justify the failure of the

totalitarian model in Cuba.”Indeed, it is only by posing as an opponent of Yanqui Imperialism that Fidel Castro has achieved an international reputation. If he had been ignored by Washington, he never would have been anything other than an obscure authoritarian windbag.Unfortunately, embargo supporters never let reality get in the way of their arguments . In 1994, John Sweeney of the Heritage Foundation declared that “the embargo remains the only effective instrument available to the U.S. government in trying to force the economic and democratic concessions it has been demanding of Castro for over three decades. Maintaining the embargo will help end the Castro regime more quickly.” The latter’s collapse, he wrote, is more likely in the near term than ever before.Almost two decades later, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, chairwoman of the House Foreign Relations

Committee, retains faith in the embargo : “The sanctions on the regime must remain in place and, in

fact, should be strengthened, and not be altered.” One of the best definitions of insanity is continuing

to do the same thing while expecting to achieve different results .

Lifting embargo would empower democratic groupsBandow 12,. Doug Bandow, Senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a former special assistant to former US president Ronald Reagan. (“Time to End the Cuba Embargo,” National Interest, 12/11/2012, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/time-end-cuba-embargo. Accessed July 4, 2013, KH)

Ending the embargo would have obvious economic benefits for both Cubans and Americans . The U.S. International Trade Commission estimates American losses alone from the embargo as much as $1.2 billion annually.Expanding economic opportunities also might increase pressure within Cuba for further economic

reform. So far the regime has taken small steps, but rejected significant change . Moreover, thrusting

more Americans into Cuban society could help undermine the ruling system . Despite Fidel Castro’s decline, Cuban politics remains largely static. A few human rights activists have been released, while Raul Castro has used party purges to entrench loyal elites.Lifting the embargo would be no panacea. Other countries invest in and trade with Cuba to no obvious political impact. And the lack of widespread economic reform makes it easier for the regime rather than the people to collect the benefits of trade, in contrast to China. Still, more U.S. contact would have an

impact. Argued trade specialist Dan Griswold, “American tourists would boost the earnings of Cubans

who rent rooms, drive taxis, sell art, and operate restaurants in their homes. Those dollars would

then find their way to the hundreds of freely priced farmers markets, to carpenters, repairmen,

tutors, food venders, and other entrepreneurs .”The Castro dictatorship ultimately will end up in history’s dustbin. But it will continue to cause much human hardship along the way.The Heritage Foundation’s John Sweeney complained nearly two decades ago that “the United States must not abandon the Cuban people by relaxing or lifting the trade embargo against the communist regime.” But the dead hand of half a century of failed policy is the worst breach of faith with the Cuban people.Lifting sanctions would be a victory not for Fidel Castro, but for the power of free people to spread

liberty. As Griswold argued, “commercial engagement is the best way to encourage more open

societies abroad .” Of course, there are no guarantees. But lifting the embargo would have a greater

likelihood of success than continuing a policy which has failed . Some day the Cuban people will be free. Allowing more contact with Americans likely would make that day come sooner.

Ending the Cuban embargo allows travel and ag trade—key to democracy and economic growthGriswold 09- Daniel Griswold, is the director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C (6/15/09, “The US embargo of Cuba is a failure”, Cato, Accessed 6/27/13, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/us-embargo-cuba-is-failure)

Obama should lift the embargo. Allowing more travel and farm exports to Cuba will be good for democracy and the economy After nearly 50 years, America’s cold war embargo against Cuba appears to be thawing at last. Earlier this spring, the Obama administration relaxed controls on travel and remittances to the communist island by Cuban Americans, and last week it agreed to open the door for Cuba’s re-entry to the Organisation of American States. Admitting Cuba to the OAS may be premature, given the organisation’s charter that requires its members to be democracies that respect human rights, but changes to the US economic embargo are long overdue. The embargo has been a failure by every measure. It has not changed the course or nature of the Cuban government. It has not liberated a single Cuban citizen. In fact, the embargo has made the Cuban people a bit more impoverished, without making them one bit more free. At the same time, it has deprived Americans of their freedom to travel and has cost US farmers and other producers billions of dollars of potential exports. “ Congress and President Barack Obama should act now to lift the embargo to allow more travel and farm exports to Cuba.” As a tool of US foreign policy, the embargo actually enhances the Castro government’s standing by giving it a handy excuse for the failures of the island’s Caribbean-style socialism. Brothers Fidel and Raul can rail for hours about the suffering the embargo inflicts on Cubans, even though the damage done by their communist policies has been far worse. The embargo has failed to give us an ounce of extra leverage over what happens in Havana. In 2000, Congress approved a modest opening of the embargo. The Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act allows cash-only sales to Cuba of US farm products and medical supplies. The results of this modest opening have been quite amazing. Since 2000, total sales of farm products to Cuba have increased from virtually zero to $691m in 2008. The top US exports by value are corn, meat and poultry, wheat and soybeans. From dead last, Cuba is now the number six customer in Latin America for US agricultural products. Last year, American farmers sold more to the 11.5 million people who live in Cuba than to the 200 million people in Brazil. According to the US international trade commission, US farm exports would increase another $250m if restrictions were lifted on export financing. This should not be interpreted as a call for export-import bank subsidies. Trade with Cuba must be entirely commercial and market driven. Lifting the embargo should not mean that US taxpayers must now subsidise exports to Cuba. But neither should the government stand in the way. USITC estimates do not capture the long-term export potential to Cuba from normalised relations. The Bahamas, Dominican Republic, Jamaica and Guatemala spend an average of 2.8% of their GDP to buy farm exports from the US. If Cuba spent the same share of its GDP on US farm exports, exports could more than double the current level, to $1.5bn a year. Advocates of the embargo argue that trading with Cuba will only put dollars into the coffers of the Castro regime. And it’s true that the government in Havana, because it controls the economy, can skim off a large share of the remittances and tourist dollars spent in Cuba. But of course, selling more US products to Cuba would quickly relieve the Castro regime of those same dollars. If more US tourists were permitted to visit Cuba, and at the same time US exports to Cuba were further liberalised, the US economy could reclaim dollars from the Castro regime as fast as the regime could acquire them. In effect, the exchange would be of agricultural products for tourism services, a kind of “bread for beaches”, “food for fun” trade relationship. Meanwhile, the increase in Americans visiting Cuba would dramatically increase contact between Cubans and Americans. The unique US-Cuban relationship that flourished before Castro could be renewed, which would increase US influence and potentially hasten the decline of the communist regime. Congress and President Barack Obama should act now to lift the embargo to allow more travel and farm exports to Cuba. Expanding our freedom to travel to, trade with and invest in Cuba would make Americans better off and would help the Cuban people and speed the day when they can enjoy the freedom they deserve.

Trade helps promote democracy – empirics prove

Lloyd 11 – Delia Lloyd, writer featured in New York Time and Politics Daily (“Ten Reasons to Lift the Cuba Embargo”, “Politics Daily”, Year = 2011 (no date specified), http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/24/ten-reasons-to-lift-the-cuba-embargo/, accessed: 6/28/13, ckr)

1. It's good economics . It's long been recognized that opening up Cuba to American investment would be a huge boon to the tourism industry in both countries. According to the Cuban government, 250,000 Cuban-Americans visited from the United States in 2009, up from roughly 170,000 the year before, suggesting a pent-up demand. Lifting the embargo would also be an enormous boon the U.S. agricultural sector. One 2009 study estimated that doing away with all financing and travel restrictions on U.S. agricultural exports to Cuba would have boosted 2008 dairy sales to that country from $13 million to between $39 million and $87 million , i ncreasing U.S. market share from 6 percent to between 18 and 42 percent.2. It's good politics. Supporters of the trade embargo -- like Cuban-American Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) -- have long argued that easing the restrictions would only reward Castro for the regime's ongoing repression of political dissidents. We need to keep up the economic pressure on Cuba , so this logic goes, in order to keep pressure on the regime to do something about human rights . But there's a long-standing empirical relationship between trade and democracy . The usual logic put forth to explain this relationship is that trade creates an economically independent and politically aware middle class, which, in turn, presses for political reform. It's not clear that this argument actually holds up when subjected to close causal scrutiny (although the reverse does seem to be true -- i.e., democratic reform creates pressure for trade liberalization). Still, it's difficult to disagree with the proposition that by enabling visiting scholars and religious groups to stay in Cuba for up to two years (as the presidential order would allow) rather than a matter of weeks (as is currently the case) we'd be helping, not hurting, democracy in Cuba. First, easing the current travel restrictions would allow for far deeper linkages between non-governmental organizations from both countries, which some see as a powerful mechanism for democratic reform . Second, because American visitors would be staying on the island longer, scholars and activists alike would gain much better insight into where the pressure points for democracy actually exist.

Embargo prevents change to democracy in Cuba

Caribbean News 12 – (“Should the United States maintain its embargo against Cuba?”, Caribbean News Now!, 12/22/12, http://www.caribbeannewsnow.com/headline-Should-the-United-States-maintain-its-embargo-against-Cuba%3F-13864.html, accessed: 6/28/13, ckr)

Opponents of the Cuba embargo argue that it should be lifted because the failed policy is a Cold War relic and has clearly not achieved its goals. They say the sanctions harm the US economy and Cuban citizens, and prevent opportunities to promote change and democracy in Cuba . They say the embargo hurts international opinion of the United States.In addition to in-depth research on the pros and cons of maintaining the Cuba embargo, the new ProCon.org website contains a historical background section, videos, images, over 60 footnotes and sources, and Did You Know? facts including:1. President John F. Kennedy sent his press secretary to buy 1,200 Cuban cigars the night before he signed the embargo in February 1962.2. Estimates place the cost of the Cuban embargo to the US economy between $1.2 and $4.84 billion annually. A 2010 study by Texas A&M University calculated that 6,000 American jobs could be created by lifting the embargo.3. There are an estimated 65,000 to 70,000 political prisoners incarcerated in Cuba as of May 2012, which is among the world's highest on a per capita basis.

4. The United Nations has denounced the US embargo against Cuba for 21 straight years. The vote against the embargo was 188-3 in 2012, with only Israel and Palau supporting the United States.5. The United States began exporting food to Cuba following a devastating hurricane in 2001 and is now the island's second-largest food supplier. Annual food sales to Cuba peaked at $710 million in 2008.

