Datasets:

dgonier

/

Yusuf-OpenCaselist-finetuning

like 0

Disad outweighs and turns case-

<h4>Disad outweighs and turns case- </h4>

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: None fulltext: None [/INST] <h4>Disad outweighs and turns case- </h4> </s>

Engagement with regime in Cuba doesn’t boost relations, should side with the democratic aspirations of the people

] /Wyo-MB another school of thought encourages engagement and more diplomacy than accountability left-leaning think tanks in Washington steer an opposite course to cooperation with the Castro regime. Tossed overboard are demands for human rights, freedom and dignity for Cubans. The objective is to convince ordinary Americans that Cuba is already on a course to better days. We’re to believe that major economic change is underway, and that small portions of “democratic space,” as the Obama administration fondly refers to it, are being carved out. The eventual goal is to bring down the trade embargo Yet, as the Bush administration knew, and the Obama administration seems to forget, authentic change in Cuba requires far more than institutional tinkering and piecemeal economic reform or the creation of manufactured “democratic space.” It means taking these five fundamental steps toward authentic political reform The first step to real solidarity with the Cuban people is to correct an erroneous impression that the hired guns and apologists for the Castro regime who ride in first class cabins speak for all Cubans. Time for truth in advertising! They represent the Castro regime. They speak for the power elite in Havana. those interested in the future of U.S.-Cuba relations need to remember that the authentic voices of change are far more likely to be found below decks in Cuba’s permanent steerage class. Here you find the people barred from traveling. Here are the ones with limited access to the outside world. Here are the ones constantly harassed and threatened, left in jail and treated as enemies of the state.¶ It’s a difficult course to steer, but it’s the only one that will effect change. Solidarity with Cuba’s people begins below decks, not in luxury cabins with ocean views.

[Ray, PHD and Senior Policy Analyst specializing in Latin America at The Heritage Foundation, How To Achieve Real Political Reform in Cuba, 5-18-12, http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2012/05/how-to-achieve-real-political-reform-in-cuba] /Wyo-MB But there’s another school of thought on how best to mark this day — one that encourages “engagement” and leans more on diplomacy than accountability.¶ Today, thanks to the Obama administration, as well as left-leaning think tanks in Washington and New York, an effort is underway to steer an opposite course — one that moves, incredibly enough, closer to cooperation with the Castro regime. Tossed overboard are demands for human rights, freedom and dignity for Cubans. In their place: the siren song of tourism partnerships and exchanges of academics and musicians.¶ A fresh wave of Cubans is disembarking on and around May 20 to participate in Cuba’s latest charm offensive. The capstone visit for this round features Mariela Castro Espín, daughter of Raul Castro and an activist for gay and lesbian rights, at the Latin American Studies Association in San Francisco. She will be received with acclaim as a voice of progressive tolerance on issues of individual sexual preference.¶ The objective of these latest Cuban visitors — salaried employees and privileged members of the regime — is to convince ordinary Americans that Cuba is already on a course to better days. We’re to believe that major economic change is underway, and that small portions of “democratic space,” as the Obama administration fondly refers to it, are being carved out.¶ The ultimate goal of spokespersons such as Mariela Castro is relatively simple: Win the coveted U.S. imprimatur of acceptance for Cuban-style, post-Castro socialism, and smooth the way for full diplomatic recognition. The eventual goal, of course, is to bring down the 1996 Helms-Burton Act and with it the trade embargo. That way, the fabled Castro Revolution may continue on a course of channeled change, with a succession of next-generation party apparatchiks, bureaucrats and military leaders fully in control in the wheelhouse.¶ Yet, as the Bush administration knew, and the Obama administration seems to forget, authentic change in Cuba requires far more than institutional tinkering and piecemeal economic reform or the creation of manufactured “democratic space.” It means taking these five fundamental steps toward authentic political reform:¶ Recognition of the right to independent political parties to exist legally and operate freely.¶ Free and fair elections.¶ Genuine freedom of expression, including unfiltered access to the Internet.¶ Freedom of association for civil society, private enterprise and organized labor.¶ Nothing more — and nothing less — will do.¶ The first step to real solidarity with the Cuban people is to correct an erroneous impression that the hired guns and apologists for the Castro regime who ride in first class cabins speak for all Cubans. Time for truth in advertising! They represent the Castro regime. They speak for the power elite in Havana. And they have clearly in view a succession scenario, or “soft landing,” for the post-Castro era.¶ On May 20, those interested in the future of U.S.-Cuba relations, and authentic liberty on the island, need to remember that the authentic voices of change are far more likely to be found below decks in Cuba’s permanent steerage class. Here you find the people barred from traveling. Here are the ones with limited access to the outside world. Here are the ones constantly harassed and threatened, left in jail and treated as enemies of the state.¶ It’s a difficult course to steer, but it’s the only one that will effect change. Solidarity with Cuba’s people begins below decks, not in luxury cabins with ocean views.

<h4><strong>Engagement with regime in Cuba doesn’t boost relations, should side with the democratic aspirations of the people</h4><p>Walser, 2012</p><p></strong>[Ray, PHD and Senior Policy Analyst specializing in Latin America at The Heritage Foundation, How To Achieve Real Political Reform in Cuba, 5-18-12, http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2012/05/how-to-achieve-real-political-reform-in-cuba<u><strong>] /Wyo-MB</p><p></u></strong>But there’s <u><strong>another school of thought</u></strong> on how best to mark this day — one that <u><strong>encourages</u></strong> “<u><strong>engagement</u></strong>” <u><strong>and</u></strong> leans <u><strong>more</u></strong> on <u><strong>diplomacy than accountability</u></strong>.¶ Today, thanks to the Obama administration, as well as <u><strong>left-leaning think tanks in Washington</u></strong> and New York, an effort is underway to <u><strong>steer an opposite course</u></strong> — one that moves, incredibly enough, closer <u><strong>to cooperation with the Castro regime. Tossed overboard are demands for human rights, freedom and dignity for Cubans.</u></strong> In their place: the siren song of tourism partnerships and exchanges of academics and musicians.¶ A fresh wave of Cubans is disembarking on and around May 20 to participate in Cuba’s latest charm offensive. The capstone visit for this round features Mariela Castro Espín, daughter of Raul Castro and an activist for gay and lesbian rights, at the Latin American Studies Association in San Francisco. She will be received with acclaim as a voice of progressive tolerance on issues of individual sexual preference.¶ <u><strong>The objective</u></strong> of these latest Cuban visitors — salaried employees and privileged members of the regime — <u><strong>is to convince ordinary Americans that Cuba is already on a course to better days. We’re to believe that major economic change is underway, and that small portions of “democratic space,” as the Obama administration fondly refers to it, are being carved out.</u></strong>¶ The ultimate goal of spokespersons such as Mariela Castro is relatively simple: Win the coveted U.S. imprimatur of acceptance for Cuban-style, post-Castro socialism, and smooth the way for full diplomatic recognition. <u><strong>The eventual goal</u></strong>, of course, <u><strong>is to bring down the</u></strong> 1996 Helms-Burton Act and with it the <u><strong>trade embargo</u></strong>. That way, the fabled Castro Revolution may continue on a course of channeled change, with a succession of next-generation party apparatchiks, bureaucrats and military leaders fully in control in the wheelhouse.¶ <u><strong>Yet, as the Bush administration knew, and the Obama administration seems to forget, authentic change in Cuba requires far more than institutional tinkering and piecemeal economic reform or the creation of manufactured “democratic space.” It means taking these five fundamental steps toward authentic political reform</u></strong>:¶ Recognition of the right to independent political parties to exist legally and operate freely.¶ Free and fair elections.¶ Genuine freedom of expression, including unfiltered access to the Internet.¶ Freedom of association for civil society, private enterprise and organized labor.¶ Nothing more — and nothing less — will do.¶ <u><strong>The first step to real solidarity with the Cuban people is to correct an erroneous impression that the hired guns and apologists for the Castro regime who ride in first class cabins speak for all Cubans. Time for truth in advertising! They represent the Castro regime. They speak for the power elite in Havana.</u></strong> And they have clearly in view a succession scenario, or “soft landing,” for the post-Castro era.¶ On May 20, <u><strong>those interested in the future of U.S.-Cuba relations</u></strong>, and authentic liberty on the island, <u><strong>need to remember that the authentic voices of change are far more likely to be found below decks in Cuba’s permanent steerage class. Here you find the people barred from traveling. Here are the ones with limited access to the outside world. Here are the ones constantly harassed and threatened, left in jail and treated as enemies of the state.¶ It’s a difficult course to steer, but it’s the only one that will effect change. Solidarity with Cuba’s people begins below decks, not in luxury cabins with ocean views.</p></u></strong>