Embargo thwarts democracy – engagement required to solve

Tucker 4/14 – Cynthia Tucker, American columnist and blogger for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, syndicated by Universal Press Syndicate, Pulitzer Prize for commentary (“Cuban Embargo Has Far Outlived Its Usefulness”, The National Memo, April 13th, 2013, http://www.nationalmemo.com/cuban-embargo-has-far-outlived-its-usefulness/?author_name=cynthiatucker, accessed: 7/2/13, ckr)

That just goes to show you that Fidel Castro’s efforts to wall off the island nation from his powerful enemy to the north have failed miserably . He and his brother have perfected the dark arts of the dictatorship — jailing dissidents, stifling protest, controlling internal news media, severely restricting travel abroad — but the lights of the outside world shine brightly through the cracks.Castro’s long-running tyranny has not managed the thoroughgoing isolation of, say, North Korea, where citizens have little realistic knowledge of the rest of the world.Still, Castro has his accomplices here in the U nited S tates — fanatics who would help him wall off Cuba, restrict the access its citizens have to American culture and generally thwart a hoped-for transition from dictatorship to democracy . Bizarrely, those accomplices consider themselves Castro’s biggest enemies. They have dedicated themselves to his demise.Indeed, if you know about the recent trip to Cuba by America’s First Couple of Pop, you probably heard about it through the controversy ginned up by a handful of Florida Republicans: Sen. Marco Rubio and U.S. Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Mario Diaz-Balart. Without waiting to investigate the trip, Ros-Lehtinen and Diaz-Balart, especially, began complaining that it was likely a violation of the antediluvian U.S. embargo.As it turns out, Beyoncé and Jay-Z entered Cuba legally. They went as part of a cultural and educational exchange arranged under the auspices of a group called Academic Arrangements Abroad and approved by the U.S. Treasury Department, according to Reuters. But the Florida pols didn’t want facts; they wanted to embarrass President Obama by implicating two high-profile political supporters in something nefarious.It’s the anti-Castro faction who should be embarrassed. The Cuban embargo is dumb, one of the most antiquated and least sensible federal laws remaining on the books. Enacted in the early 1960s, it is a remnant of a different time — an era of bobby socks, segregation and a serious threat emanating from the Soviet Union.The Cuban embargo makes no more sense today than laws requiring white and “colored” water fountains. It is kept alive by a handful of powerful politicians of Cuban heritage, who cling to their parents’ and grandparents’ bitterness toward Castro. Many members of Cuba’s affluent classes fled the island after Castro’s 1959 revolution, when he began nationalizing private industries and strengthening ties with the Soviets.His long-running dictatorship has been an economic disaster and a catastrophe for civil liberties . But with the Soviets long gone, Castro represents absolutely no threat to the U nited S tates. Further, the most promising avenue for changing Cuba lies in courting it , not cutting it off . When Richard Nixon visited China in 1972, ending a 25-year breach, he did so with a similar notion in mind. China remains a Communist country. It has a totalitarian government ; it restricts human rights ; as a nuclear power with a huge military, it could pose a threat to the U nited S tates and its allies. Yet, no reasonable politician suggests that the U.S. government should restrict travel or commerce with China. For decades , our government has believed the best way to change China is through engagement.

Using that standard, President Bill Clinton sought to weaken the Cuban embargo during his term by encouraging educational and cultural exchanges. Though President George W. Bush stopped them, Obama has revived the trips. While the sensible policy would be to end the embargo, the cultural exchanges are at least a step in the right direction .

Embargo bad – helps Castro and hurts Cuban people

Karon 10 – Tony Karon, senior editor at TIME (“Do We Really Need an Embargo Against Cuba?”, TIME, 4/21/10, http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,48773,00.html, 7/2/13, ckr)

It actually helps keep Castro in powerNever mind the fact that it's failed to dislodge him after 38 years, the embargo is now Castro's catchall excuse for every ill that plagues his decaying socialist society . It helps him paint the U.S. as hostile and an imminent threat in the eyes of the Cuban people , which is how he rationalizes his authoritarian politics . Opening the floodgates of trade will leave Castro with no excuses, and interaction with the U.S. will hasten the collapse of his archaic system.What's good for China is good for CubaChina is a lot more repressive than Cuba , and yet we've normalized trade relations with Beijing on the argument that trade will hasten reform and democratization . We're even lifting sanctions against North Korea despite the fact that their missile program is supposedly a threat to our skies, whereas the Pentagon has long since concluded that Cuba represents no threat to U.S. security . It's nonsensical to argue that trade induces better behavior from communist regimes in China and North Korea, but will do the opposite in Cuba.It mostly hurts the people it's supposed to helpYou can be sure Fidel Castro isn't going to bed hungry and or suffering through a headache because there's no Tylenol to be had. Yet millions of his people are suffering all manner of deprivations that the could be eased by lifting an embargo that's never going to overthrow him anyway. Stopping Cubans from benefiting from trade with the U.S. and interaction with American tourists leaves Castro unscathed, but it deprives the Cuban people of a taste of freedom that could only undermine a repressive regime.

Embargo helps Castro Regime – US politicians too scared to oppose

Stern 12 – Scott Stern, Branford College at Yale (“Lift the Cuba embargo”, Yale Daily News, 2/10/12, http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2012/02/10/stern-lift-the-cuba-embargo/, accessed: 7/3/13, ckr)

The embargo has stunted the Cuban economy and limited Cubans’ access to good food , modern technology and useful medicine . It has also hurt the U nited States’ relationships with other countries — the European Parliament actually passed a law making it illegal for Europeans to comply with certain parts of the embargo. The purpose of the embargo was undeniably to make life so difficult for Cubans that they would see the error of their ways and expel Castro and communism. The United States government has maintained — for 50 years — that it will not do business with Cuba until it learns to respect human rights and liberty.There is a pretty serious problem with this plan: It hasn’t worked. Beyond the fact that Castro is still in power and Cuba is still not a democracy, the embargo has not truly succeeded in sewing resentment into the hearts and minds of the Cuban people . The embargo allows Castro to make the U nited S tates and the embargo the scapegoats for all of Cuba’s ills . It also forces Cuba to rely on countries like the former USSR, China and Venezuela for trade . The appalling hypocrisy of the embargo is that the United States

nearly always maintained diplomatic and economic relationships with countries like Russia, China and Vietnam even during the heart of the Cold War.Numerous influential people have come out against the Cuban embargo, including Pope John Paul II, Jesse Jackson and George Schultz. They all claim that the embargo hurts the Cuban people, not the Cuban government. Democratic politicians Gary Hart, George McGovern and Jimmy Carter have also expressed this view. It is interesting to note, however, that Hart and McGovern only became vocal enemies of the embargo long after their presidential runs. Politicians are scared openly to oppose the embargo . The Cuban-American population is an exceptionally powerful and vocal voting bloc, and many Cuban-Americans support the embargo out of sheer hatred of Castro. These Cuban exiles — whose votes are so important, particularly in Florida — have pushed nearly every major politician away from normalizing relations with Cuba. As Hart wrote on his blog last year — years after leaving politics, of course — the embargo is “a straight-jacket whereby first-generation Cuban-Americans wielded inordinate political power over both parties and constructed a veto over rational, mature diplomacy.”It would be highly inaccurate, however, to foist the blame for the embargo’s persistence upon the Cuban-American population. American politicians across the political spectrum are to blame for their intransigence and their unwillingness to challenge the status quo. The embargo is not a major political issue, so politicians are just too apathetic to engage with it.

Embargo promotes poverty in Cuba – gives Castro more power

Henderson 08 – David Henderson, research fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution and is also associate professor of economics at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California (“End the Cuban Embargo”, AntiWar, 2/21/08, http://antiwar.com/henderson/?articleid=12395, accessed: 7/4/13, ckr)

Which brings us to the second argument for the embargo, which seems to go as follows.By squeezing the Cuban economy enough, the U.S. government can make Cubans even poorer than Fidel Castro has managed to over the past 48 years, through his imposition of Stalin-style socialism. Ultimately, the theory goes, some desperate Cubans will rise up and overthrow Castro.There are at least three problems with this "make the victims hurt more" strategy. First, it's profoundly immoral. It could succeed only by making average Cubans – already living in grinding poverty – even poorer. Most of them are completely innocent and, indeed, many of them already want to get rid of Castro. And consider the irony: A defining feature of socialism is the prohibition of voluntary exchange between people. Pro-embargo Americans typically want to get rid of socialism in Cuba . Yet their solution – prohibiting trade with Americans – is the very essence of socialism .The second problem is more practical: It hasn't worked. To be effective, an embargo must prevent people in the target country from getting goods, or at least substantially increase the cost of getting goods. But competition is a hardy weed that shrugs off governmental attempts to suppress it. Companies in many countries, especially Canada, produce and sell goods that are close substitutes for the U.S. goods that can't be sold to Cuba. Wander around Cuba, and you're likely to see beach umbrellas advertising Labatt's beer, McCain's (no relation) French fries, and President's Choice cola. Moreover, even U.S. goods for which there are no close substitutes are often sold to buyers in other countries, who then resell to Cuba. A layer of otherwise unnecessary middlemen is added, pushing up prices somewhat, but the price increase is probably small for most goods.Some observers have argued that the very fact that the embargo does little harm means that it should be kept because it's a cheap way for U.S. politicians to express moral outrage against Castro. But arguing for a policy on the grounds that it's ineffective should make people question the policy's wisdom.Third, the policy is politically effective, but not in the way the embargo's proponents would wish. The embargo surely makes Cubans somewhat more anti-American than they would be otherwise , and it makes them somewhat more in favor of – or at least less against – Castro . C astro has never talked honestly about

the embarg o: he has always called it a blockade, which it manifestly is not. But he has gotten political mileage by blaming the embargo, rather than socialism, for Cuba's awful economic plight and reminds his subjects ceaselessly that the U.S. government is the instigator . Some Cubans probably believe him.

Ending Cuban embargo boosts human rights and develops democracy

Johnson 08 - Roger Johnson, North Dakota Agriculture Commissioner (“Cuba: Snuff Out the Embargo”, Bloomberg BusinessWeek, 2008 (no specific date), http://www.businessweek.com/debateroom/archives/2008/06/cuba_snuff_out_the_embargo.html, accessed: 7/4/13, ckr)

American policy toward Cuba is an abject failure. Nine U.S. Presidents have come and gone (and a 10th is about to depart); Fidel Castro has just resigned, yet his closest supporters remain in power.The real victims of this misguided policy are the two generations of Cubans who have grown up under the U.S. embargo that has deprived them of access to U.S. consumer products. More important, it has isolated them from the ideals of democracy and freedom, the very things we most want for them.In the meantime, other nations, including most of our closest allies, are openly trading with and sending tourists to Cuba. There is a substantial market there, especially for our agricultural products, and we are missing out on much of it. Embargoes are almost meaningless when the rest of the world ignores them.Since 2002, North Dakota has exported nearly $40 million in agricultural commodities—mostly pulse crops (peas, chickpeas, lentils, etc.)—to Cuba, despite the competitive disadvantage imposed on us by our own government restrictions. Lifting those restrictions would mean greater trade opportunities.Cuba’s government is much like those of China and Vietnam, Communist nations that enjoy trade, tourism, and even the friendship of the U.S. Yet we treat Cuba, a tiny nation with virtually no political, economic, or military power, as a pariah.The U.S. should end the trade and business embargo with Cuba and move quickly to allow tourism between our two countries. Most important, we should restore full diplomatic relations with Havana. Only then will we have the leverage to press the new Cuban leadership to restore human rights, establish a free market-based economy, and move to democracy.Until we do these things, however, we will watch as others enjoy the benefits of trade with Cuba and play an active role in the development of the island. The U.N. General Assembly has voted repeatedly for an end to the embargo against Cuba, most recently by a margin of 183 to 4. It is time to admit we are wrong; it is time to change our policy—for ourselves and for the people of Cuba.

Embargo blocks US from preventing socialism in Cuba

Heuvel 7/2 – Katrina vanden Heuven, editor, publisher, and part-owner of the magazine The Nation (“The US Should End the Cuban Embargo”, The Nation, 7/2/13, http://www.thenation.com/blog/175067/us-should-end-cuban-embargo#axzz2Y7Hs619u, 7/4/13, ckr)

Is there a greater example of utter folly than America’s superannuated policy toward Cuba? During more than 50 years corrupted by covert actions, economic sabotage, travel bans and unending embargo, the United States managed to make Castro and Cuba an international symbol of proud independence. Intent on isolating Cuba, Washington has succeeded only in isolating itself in its own hemisphere. Intent on displacing Fidel Castro, the US enmity only added to his nationalist credentials.A recent visit reveals a Cuba that is already beginning a new, post-Castro era. That only highlights the inanity of the continuing U.S. embargo, a cruel relic of a Cold War era that is long gone.

Cuba is beginning a new experiment, driven by necessity, of trying to build its own version of market socialism in one country. Just as populist movements in the hemisphere looked to Castro and Cuba for inspiration, now Cuba is learning from its allies as it cautiously seeks to open up its economy.

Ending the “genocidal” policy opens up freedom and democracy

AP 12 – (“50 Years After Kennedy’s Ban, Embargo on Cuba Remains”, The New York Times, 2/7/12, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/world/americas/american-embargo-on-cuba-has-50th-anniversary.html?_r=0, accessed: 7/4/13, ckr)

HAVANA (AP) — The world is much changed since the early days of 1962, but one thing has remained constant: The United States’ economic embargo on Cuba, a near-total trade ban that turned 50 on Tuesday.Supporters say it is a justified measure against a repressive Communist government that has never stopped being a thorn in Washington’s side. Critics call it a failed policy that has hurt ordinary Cubans instead of the government.All acknowledge that it has not accomplished its core mission of toppling Fidel Castro or his brother and successor, Raúl.“All this time has gone by, and yet we keep it in place,” said Wayne Smith, who was a young American diplomat in Havana in 1961 when relations were severed and who returned as the chief American diplomat after they were partially re-established under President Jimmy Carter. “We talk to the Russians, we talk to the Chinese, we have normal relations even with Vietnam,” Mr. Smith said. “We trade with all of them. So why not with Cuba?”In the White House, the first sign of the looming total embargo came when President John F. Kennedy told his press secretary to buy him as many H. Upmann Cuban cigars as he could find. The aide came back with 1,200.Although trade restrictions had been imposed by his predecessor, President Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mr. Kennedy announced the total embargo on Feb. 3, 1962, citing “the subversive offensive of Sino-Soviet Communism with which the government of Cuba is publicly aligned.”It went into effect four days later at the height of the cold war, a year removed from the failed C.I.A.-backed Bay of Pigs invasion meant to oust Communism from Cuba and eight months before the Soviet attempts to put nuclear missiles on the island brought the two superpowers to the brink of war.Little was planned to observe Tuesday’s anniversary, but Cuban-American members of Congress issued a joint statement vowing to keep the heat on Cuba.Supporters of the policy acknowledge that many American strategic concerns from the 1960s are now in the past, such as curbing Soviet influence and keeping Fidel Castro from exporting revolution throughout Latin America. But they say that other justifications remain, such as the confiscation of United States property in Cuba and the need to press for greater freedoms on the island.“We have a hemispheric commitment to freedom and democracy and respect for human rights,” said José Cárdenas, a former National Security Council staff member on Cuba under President George W. Bush. “I still think that those are worthy aspirations.”With just 90 miles of sea between Florida and Cuba, the United States would be a natural No. 1 trade partner and source of tourism.The embargo is a constant talking point for island authorities, who blame it for shortages of everything from medical equipment to the concrete needed for highway construction. Cuba frequently fulminates against the “blockade” at the United Nations and demands the United States end its “genocidal” policy. Every fall, a vast majority of nations back a resolution condemning the embargo.

Embargo allows Castro to steal Cuban property

Salazar 3/25 – William De Salazar, writer at Suite (U.S. Embargo Against Cuba, Suite, 3/25/12, http://suite101.com/article/us-embargo-against-cuba-a23463, accessed: 7/4/13, ckr)

Recently there have been many requests by American farmers and businessman to lift the embargo against Cuba. Due to harder economic times in the U.S. especially farmers; one can sympathize with them to have an increase business market to sell their crops, and products also. However, most Americans are not aware that Castro put himself in power through military force not democracy.Castro confiscated all properties on the island. He made it illegal for anyone but the government to own property. In this manner in 1959, he stole all the properties and businesses owned by both Cubans and businessmen from all over the world, the majority being Americans. Castro took over all private assets which then became Cuban government assets. Many U.S. companies with offices in buildings built with U.S. money, manufacturing plants, and many other types of business places throughout the island were forced to leave the country. Castro confiscated all the infrastructure left behind. In essence, Castro stole all Cuban properties as well as U.S. businesses with whatever these companies built as well as whatever machinery they used to operate those businesses. In 1995, those confiscated assets were estimated by the Foreign Settlement Commission in the U.S. Department of Justice to be worth approximately six billion dollars.

Embargo fails – lifting it solves free rights

Seattle Times 09 – (“End the U.S. Embargo of Cuba”, The Seattle Times, 12/22/09, http://seattletimes.com/html/editorials/2010571248_edit23cuba.html, accessed: 7/4/13, ckr)

SEN. Maria Cantwell calls our attention to a law, signed by President Obama, allowing Cuba to buy U.S. farm produce and pay after the goods are shipped. The law reverses a Treasury ruling during the Bush years that Cuba had to pay in advance — a ruling that stopped the trade altogether.This page favors the new law, which will allow a few of our state's farmers to make a little bit of money. But we would go much further. We would end altogether the embargo, which was imposed under President Kennedy almost a half-century ago.We would allow Cuba to buy U.S. foodstuffs, and most other products, under normal commercial rules. We would allow Americans to visit Cuba without threatening them with fines under the Trading With the Enemy Act. We would repeal the Helms-Burton Act and allow Americans to invest in Cuba, and we would allow some Cuban investment here. We would allow the importation of Cuban sugar and other lawful products.We suggest this not because we support the system in Cuba, but because we support the rights of Americans to make their own decisions about it. For almost half a century, the United States has restricted the rights of Americans in order to bring down Castro and communism. The policy has done neither. It doesn't seem to have done any good at all. Certainly it has harmed ordinary people in Cuba.Fifty years is enough. Sens. Cantwell and Patty Murray, who support trade and travel with Cuba, can afford to be much bolder on this issue. Only one state loves the embargo, and it is time Florida was outvoted.

Cuba is reforming its socialist ways—new reforms proveSweig and Bustamante 13- Julia E. Sweig, Nelson and David Rockefeller Senior Fellow for Latin America Studies and Director for Latin America Studies; Michael Bustamante, PhD candidate specializing in Latin American and Caribbean History at Yale, dissertation about the cultural politics of

Cuban collective and historical memory, on and off the island, in the wake of the 1959 Revolution, served as Research Associate for Latin America Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. (“Cuba After Communism”, Council on Foreign Relations, http://www.cfr.org/cuba/cuba-after-communism/p30991, July/August 2013, accessed: 7/3/13, ML)

Three years ago, Castro caused a media firestorm by quipping to an American journalist that "the Cuban model doesn't even work for us anymore." Tacitly embracing this assessment, Fidel's brother Raúl Castro, the current president, is leading a gradual but, for Cuba, ultimately radical overhaul of the relationship between the state, the individual, and society, all without cutting the socialist umbilical cord. So far, this unsettled state of affairs lacks complete definition or a convincing label. "Actualization of the Cuban social and economic model," the Communist Party's preferred euphemism, oversells the degree of ideological cohesion while smoothing over the implications for society and politics. For now, the emerging Cuba might best be characterized as a public-private hybrid in which multiple forms of production, property ownership, and investment, in addition to a slimmer welfare state and greater personal freedom, will coexist with military-run state companies in strategic sectors of the economy and continued one-party rule.A new migration law, taking effect this year, provides a telling example of Cuba's ongoing reforms. Until recently, the Cuban government required its citizens to request official permission before traveling abroad, and doctors, scientists, athletes, and other professionals faced additional obstacles. The state still regulates the exit and entry of professional athletes and security officials and reserves the right to deny anyone a passport for reasons of national security. But the new migration law eliminates the need for "white cards," as the expensive and unpopular exit permits were known; gives those who left the country illegally, such as defectors and rafters, permission to visit or possibly repatriate; and expands from 11 months to two years the period of time Cubans can legally reside abroad without the risk of losing their bank accounts, homes, and businesses on the island.This new moment in Cuba has arrived not with a bang but rather on the heels of a series of cumulative measures -- most prominent among them agricultural reform, the formalization of a progressive tax code, and the government's highly publicized efforts to begin shrinking the size of state payrolls by allowing for a greater number of small businesses. The beginnings of private credit, real estate, and wholesale markets promise to further Cuba's evolution. Still, Cuba does not appear poised to adopt the Chinese or Vietnamese blueprint for market liberalization anytime soon. Cuba's unique demographic, geographic, and economic realities -- particularly the island's aging population of 11 million, its proximity to the United States, and its combination of advanced human capital and dilapidated physical infrastructure -- set Cuba apart from other countries that have moved away from communism. It is perhaps unsurprising, then, that Cuba's ongoing changes do not resemble the rapid transition scenario envisioned in the 1996 Helms-Burton legislation, which conditioned the removal of the U.S. embargo on multiparty elections and the restitution of private property that was nationalized in the 1960s. In this respect, Washington remains more frozen in time than Havana.

Lifting the embargo undermines the government – creation of middle classKinzer 6/1/13 – Stephen Kinzer, Stephen Kinzer is a United States author and newspaper reporter. He is a veteran New York Times correspondent who has reported from more than fifty countries on five continents. During the 1980s he covered revolution and social upheaval in Central America. In 1990, he was promoted to bureau chief of the Berlin bureau and covered the growth of Eastern and Central Europe as they emerged from Soviet rule. He was also New York Times bureau chief in Istanbul (Turkey) from 1996 to 2000. He currently teaches journalism and United States foreign policy at Boston University. Kinzer has written several non-fiction books about Turkey, Central America, Iran, the US overthrow of foreign governments from the late 19th century to the present and, most recently, about Rwanda's recovery from genocide. (“A specter is haunting Cuba,” Alaska Dispatch, 6/1/13, http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20130601/specter-haunting-cuba, accessed: 6/28/13, amf)

Legalizing larger-scale private business in Cuba would have profound political consequences. It would lead to the emergence of a middle class, and eventually a wealthy class. Such classes always seek to transform their economic power into political power . Cuban leaders are acutely aware that an open economy could be the greatest long-term threat to their revolutionary order.This makes the US trade embargo on Cuba even more self-defeating than it has been for the last half-century. It is among the most bizarre American foreign policies. No other country in the world has cut itself off from Cuba. Lifting the embargo would hasten the kind of change most Americans — and most Cubans — would like to see in Cuba. Paralyzed by fear of the Cuban vote in Florida, however, generations of American politicians have refused to take this eminently logical step.

Embargo props up the regimeBandow 12/11/12 – Doug Bandow, Doug Bandow is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute. A former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is the author of several books, including Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire. (“Time to End the Cuban Embargo,” The National Interest, 12/11/12, http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/the-pointless-cuba-embargo-7834?page=1, accessed: 7/3/13, amf)

Three years ago, President Barack Obama loosened regulations on Cuban Americans, as well as telecommunications between the United States and Cuba. However, the law sharply constrains the president's discretion. Moreover, UN Ambassador Susan Rice said that the embargo will continue until Cuba is free.It is far past time to end the embargo.During the Cold War, Cuba offered a potential advanced military outpost for the Soviet Union. Indeed, that role led to the Cuban missile crisis. With the failure of the U.S.-supported Bay of Pigs invasion, economic pressure appeared to be Washington’s best strategy for ousting the Castro dictatorship.However, the end of the Cold War left Cuba strategically irrelevant. It is a poor country with little ability to harm the United States. The Castro regime might still encourage unrest, but its survival has no measurable impact on any important U.S. interest.The regime remains a humanitarian travesty, of course. Nor are Cubans the only victims: three years ago the regime jailed a State Department contractor for distributing satellite telephone equipment in Cuba. But Havana is not the only regime to violate human rights. Moreover, experience has long demonstrated that it is virtually impossible for outsiders to force democracy. Washington often has used sanctions and the Office of Foreign Assets Control currently is enforcing around 20 such programs, mostly to little effect.The policy in Cuba obviously has failed. The regime remains in power. Indeed, it has consistently used the embargo to justify its own mismanagement, blaming poverty on America . Observed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: “It is my personal belief that the Castros do not want to see an end to the embargo and do not want to see normalization with the United States, because they would lose all of their excuses for what hasn't happened in Cuba in the last 50 years.” Similarly, Cuban exile Carlos Saladrigas of the Cuba Study Group argued that keeping the “embargo, maintaining this hostility, all it does is strengthen and embolden the hardliners.”Cuban human rights activists also generally oppose sanctions . A decade ago I (legally) visited Havana, where I met Elizardo Sanchez Santa Cruz, who suffered in communist prisons for eight years. He told me that the "sanctions policy gives the government a good alibi to justify the failure of the totalitarian model in Cuba."Indeed, it is only by posing as an opponent of Yanqui Imperialism that Fidel Castro has achieved an international reputation. If he had been ignored by Washington, he never would have been anything other than an obscure authoritarian windbag.

Lifting the embargo spurs mutual economic growth, which undermines the Castro regime

Bandow 12 - Bandow, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, specializing in foreign policy and civil liberties. He worked as special assistant to President Reagan and editor of the political magazine Inquiry. He writes regularly for leading publications such as Fortune magazine, National Interest, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Times. Bandow speaks frequently at academic conferences, on college campuses, and to business groups. Bandow has been a regular commentator on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox News Channel, and MSNBC. He holds a J.D. from Stanford University. (“Time to End the Cuba Embargo”, The National Interest, December 11, 2012, http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/the-pointless-cuba-embargo-7834?page=1, accessed: 6/27/13, LR)

Ending the embargo would have obvious economic benefits for both Cubans and Americans. The U.S. International Trade Commission estimates American losses alone from the embargo as much as $1.2 billion annually.Expanding economic opportunities also might increase pressure within Cuba for further economic reform. So far the regime has taken small steps, but rejected significant change. Moreover, thrusting more Americans into Cuban society could help undermine the ruling system. Despite Fidel Castro’s decline, Cuban politics remains largely static. A few human rights activists have been released, while Raul Castro has used party purges to entrench loyal elites.Lifting the embargo would be no panacea. Other countries invest in and trade with Cuba to no obvious political impact. And the lack of widespread economic reform makes it easier for the regime rather than the people to collect the benefits of trade, in contrast to China. Still, more U.S. contact would have an impact. Argued trade specialist Dan Griswold, “American tourists would boost the earnings of Cubans who rent rooms, drive taxis, sell art, and operate restaurants in their homes. Those dollars would then find their way to the hundreds of freely priced farmers markets, to carpenters, repairmen, tutors, food venders, and other entrepreneurs.”

Lifting the embargo facilitates the spread of democracy by empowering the Cuban people

Bandow 12 – Doug Bandow, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, specializing in foreign policy and civil liberties. He worked as special assistant to President Reagan and editor of the political magazine Inquiry. He writes regularly for leading publications such as Fortune magazine, National Interest, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Times. Bandow speaks frequently at academic conferences, on college campuses, and to business groups. Bandow has been a regular commentator on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox News Channel, and MSNBC. He holds a J.D. from Stanford University. (“Time to End the Cuba Embargo”, The National Interest, December 11, 2012, http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/the-pointless-cuba-embargo-7834?page=1, accessed: 6/27/13, LR)

The Castro dictatorship ultimately will end up in history’s dustbin. But it will continue to cause much human hardship along the way.The Heritage Foundation’s John Sweeney complained nearly two decades ago that “the United States must not abandon the Cuban people by relaxing or lifting the trade embargo against the communist regime.” But the dead hand of half a century of failed policy is the worst breach of faith with the Cuban people.Lifting sanctions would be a victory not for Fidel Castro, but for the power of free people to spread liberty. As Griswold argued, “commercial engagement is the best way to encourage more open societies abroad.” Of course, there are no guarantees. But lifting the embargo would have a greater likelihood of

success than continuing a policy which has failed. Some day the Cuban people will be free. Allowing more contact with Americans likely would make that day come sooner.

Embargo fails – helps the regime Sujanani 12 – Ramesh Sujanani, contributor to The Gleaner, Bachelor of Science; Diploma management studies, Diploma Diamond Grading, UWI Mona (“Lifting The Cuban Embargo”, The Gleaner, Nov. 24, 2012, http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20121124/cleisure/cleisure6.html, accessed: 6/27/13, LR)

Sometime ago, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton publicly shared the view that the United States' embargo against Cuba helps the Castros, noting, "It is my personal belief that the Castros do not want to see an end to the embargo, and do not want to see normalisation with the United States."Clinton said in the same interview that "we're open to changing with them," though the US government maintains its strong position against lifting the embargo.The fact is that Cuban-Americans, most of whom reside in Miami, had their property and other assets confiscated by Fidel Castro, worth almost US$6 billion. Should the embargo be lifted, these persons will require compensation for personal assets seized. Who will make good that claim by the Cuban migrants? Many are protesting Castro's reasons for becoming the dictator, and are not satisfied Castro will honour his obligations. These Cuban-Americans have supported Obama's Florida campaign, and it seems that as long as it takes to recover their assets, they will continue to support him.

The embargo represents a failed strategy that the Cuban government uses to their advantageChapman 4/15 – Steve Chapman, columnist and editorial writer for the Chicago Tribune. His twice-a-week column on national and international affairs, distributed by Creators Syndicate, appears in some 50 papers across the country. (“It’s Time To End The U.S. Embargo of Cuba”, Reason.com, April 15, 2013, http://reason.com/archives/2013/04/15/its-time-to-end-the-us-embargo-of-cuba, accessed: 6/27/13, LR)

The boycott adheres to the stubborn logic of governmental action. It was created to solve a problem: the existence of a communist government 90 miles off our shores. It failed to solve that problem. But its failure is taken as proof of its everlasting necessity.If there is any lesson to be drawn from this dismal experience, though, it's that the economic quarantine has been either 1) grossly ineffectual or 2) positively helpful to the regime.The first would not be surprising, if only because economic sanctions almost never work. Iraq under Saddam Hussein? Nope. Iran? Still waiting. North Korea? Don't make me laugh.What makes this embargo even less promising is that we have so little help in trying to apply the squeeze. Nearly 200 countries allow trade with Cuba. Tourists from Canada and Europe flock there in search of beaches, nightlife and Havana cigars, bringing hard currency with them. So even if starving the country into submission could work, Cuba hasn't starved and won't anytime soon.Nor is it implausible to suspect that the boycott has been the best thing that ever happened to the Castro brothers, providing them a scapegoat for the nation's many economic ills. The implacable hostility of the

Yankee imperialists also serves to align Cuban nationalism with Cuban communism. Even Cubans who don't like Castro may not relish being told what to do by the superpower next door.

Embargo theory no longer applies – we’ve adjusted our stance on other countries with a history of bad relationsChapman 4/15 – Steve Chapman, columnist and editorial writer for the Chicago Tribune. His twice-a-week column on national and international affairs, distributed by Creators Syndicate, appears in some 50 papers across the country. (“It’s Time To End The U.S. Embargo of Cuba”, Reason.com, April 15, 2013, http://reason.com/archives/2013/04/15/its-time-to-end-the-us-embargo-of-cuba, accessed: 6/27/13, LR)

When it comes to sending money to a "cruel, repressive, murderous regime," Rubio's outrage is strangely selective. The same accusation could be laid against anyone who travels to China, Vietnam or Burma -- all of which are open to American visitors, as far as Washington is concerned.Our willingness to trade with them stems from the belief that economic improvement and contact with outsiders will foster liberalization rather than retard it. But the opposite approach is supposed to produce this kind of progress in Cuba.Do trade and tourism work to weaken repression? The evidence is mixed. But our attempted economic strangulation of Cuba has been an emphatic bust. We keep trying it, and the communist government remains in full control, making a mockery of our strategy.The U.S. government has been tireless in pursuing a policy that does not look better with time. It could benefit from the advice of W.C. Fields, who said, "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then give up. No use being a damned fool about it."

Embargo counterproductive – other countries engage, deprives American workers, gives the regime a scapegoat, and facilitates dangerous Cuban politicsHaass 9 – Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, this country’s preeminent independent, nonpartisan institution devoted to thinking about America’s role in the world. Haass was director of policy planning for the Department of State, where he was a principal advisor to Secretary of State Colin Powell from 2001 to 2003, as well as special assistant to President George H.W. Bush and senior director on the staff of the National Security Council from 1989 to 1993 (“Forget About Fidel”, The Daily Beast, March 6, 2009, http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/03/06/forget-about-fidel.html, accessed: 6/28/13, LR)

The American policy of isolating Cuba has failed. Officials boast that Havana now hosts more diplomatic missions than any other country in the region save Brazil. Nor is the economic embargo working. Or worse: it is working, but for countries like Canada, South Korea and dozens of others that are only too happy to help supply Cuba with food, generators and building materials. Those in Congress who complain about the "offshoring" of American jobs ought to consider that the embargo deprives thousands of American workers of employment.The policy of trying to isolate Cuba also works—perversely enough—to bolster the Cuban regime. The U.S. embargo provides Cuba's leaders a convenient excuse—the country's economic travails are due to

U.S. sanctions, they can claim, not their own failed policies. The lack of American visitors and investment also helps the government maintain political control.There is one more reason to doubt the wisdom of continuing to isolate Cuba. However slowly, the country is changing. The question is whether the United States will be in a position to influence the direction and pace of this change. We do not want to see a Cuba that fails, in which the existing regime gives way to a repressive regime of a different stripe or to disorder marked by drugs, criminality, terror or a humanitarian crisis that prompts hundreds of thousands of Cubans to flee their country for the United States. Rather, Washington should work to shape the behavior and policy of Cuba's leadership so that the country becomes more open politically and economically.

Lifting sanctions key to Cuban economy and democracy – empirically proven Amash 12 – Brandon Amash, contributing writer to the Prospect Journal of International Affairs at UCSD (“Evaluating the Cuban Embargo”, Prospect Journal of international Affairs, July 23, 2012, http://prospectjournal.org/2012/07/23/evaluating-the-cuban-embargo/, accessed: 6/28/13, LR)

§ 4.3: Lifting economic sanctions will improve economic growth in Cuba, which correlates to democratization. Empirical evidence shows that a strong economy is correlated to democracy. According to the Modernization Theory of democratization, this correlation is a causal link: economic growth directly leads to democratization. Lifting the current economic sanctions on Cuba and working together to improve economic situations in the state will allow their economy to grow, increasing the likelihood of democracy in the state, and thus promoting greater freedom of expression, opinion and dissent.§ 4.4: A policy of engagement will be a long-term solution to promoting democracy and improving human rights in Cuba. This proposal, unique in that it is simply one of abandoning an antiquated policy and normalizing relations to be like those with any other country, does not present any large obstacles to implementation, either in the short run or the long run. The main challenge is in continuing to support such a policy and maintaining the normal diplomatic, economic and social relations with a country that has been isolated for such a long period of time. Although effects of such a policy may be difficult to determine in the short term, promoting democracy and improving human rights in Cuba are long-term solutions. As discussed above, engagement with the Cuban government and society, along with support from the international community, will provide the spark and guidance for the Cuban people to support and promote democracy, and thus give greater attention to human rights violations.

Plan promotes good politics and boosts democracyLloyd 10 – Delia Lloyd, American writer based in London. Her work has appeared in The International Herald Tribune, The Financial Times and The Guardian Weekly. She is a regular contributor to www.PoliticsDaily.com, a subset of the Huffington Post. (“Ten Reasons to Lift the Cuba Embargo”, Politics Daily, Huffington Post, August 24, 2010, http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/24/ten-reasons-to-lift-the-cuba-embargo/, accessed: 7/3/13, LR)

2. It's good politics. Supporters of the trade embargo -- like Cuban-American Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) -- have long argued that easing the restrictions would only reward Castro for the regime's ongoing repression of political dissidents. We need to keep up the economic pressure on Cuba, so this logic goes, in order to keep pressure on the regime to do something about human rights. But there's a long-standing empirical relationship between trade and democracy. The usual logic put forth to explain this relationship

is that trade creates an economically independent and politically aware middle class, which, in turn, presses for political reform. It's not clear that this argument actually holds up when subjected to close causal scrutiny (although the reverse does seem to be true -- i.e., democratic reform creates pressure for trade liberalization). Still, it's difficult to disagree with the proposition that by enabling visiting scholars and religious groups to stay in Cuba for up to two years (as the presidential order would allow) rather than a matter of weeks (as is currently the case) we'd be helping, not hurting, democracy in Cuba. First, easing the current travel restrictions would allow for far deeper linkages between non-governmental organizations from both countries, which some see as a powerful mechanism for democratic reform. Second, because American visitors would be staying on the island longer, scholars and activists alike would gain much better insight into where the pressure points for democracy actually exist.

The embargo fails – outdated and counter-productiveLloyd 10 – Delia Lloyd, American writer based in London. Her work has appeared in The International Herald Tribune, The Financial Times and The Guardian Weekly. She is a regular contributor to www.PoliticsDaily.com, a subset of the Huffington Post. (“Ten Reasons to Lift the Cuba Embargo”, Politics Daily, Huffington Post, August 24, 2010, http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/24/ten-reasons-to-lift-the-cuba-embargo/, accessed: 7/3/13, LR)

5. It doesn't work. Of course, if the embargo were the last outpost of Cold War politics and it produced results, that might be an argument for continuing it. But scholars and analysts of economic sanctions have repeatedly questioned the efficacy of economic statecraft against rogue states unless and until there's been regime change. And that's because, as one scholar put it, "interfering with the market (whether using sanctions, aid, or other government policies) has real economic costs, and we rarely know enough about how the target economy works or how to manipulate the political incentives of the target government to achieve our goals."6. It's counter-productive. Isolating Cuba has been more than ineffective. It's also provided the Castro brothers with a convenient political scapegoat for the country's ongoing economic problems, rather than drawing attention to their own mismanagement. Moreover, in banning the shipment of information-technology products, the United States has effectively assisted the Cuban government in shutting out information from the outside world, yet another potential catalyst for democratization.

Embargo prevents true democratization – our evidence assumes insufficient status quo reforms Cuba Study Group 2/20 – Cuba Study Group, a non-partisan, not-for-profit organization, that aims to facilitate change, help empower individuals and promote civil society development. (“Restoring Executive Authority Over U.S. Policy Toward Cuba”, Cuba Study Group, February 20, 2013, http://www.cubastudygroup.org/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=45d8f827-174c-4d43-aa2f-ef7794831032, accessed: 7/3/13, LR)

The codification of the U.S. embargo against Cuba has failed to accomplish its objectives, as stated in Helms-Burton, of causing regime change and restoring democracy in Cuba. Continuing to ignore this obvious truth is not only coun- terproductive to the interests of the United States, but also increasingly

damaging to Cuban civil society, including the more than 400,000 Cubans now working as licensed private entrepreneurs, because it places the burden of sanc- tions squarely on their shoulders to bear.At a time when Cuba seems headed toward a path of change and reforms, albeit slower than desired, and a real debate seems to be emerging within Cuba’s elite regarding its future, the inflexibility of U.S. policy has the ironic effect of hurt- ing and delaying the very changes it seeks to produce by severely limiting Cuba’s ability to implement major economic reforms and strengthening the hand of the reactionaries, rather than the reformers, within the Cuban government.Moreover, Helms-Burton and related statutory provisions in Torricelli and TSRA deny the United States the flexibility to address dynamic conditions in Cuba in a strategic and proactive way. They effectively tie the President’s hands in responding to developments on the Island, placing the impetus for taking advantage of the processes of change in Cuba in hands of hard-liners among Cuba’s ruling elites, whose interests are best served by the perpetuation of the embargo.The Cuba Study Group is publishing this whitepaper to acknowledge that a Cuba policy fundamentally based on blan- ket unilateral sanctions and isolation has been grossly ineffective for more than half a century; it disproportionately hurts the Cuban people and is counterproductive to the creation of an enabling transitional environment in Cuba where civil society can prosper and bring about the desired social, political and economic changes for which we long.

Embargo fails – Castro uses it as a scapegoat for Cuba’s problems, continuing economic repressionBandow 12 – Doug Bandow, senior fellow at Cato Institute, J.D. from Stanford University (“Time to end the Cuba embargo”, Cato Institute, 12/11/12, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/time-end-cuba-embargo, Accessed 6/27/13)

The U.S. government has waged economic war against the Castro regime for half a century. The policy may have been worth a try during the Cold War, but the embargo has failed to liberate the Cuban people. It is time to end sanctions against Havana.Decades ago the Castro brothers lead a revolt against a nasty authoritarian, Fulgencio Batista. After coming to power in 1959, they created a police state, targeted U.S. commerce, nationalized American assets, and allied with the Soviet Union. Although Cuba was but a small island nation, the Cold War magnified its perceived importance.Washington reduced Cuban sugar import quotas in July 1960. Subsequently U.S. exports were limited, diplomatic ties were severed, travel was restricted, Cuban imports were banned, Havana’s American assets were frozen, and almost all travel to Cuba was banned. Washington also pressed its allies to impose sanctions.These various measures had no evident effect, other than to intensify Cuba’s reliance on the Soviet Union. Yet the collapse of the latter nation had no impact on U.S. policy. In 1992, Congress banned American subsidiaries from doing business in Cuba and in 1996, it penalized foreign firms that trafficked in expropriated U.S. property. Executives from such companies even were banned from traveling to America.On occasion Washington relaxed one aspect or another of the embargo, but in general continued to tighten restrictions, even over Cuban Americans. Enforcement is not easy, but Uncle Sam tries his best. For instance, according to the Government Accountability Office, Customs and Border Protection increased its secondary inspection of passengers arriving from Cuba to reflect an increased risk of embargo violations after the 2004 rule changes, which, among other things, eliminated the allowance for travelers to import a small amount of Cuban products for personal consumption.“Lifting sanctions would be a victory not for Fidel Castro, but for the power of free people to spread liberty.”Three years ago, President Barack Obama loosened regulations on Cuban Americans, as well as telecommunications between the United States and Cuba. However, the law sharply constrains the

president’s discretion. Moreover, UN Ambassador Susan Rice said that the embargo will continue until Cuba is free.It is far past time to end the embargo.During the Cold War, Cuba offered a potential advanced military outpost for the Soviet Union. Indeed, that role led to the Cuban missile crisis. With the failure of the U.S.-supported Bay of Pigs invasion, economic pressure appeared to be Washington’s best strategy for ousting the Castro dictatorship.However, the end of the Cold War left Cuba strategically irrelevant. It is a poor country with little ability to harm the United States. The Castro regime might still encourage unrest, but its survival has no measurable impact on any important U.S. interest.The regime remains a humanitarian travesty, of course. Nor are Cubans the only victims: three years ago the regime jailed a State Department contractor for distributing satellite telephone equipment in Cuba. But Havana is not the only regime to violate human rights. Moreover, experience has long demonstrated that it is virtually impossible for outsiders to force democracy. Washington often has used sanctions and the Office of Foreign Assets Control currently is enforcing around 20 such programs, mostly to little effect.The policy in Cuba obviously has failed. The regime remains in power. Indeed, it has consistently used the embargo to justify its own mismanagement, blaming poverty on America. Observed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: “It is my personal belief that the Castros do not want to see an end to the embargo and do not want to see normalization with the United States, because they would lose all of their excuses for what hasn’t happened in Cuba in the last 50 years.” Similarly, Cuban exile Carlos Saladrigas of the Cuba Study Group argued that keeping the “embargo, maintaining this hostility, all it does is strengthen and embolden the hardliners.”Cuban human rights activists also generally oppose sanctions. A decade ago I (legally) visited Havana, where I met Elizardo Sanchez Santa Cruz, who suffered in communist prisons for eight years. He told me that the “sanctions policy gives the government a good alibi to justify the failure of the totalitarian model in Cuba.”Indeed, it is only by posing as an opponent of Yanqui Imperialism that Fidel Castro has achieved an international reputation. If he had been ignored by Washington, he never would have been anything other than an obscure authoritarian windbag.Unfortunately, embargo supporters never let reality get in the way of their arguments. In 1994, John Sweeney of the Heritage Foundation declared that “the embargo remains the only effective instrument available to the U.S. government in trying to force the economic and democratic concessions it has been demanding of Castro for over three decades. Maintaining the embargo will help end the Castro regime more quickly.” The latter’s collapse, he wrote, is more likely in the near term than ever before.Almost two decades later, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, chairwoman of the House Foreign Relations Committee, retains faith in the embargo: “The sanctions on the regime must remain in place and, in fact, should be strengthened, and not be altered.” One of the best definitions of insanity is continuing to do the same thing while expecting to achieve different results.The embargo survives largely because of Florida’s political importance. Every presidential candidate wants to win the Sunshine State’s electoral votes, and the Cuban American community is a significant voting bloc.But the political environment is changing. A younger, more liberal generation of Cuban Americans with no memory of life in Cuba is coming to the fore. Said Wayne Smith, a diplomat who served in Havana: “for the first time in years, maybe there is some chance for a change in policy.” And there are now many more new young Cuban Americans who support a more sensible approach to Cuba.Support for the Republican Party also is falling. According to some exit polls Barack Obama narrowly carried the Cuban American community in November, after receiving little more than a third of the vote four years ago. He received 60 percent of the votes of Cuban Americans born in the United States.Barack Obama increased his votes among Cuban Americans after liberalizing contacts with the island. He also would have won the presidency without Florida, demonstrating that the state may not be essential politically.

Today even the GOP is no longer reliable. For instance, though Republican vice-presidential nominee Paul Ryan has defended the embargo in recent years, that appears to reflect ambition rather than conviction. Over the years he voted at least three times to lift the embargo, explaining: “The embargo doesnt work. It is a failed policy. It was probably justified when the Soviet Union existed and posed a threat through Cuba. I think its become more of a crutch for Castro to use to repress his people. All the problems he has, he blames the American embargo.”There is essentially no international support for continuing the embargo. For instance, the European Union plans to explore improving relations with Havana. Spain’s Deputy Foreign Minister Gonzalo de Benito explained that the EU saw a positive evolution in Cuba. The hope, then, is to move forward in the relationship between the European Union and Cuba.The administration should move now, before congressmen are focused on the next election. President Obama should propose legislation to drop (or at least significantly loosen) the embargo. He also could use his authority to relax sanctions by, for instance, granting more licenses to visit the island.Ending the embargo would have obvious economic benefits for both Cubans and Americans. The U.S. International Trade Commission estimates American losses alone from the embargo as much as $1.2 billion annually.Expanding economic opportunities also might increase pressure within Cuba for further economic reform. So far the regime has taken small steps, but rejected significant change. Moreover, thrusting more Americans into Cuban society could help undermine the ruling system. Despite Fidel Castro’s decline, Cuban politics remains largely static. A few human rights activists have been released, while Raul Castro has used party purges to entrench loyal elites.Lifting the embargo would be no panacea. Other countries invest in and trade with Cuba to no obvious political impact. And the lack of widespread economic reform makes it easier for the regime rather than the people to collect the benefits of trade, in contrast to China. Still, more U.S. contact would have an impact. Argued trade specialist Dan Griswold, “American tourists would boost the earnings of Cubans who rent rooms, drive taxis, sell art, and operate restaurants in their homes. Those dollars would then find their way to the hundreds of freely priced farmers markets, to carpenters, repairmen, tutors, food venders, and other entrepreneurs.”The Castro dictatorship ultimately will end up in history’s dustbin. But it will continue to cause much human hardship along the way.The Heritage Foundation’s John Sweeney complained nearly two decades ago that “the United States must not abandon the Cuban people by relaxing or lifting the trade embargo against the communist regime.” But the dead hand of half a century of failed policy is the worst breach of faith with the Cuban people.Lifting sanctions would be a victory not for Fidel Castro, but for the power of free people to spread liberty. As Griswold argued, “commercial engagement is the best way to encourage more open societies abroad.” Of course, there are no guarantees. But lifting the embargo would have a greater likelihood of success than continuing a policy which has failed. Some day the Cuban people will be free. Allowing more contact with Americans likely would make that day come sooner.

Lifting restrictions on Cuba creates a free, political atmosphere that supports the flow of information and goods

Pascual et. al. 09 – Carlos Pascual, director of foreign policy at Brookings Institution (Gustavo Arnavat Attorney at law Ann Louise Bardach Author/Journalist University of California Santa Barbara dr. ramon Colás Co-Director Center for the Understanding of Cubans of African Descent dr. Jorge i. domínguez Vice-provost for international Affairs Antonio Madero professor of Mexican and latin American politics and Economics Harvard University daniel erikson Senior Associate for U.S. policy Director of Caribbean programs inter-American Dialogue dr. Mark falcoff resident Scholar Emeritus American Enterprise institute dr. damián J. fernández provost and Executive Vice president purchase College dr. Andy s. Gomez

Nonresident Senior Fellow, The Brookings institution Assistant provost, University of Miami Senior Fellow, institute for Cuban and Cuban American Studies Jesús Gracia Former Spanish Ambassador to Cuba paul hare Former British Ambassador to Cuba francisco J. (pepe) hernández president Cuban American National Foundation dr. William LeoGrande Dean, School of public Affairs American University dr. Marifeli pérez-stable Vice president for Democratic Governance inter-American Dialogue Jorge r. piñón Energy Fellow Center for Hemispheric policy University of Miami dr. Archibald ritter Distinguished research professor Emeritus Department of Economics and Norman paterson School of international Affairs Carleton University Andrés rozental Nonresident Senior Fellow, The Brookings institution Former Deputy Foreign Minister of Mexico Carlos saladrigas Co-Chairman Cuba Study Group, “Cuba: A New Policy of Critical and Constructive Engagement” Brookings, April 2009, Accessed 6/26/13, http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2009/4/cuba/0413_cuba.pdf)

The more open travel and remittance measures ¶ put in place by the Clinton administration in 1998 ¶ and continued by the Bush administration until ¶ 2003 contributed to creating the conditions that ¶ brought about a more open political atmosphere. ¶ During the period now known as the “Cuban ¶ Spring,” Oswaldo payá, leader of the Varela project, worked with Cuba’s human rights activists ¶ to collect 11,000 signatures on a petition that requested a referendum on the Cuban constitution. ¶ Former president Jimmy Carter gave a speech at ¶ the University of Havana in Spanish in which he ¶ asked Fidel Castro—who was sitting in the front ¶ row—to permit the vote; the speech was broadcast live throughout the island. Martha Beatriz ¶ roque, an important dissident leader, held a national assembly to advocate reforms to the Cuban ¶

government. religious groups, with help from ¶ their American counterparts, provided equipment, food, and medicines to sister organizations ¶ that bolstered outreach to their communities. ¶ Students from colleges throughout the United ¶ States studying in Cuba were engaged in a lively ¶ discussion with students, academics, and people ¶ across the island.¶ The presence of licensed American and Cuban American visitors provided moral support, ¶ advice, and assistance to diverse civil society ¶ institutions, allowing them to expand and more ¶ effectively assist their membership. And, interventions by U.S. government and private sector ¶ personalities with high-level Cuban officials resulted in reducing repression against dissidents, ¶ human rights activists, independent journalists, ¶ and librarians . This more fluid and open atmosphere was essential to the growth of civil society and to the freedoms and creation of spaces ¶ in which human rights activists and dissidents ¶ could operate.¶ president Obama should replicate these conditions through unilateral and unconditional actions that promote enhanced human contact by ¶

generously licensing all categories of travel permitted in the TSrA. He should, first, follow his ¶ campaign promise to grant[ing] Cuban Americans ¶ unrestricted rights to family travel and to send ¶ remittances to the island, since Cuban American ¶ connections to family are our best tool for helping ¶ f to foster the beginnings of grass-roots democracy ¶ on the island . Further, the president should expand travel for all American citizens and permanent residents by instructing the Office of Foreign ¶ Assets Control (OFAC) to license people-to-people travel for educational, cultural, and humanitarian purposes. ¶ Cuban citizens should also be permitted to travel to the United States for a variety of purposes ¶ —including family, academic and cultural visits—in order to enhance their understanding of ¶ our open and democratic society. The Secretary ¶ of State should instruct the Department of State ¶ and the United States interests Section (USiNT) ¶ in Havana to use standard criteria applied around ¶ the world for awarding non-immigrant visas ¶ to Cubans. This more tolerant approach would ¶ strengthen the bonds of family and culture, while ¶ helping the Cuban people improve their lives ¶ and grow the social organizations necessary for a ¶ democratic civil society . ¶ Diplomatic travel and interaction must be reciprocally expanded so that our diplomats in Havana ¶ have the knowledge, access, and expertise needed ¶ to predict, evaluate, and deal with any eventuality in Cuba. This requires permitting comparable ¶ opportunities to Cuban diplomats posted in ¶ Washington. There is little the United States has to ¶ fear by allowing Cuban diplomats to see for themselves the realities of American life. To reduce ¶ illegal migration, enhance our security, and conserve our fisheries, the State Department should ¶ resume migration talks at the Deputy Assistant ¶ Secretary level and begin a dialogue between the ¶ respective heads of the interests Sections on other ¶ issues of mutual concern, including the environment, health, and counter-narcotics. ¶ The devastation caused by hurricanes that struck ¶ Cuba in 2008 generated considerable concern ¶ among

Cubans in the United States and among ¶ the broader American public. Unfortunately, disagreements and distrust between our governments prevented the United States from assisting ¶ with relief efforts. in order to avoid a recurrence of ¶ this impasse, the Department of State should seek ¶ an understanding or agreement with the Cuban ¶ government that would permit U.S. assistance to ¶ Cuba for natural disasters .¶

Measures are now in place to ensure that public ¶ resources that provide support to the Cuban people are well used by USAiD grantees. However, ¶ large contracts concluded in the final months of ¶ the Bush administration with non-profit organizations and private companies that are said to ¶ promote or manage a transition in Cuba may not ¶ reflect the current administration’s objectives. A ¶ review should be conducted to determine whether these contracts should be continued, modified, ¶ or canceled.¶ Additionally, although OFAC has always had the ¶ authority to license the importation of lifesaving medicines developed in Cuba for testing by ¶ the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), it ¶ has made the process cumbersome and lengthy. ¶ The sad conclusion is that OFAC has been more ¶ concerned with the financial benefits that might ¶ accrue to Cuba than with the potential of these ¶ medicines to treat children with brain tumors and ¶

adults with lung cancer or meningitis. To reduce ¶ bureaucratic hurdles and permit the speedy entry ¶ of life-saving medications into the United States, ¶ OFAC regulations should be modified or reinterpreted so that the only barrier to the entry of ¶ Cuban manufactured medicines is that they meet ¶ FDA standards —the same criteria that apply to all ¶ medical imports.¶ The president should also seek to promote the ¶ free flow of ideas and information, including the ¶ creation of music, films, and other works of art ¶ as embodied in representative Howard Berman’s ¶ 1988 Free Trade in ideas Act. Despite the prohibition against the U.S. government restricting the ¶ importation of all informational materials, successive administrations have narrowly interpreted the Berman Act in order to prohibit Americans from creating music, films, and other artistic ¶ works with Cubans. These prohibitions were not ¶ intended by the statutes and should be removed.¶ The aforementioned initiatives are non-controversial and widely supported by the American public. ¶ More controversial—although still enjoying widespread public support—would be licensing the sale ¶ and donation of all communications equipment, ¶ including radios, televisions, and computers. The ¶ CDA recognized the importance of expanding ¶ access to ideas, knowledge, and information by ¶ authorizing the licensing of telecommunications ¶ goods and services. U.S. government financing of ¶ books and radios that are distributed to Cubans ¶ throughout the island demonstrates a belief that ¶ breaking down the barriers to the flow of information is critical to promoting change in Cuba. The ¶ president should therefore instruct the Department ¶ of Commerce and OFAC to internally change their ¶ respective licensing policies with regard to Cuba ¶ from a “presumption of denial” to a “presumption ¶ of approval” with respect to items deemed to be ¶ in the U.S. national interest for Cuba to receive, ¶ including laptops, cell phones and other telecommunications equipment, computer peripherals, ¶

internet connection equipment, as well as access ¶ to satellite and broadband communications networks. ¶

The following initiatives that would provide assistance for civil society and for activities that ¶ help the Cuban people become agents for change ¶ would require, in some cases, a formal understanding with the Cuban government, and, in ¶ others, at least a willingness to permit the activity. ¶ We believe that if these activities were permitted ¶ by the United States and the Cuban governments, ¶ they would help to prepare the Cuban people for ¶ assuming a greater role in their governance. ¶ The U.S. government should act to enhance the ¶ flow of resources to the Cuban people. it should ¶ license U.S. non-governmental organizations and ¶ private individuals to transfer funds to individuals ¶ and civil society organizations in Cuba that work ¶ to foster a more open society. The United States ¶ should also encourage the creation of multilateral ¶ funds that promote the same objective. Such assistance should not be subject to an ideological ¶ test but rather be available to Cuban civic entities ¶ in the form of microcredit for small businesses ¶ and for salaries of persons engaged by civil society ¶ to provide community services, among others.¶ Although the U.S. government currently manages ¶ an assistance program for Cuba, it is limited by ¶ sanctions regulations and is narrowly focused. ¶ Much of the assistance—amounting principally ¶ to in-kind goods—is difficult to deliver due to the ¶ opposition of the Cuban government either to the ¶ type of assistance or to the groups or individuals ¶ receiving it. in order to better serve the needs of ¶ civil society in Cuba, the U.S. government should ¶ seek to obtain the approval of the Cuban government for an

assistance program that would provide financial and in-kind assistance for activities ¶ that advance human rights and the rule of law, ¶ encourage microenterprise, and promote educational, and professional exchanges. ¶ The issue of whether Cuba should be classified by ¶ the U.S. government as a terrorist state has many ¶ supporters and detractors. However, the reasons ¶ listed for Cuba’s inclusion on the list appear to be ¶ insufficient, thus leading to charges that the list is ¶ a political tool for appeasing domestic constituencies. in order to ensure that this important vehicle ¶ in U.S. policy is used appropriately, a review of the ¶ evidence should be conducted. if Cuba is legitimately found to be a terrorist state based on the ¶ evidence over the last five years, it should remain ¶ on the list; if not, it should be removed.¶ Finally, it is in our interest to see Cuba reintegrated ¶ into the Organization of American States (OAS) if ¶ it meets membership standards of democracy, human rights, and transparency. To this end, and in ¶ order to provide incentives for reform, the United ¶ Sates should not object to the OAS Secretary General discussing with Cuba the requirements for ¶ reinstatement as a full member . in addition, the ¶ United States should not object to Cuba’s participation in OAS specialized and technical agencies. ¶ Medium-Term Initiatives¶ The second basket of initiatives is distinct from the ¶ first because it moves beyond enhancing the ability ¶ of Cubans to take a more proactive and informed ¶ part in their society and government. The initiatives in the second basket seek to build a foundation for reconciliation by beginning a process of ¶

resolving long-standing differences. A number ¶ of these initiatives could serve as incentives or rewards for improved human rights, the release ¶ of political prisoners, and greater freedom of assembly, speech and rights for opposition groups ¶ and labor unions. initiatives that fall within this ¶ category include allowing Cuba access to normal commercial instruments for the purchase of ¶ goods from the United States. ¶ None of the initiatives, however, should be publicly ¶ or privately tied to specific Cuban actions. As the ¶ Cuban government is on record as rejecting any ¶ type of carrot-and-stick tactic, it would be counterproductive to do so. rather, the United States ¶ should decide the actions that it wishes to take ¶ and when to carry them out. Doing so will give ¶ the president maximum flexibility in determining ¶ how and when to engage.

Embargo causes democratization – China provesHarding and Rojas-Ruiz 12 – Andrew Harding and Jorge Rojas-Ruiz, research associates on the Council on Hemispheric Affairs (“An Economic Analysis of the Cuban Embargo”, Council on the Hemispheric Affairs, 8/24/12, Proquest, Accessed 7/3/13, AM)

Washington's decision to continue the embargo against Cuba is, at best, hypocritical. China, another nominally communist country with even more backward human rights policies than Cuba, has reaped the benefits of free trade with the U.S. since in 2001. The 2011 report from conservative think tank Freedom House gave low scores in political rights and in civil liberties to both Cuba and China, listing the two countries among the most repressive in the world.Yet China has had the opportunity to trade with the United States and has used it to foster economic development within its borders. As a result of significant increases in agricultural output, the percentage of the population living below the poverty line declined from 63 percent in 1981 to 10 percent in 2004, bringing five-hundred million people above the poverty line within 23 years. While China's protection of civil and political liberties remains far from desirable, according to the National Center for Policy Analysis, through the development of a legal system in China that encourages property rights, " trade is anchoring the process of democratization ". The correlation between trade and the development of durable legal institutions provides an example that Cuban and U.S. officials should consider.ReflectionsClearly, Cuba has plenty of potential for economic development and trade, but nothing will be realized unless United States repeals the embargo. Recent moves by Cuba's Raul Castro indicate that the government is willing and able to sit down with the U.S. and discuss differences in order to achieve consensus. In recent remarks, Castro emphasized that the discourse must be "a conversation between

equals," and that "any day they [the United States] want, the table is set," signaling an important step towards more conciliatory interactions. The U.S. should act upon Senator Richard Lugar' s February 2009 report from the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations and implement his recommended policy changes by "seizing the initiative... [which] would relinquish a conditional posture that has made any policy changes contingent on Havana, not Washington."ConclusionsThe world has fundamentally changed since Castro's coup in 1959. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the weak arguments behind the embargo became completely illogical, as the so-called communist threat no longer exists. Additionally, Cuba's revolutionary leaders are dead or dying and the country has made steps towards reform. Even America's staunchest allies have realized the folly of the sanction and have disregarded the policy. Moreover, the United Nations has passed repeated resolutions against the embargo. In 201 1, for the 20th consecutive year, the UN General Assembly reiterated its call for an end to the U.S. embargo on Cuba that has restricted economic, commercial and financial flow for over fifty years.All told, there exists no solid political or economic logic for Washington to continue the embargo. The United States risks being left behind as the world moves on and does business with a nation only 90 miles from its soil. It is worth re-examining the basic motivations of the American people and the interests that lie closest to their hearts. Calvin Coolidge, the 30th US president, summed up these motivations best when he stated, "After all, the chief business of the American people is business. They are profoundly concerned with producing, buying, selling, investing and prospering in the world." The US would be wise to follow his advice.

Embargo ineffective at promoting democracyAmash 12- Brandon Amash, writer at the Prospect Journal, (“EVALUATING THE CUBAN EMBARGO,” 7/23/12, http://prospectjournal.org/2012/07/23/evaluating-the-cuban-embargo/, 6/28/13, CAS)§ 3.1: The American embargo is not sufficient to democratize Cuba and improve human rights. Without the help and support of multilateral institutions, economic sanctions on Cuba have been ineffective. As other states trade and interact freely with Cuba, the lack of partnership with America is only a minor hindrance to Cuba’s economy. Moreover, the sanctions are detrimental to the United States economy, as Cuba could potentially be a geostrategic economic partner. More importantly, since economic sanctions are not directly related to the goal of improved human rights, the effect of these sanctions is also unrelated; continued economic sanctions against Cuba create no incentive for the Cuban government to promote better human rights, especially when the sanctions do not have international support. Empirically, it is clear that since its inception, the policy has not succeeded in promoting democratization or improving human rights. Something more must be done in order to improve the situation.

Embargo strengthens Castro and stops democracyAmash 12- Brandon Amash, writer at the Prospect Journal, (“EVALUATING THE CUBAN EMBARGO,” 7/23/12, http://prospectjournal.org/2012/07/23/evaluating-the-cuban-embargo/, 6/28/13, CAS)§ 3.2: American sanctions during the Cold War strengthened Castro’s ideological position and created opportunities for involvement by the Soviet Union, thereby decreasing the likelihood of democratization and improvement in human rights. Cuba’s revolution could not have come at a worse time for America. The emergence of a communist state in the western hemisphere allowed the Soviet Union to extend its influence, and the United States’ rejection of Cuba only widened the window of opportunity for Soviet involvement. The embargo also became a scapegoat for the Castro administration, which laid blame for

poor human rights conditions on the embargo policy itself (Fontaine 18 – 22). Furthermore, as Ratliff and Fontaine suggest, isolating Cuba as an enemy of democracy during the Cold War essentially made the goals of democratization in the country unachievable (Fontaine 30). While the embargo may have been strategic during the Cold War as a bulwark against communism, the long-term effects of the policy have essentially precluded the possibility for democracy in Cuba. Even after the end of the Cold War, communism persists in Cuba and human rights violations are systemic; America’s policy has not achieved its goals and has become a relic of the Cold War era. The prospects for democracy and improvement in human rights seem as bleak as ever.

Lifting the embargo promote liberalization in CubaMcElvaine 11- Robert McElvaine, professor of history at Millsaps college, (“Lift the U.S. trade embargo on Cuba,” 9/8/11, http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/08/opinion/la-oe-mcelvaine-cuba-20110908, 7/4/13, CAS)Make no mistake: Cuba is not a free country. Conditions have improved, though, and we have been able to walk about on our own and talk with anyone we meet. Many Cubans take a justified pride in the accomplishments of their country since the revolution, particularly in healthcare and education.But it is obvious that there is substantial discontent with the status quo under the Castro brothers. Over the last decade, a two-class system has developed in which those who can work in the tourist industry make much more than other Cubans do. Many professionals who, in order to earn a decent living, are obliged to work as bellmen, waiters, bartenders, elevator operators and the like are seething with anger. So, clearly, is a difficult-to-gauge percentage of the much larger number of Cubans who have no opportunity to get those jobs.Cubans we meet on the streets are very curious about the United States. Ending the embargo would also mean U.S. citizens could travel to Cuba without restrictions. The more Americans who come here, the greater the desire of the Cuban people for more freedom will become. Fidel Castro is 85 and ailing; Raul is 80. An influx of Americans is almost certain to strengthen the forces for liberalization in Cuba.

Embargo hurts Cubans and helps CastrosGriswold 09- Daniel Griswold, director of the Cato center for trade policies, (“Obama Should Lift Embargo on Cuba Immediately,” 6/16/09, http://www.opposingviews.com/i/obama-should-lift-embargo-on-cuba-immediately, 7/4/13, CAS)The embargo has been a failure by every measure. It has not changed the course or nature of the Cuban government. It has not liberated a single Cuban citizen. In fact, the embargo has made the Cuban people a bit more impoverished, without making them one bit more free. At the same time, it has deprived Americans of their freedom to travel and has cost US farmers and other producers billions of dollars of potential exports.As a tool of US foreign policy, the embargo actually enhances the Castro government's standing by giving it a handy excuse for the failures of the island's Caribbean-style socialism. Brothers Fidel and Raul can rail for hours about the suffering the embargo inflicts on Cubans, even though the damage done by their communist policies has been far worse. The embargo has failed to give us an ounce of extra leverage over what happens in Havana.In 2000, Congress approved a modest opening of the embargo. The Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act allows cash-only sales to Cuba of US farm products and medical supplies. The results

of this modest opening have been quite amazing. Since 2000, total sales of farm products to Cuba have increased from virtually zero to $691m in 2008. The top US exports by value are corn, meat and poultry, wheat and soybeans. From dead last, Cuba is now the number six customer in Latin America for US agricultural products. Last year, American farmers sold more to the 11.5 million people who live in Cuba than to the 200 million people in Brazil.According to the US international trade commission, US farm exports would increase another $250m if restrictions were lifted on export financing. This should not be interpreted as a call for export-import bank subsidies. Trade with Cuba must be entirely commercial and market driven. Lifting the embargo should not mean that US taxpayers must now subsidise exports to Cuba. But neither should the government stand in the way.USITC estimates do not capture the long-term export potential to Cuba from normalised relations. The Bahamas, Dominican Republic, Jamaica and Guatemala spend an average of 2.8% of their GDP to buy farm exports from the US. If Cuba spent the same share of its GDP on US farm exports, exports could more than double the current level, to $1.5bn a year.Advocates of the embargo argue that trading with Cuba will only put dollars into the coffers of the Castro regime. And it's true that the government in Havana, because it controls the economy, can skim off a large share of the remittances and tourist dollars spent in Cuba. But of course, selling more US products to Cuba would quickly relieve the Castro regime of those same dollars.If more US tourists were permitted to visit Cuba, and at the same time US exports to Cuba were further liberalised, the US economy could reclaim dollars from the Castro regime as fast as the regime could acquire them. In effect, the exchange would be of agricultural products for tourism services, a kind of "bread for beaches", "food for fun" trade relationship.Meanwhile, the increase in Americans visiting Cuba would dramatically increase contact between Cubans and Americans. The unique US-Cuban relationship that flourished before Castro could be renewed, which would increase US influence and potentially hasten the decline of the communist regime.Congress and President Barack Obama should act now to lift the embargo to allow more travel and farm exports to Cuba. Expanding our freedom to travel to, trade with and invest in Cuba would make Americans better off and would help the Cuban people and speed the day when they can enjoy the freedom they deserve.

Embargo helps Castro and hurts economyWalther 12- Nick Walther, graduate of Emerson college, (“The Cuba Embargo Is Hurting Men,” 12/7/12, http://goodmenproject.com/politics-2/the-cuba-embargo-is-hurting-men/, 7/4/13, CAS)The continuation of the embargo was meant to weaken Fidel Castro’s communist regime and make the lives of Cubans so unbearable that the government would have no choice but to respond to the pressure of the United States and the Cuban people to liberalize their economy and democratize their politics. The embargo has failed miserably to achieve this objective.In fact, the embargo has likely strengthened the Castro regime, by providing an easy scapegoat for state propaganda to blame all of Cuba’s ills on. The embargo has served to validate Castro’s portrayal of the United States as the neocolonial hegemony of the region: determined to subjugate the people of Cuba and Latin America and reincarnate the tyranny of Batista, the pre-revolutionary tyrant backed by the United States because of his friendly relations with American business. Cubans don’t blame their own government for the stranglehold placed on them by the most powerful country in the world.The embargo has also served to aimlessly punish the Cuban people, even complicating, with its archaic rules, the availability of medical supplies in the country. Although American medical exports are permitted, the red tape—designed to thwart a nonexistent military threat—has proven insurmountable for

the hospitals, clinics, and offices where they are most needed. This undermines America’s reputation as a humanitarian nation.The only thing that the embargo has done successfully is cost the American economy $1.2 billion every year in lost sales and exports. With the economy still struggling, it is unacceptable for American companies to lose the chance to create jobs and expand business with a country ninety miles from Florida. What’s more, with men having lost a disproportionate number of the jobs in the present recession, ending the embargo would encourage trade, helping shore up the manufacturing and shipping sectors, traditionally male jobs that have suffered severe cutbacks. Every year since 1992,The United Nations General Assembly has condemned the embargo as illegal, with the only two nations regularly voting against such a condemnation being America and Israel. Doesn’t this annual denunciation complicate our country’s reputation as one run by the rule of law?

Lifting the embargo rushes changesCave 12- Damien Cave, foreign correspondent for the New York Times, (“Cuban embargo: Should U.S. loosen it?” 11/22/12, http://www.denverpost.com/entertainment/ci_22042074/cuban-embargo-should-u-s-loosen-it, 7/4/13, CAS)Still, in a country where Cubans "resolve" their way around government restrictions every day (private deals with customs agents are common), many Cubans anticipate real benefits should the U.S. change course. Lopez, a meticulous mechanic who wears plastic gloves to avoid dirtying his fingers, said legalizing imports and investment would create a flood of the supplies that businesses needed, overwhelming the government's controls while lowering prices and creating more work apart from the state.Other Cubans, including political dissidents, say softening the embargo would increase the pressure for more rapid change by undermining one of the government's main excuses for failing to provide freedom, economic opportunity or just basic supplies.

Embargo will not solve democracy – empirics Johnson, Spector and Lilac 10 - Andy Johnson, Director, National Security Program, Kyle Spector, Policy Advisor, National Security Program , Kristina Lilac, National Security Program, Senior Fellows of The Third Way Institute, (“End the Embargo of Cuba”, Article for The Third Way Institute, 9/16/10, http://content.thirdway.org/publications/326/Third_Way_Memo_-_End_the_Embargo_of_Cuba.pdf, Accessed 7/02/13, AW)Peter Hakim, President of the Inter¶ -¶ American Dialogue, has rightly argued that a¶ “democratic society in Cuba should be the objective of U.S. engagement, not a¶ precondition.”¶ 11¶ Vietnam and China both fall under the rule of communi¶ st leadership,¶ yet the US has taken steps to establish formal

diplomatic relations and open trade with¶ both countries. Cuba should not continue to be the exception . Others have argued¶ that US¶ -¶ Cuba cooperation on issues such as counter¶ -¶ narcotics efforts cou¶ ld benefit¶ both countries and initiate trust¶ -¶ building among the two countries.¶ Policymakers on both sides of the aisle can agree that the embargo has failed to¶ meet its stated purpose of bringing change to Cuba’s communist government, making¶ a change in c¶ ourse a necessary next step. Lifting the antiquated embargo would help¶ to move Cuba into the 21¶ st¶ century, removing the barriers currently preventing the US¶ from engaging Cuba and presenting the

US with an opportunity to bring about¶ change in Cub a through¶ economic and diplomatic channels.¶

By opening Cuba, the US¶ could finally achieve the change it has been seeking for nearly fifty years.

Solves democracy – trade makes countries more democratic – studies proveZimmerman 10 – CHELSEA A. ZIMMERMAN, Fellow of the Center for The Study of the Presidency and Congress, Member of The Juvenile Rights Project and the Legal Aid Society, Barnard College, (“Rethinking The Cuban Trade Embargo: An Opportune Time To Mend a Broken Policy”, The Presidency – 2010 Fellows, NO DATE (Paper was written in 2010), http://www.thepresidency.org/storage/documents/Fellows2010/Zimmerman.pdf, Accessed 6/27/13, AW)A policy environment open to¶ international trade and investment is a necessary i¶ ngredient to sustain higher rates¶ of economic growth and to promote political freedom¶ through exposure to new¶ technology, communications, and democratic ideas (G¶ riswold, 1; Sachs and¶ Warner). Allowing Cuba to more freely import U.S.¶ food is a means of lowering¶ domestic prices and increasing incomes of the poor,¶ food availability and domestic¶ production . U.S. companies will introduce new tech¶ nologies and production¶ methods, while raising wages and labor standards as¶ a result of trading with Cuba.¶ The additional creation of wealth will help to adva¶ nce social, political, and¶ economic conditions independent of the governing au¶ thorities in Cuba. The most economically open countries today are more than thr¶ ee times as likely to enjoy full¶ political and civil freedoms as those that are rela¶ tively closed (Griswold, 1).