Walser, 2012

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Walser, 2012 fulltext: [Ray, PHD and Senior Policy Analyst specializing in Latin America at The Heritage Foundation, How To Achieve Real Political Reform in Cuba, 5-18-12, http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2012/05/how-to-achieve-real-political-reform-in-cuba] /Wyo-MB But there’s another school of thought on how best to mark this day — one that encourages “engagement” and leans more on diplomacy than accountability.¶ Today, thanks to the Obama administration, as well as left-leaning think tanks in Washington and New York, an effort is underway to steer an opposite course — one that moves, incredibly enough, closer to cooperation with the Castro regime. Tossed overboard are demands for human rights, freedom and dignity for Cubans. In their place: the siren song of tourism partnerships and exchanges of academics and musicians.¶ A fresh wave of Cubans is disembarking on and around May 20 to participate in Cuba’s latest charm offensive. The capstone visit for this round features Mariela Castro Espín, daughter of Raul Castro and an activist for gay and lesbian rights, at the Latin American Studies Association in San Francisco. She will be received with acclaim as a voice of progressive tolerance on issues of individual sexual preference.¶ The objective of these latest Cuban visitors — salaried employees and privileged members of the regime — is to convince ordinary Americans that Cuba is already on a course to better days. We’re to believe that major economic change is underway, and that small portions of “democratic space,” as the Obama administration fondly refers to it, are being carved out.¶ The ultimate goal of spokespersons such as Mariela Castro is relatively simple: Win the coveted U.S. imprimatur of acceptance for Cuban-style, post-Castro socialism, and smooth the way for full diplomatic recognition. The eventual goal, of course, is to bring down the 1996 Helms-Burton Act and with it the trade embargo. That way, the fabled Castro Revolution may continue on a course of channeled change, with a succession of next-generation party apparatchiks, bureaucrats and military leaders fully in control in the wheelhouse.¶ Yet, as the Bush administration knew, and the Obama administration seems to forget, authentic change in Cuba requires far more than institutional tinkering and piecemeal economic reform or the creation of manufactured “democratic space.” It means taking these five fundamental steps toward authentic political reform:¶ Recognition of the right to independent political parties to exist legally and operate freely.¶ Free and fair elections.¶ Genuine freedom of expression, including unfiltered access to the Internet.¶ Freedom of association for civil society, private enterprise and organized labor.¶ Nothing more — and nothing less — will do.¶ The first step to real solidarity with the Cuban people is to correct an erroneous impression that the hired guns and apologists for the Castro regime who ride in first class cabins speak for all Cubans. Time for truth in advertising! They represent the Castro regime. They speak for the power elite in Havana. And they have clearly in view a succession scenario, or “soft landing,” for the post-Castro era.¶ On May 20, those interested in the future of U.S.-Cuba relations, and authentic liberty on the island, need to remember that the authentic voices of change are far more likely to be found below decks in Cuba’s permanent steerage class. Here you find the people barred from traveling. Here are the ones with limited access to the outside world. Here are the ones constantly harassed and threatened, left in jail and treated as enemies of the state.¶ It’s a difficult course to steer, but it’s the only one that will effect change. Solidarity with Cuba’s people begins below decks, not in luxury cabins with ocean views. [/INST] <h4><strong>Engagement with regime in Cuba doesn’t boost relations, should side with the democratic aspirations of the people</h4><p>Walser, 2012</p><p></strong>[Ray, PHD and Senior Policy Analyst specializing in Latin America at The Heritage Foundation, How To Achieve Real Political Reform in Cuba, 5-18-12, http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2012/05/how-to-achieve-real-political-reform-in-cuba<u><strong>] /Wyo-MB</p><p></u></strong>But there’s <u><strong>another school of thought</u></strong> on how best to mark this day — one that <u><strong>encourages</u></strong> “<u><strong>engagement</u></strong>” <u><strong>and</u></strong> leans <u><strong>more</u></strong> on <u><strong>diplomacy than accountability</u></strong>.¶ Today, thanks to the Obama administration, as well as <u><strong>left-leaning think tanks in Washington</u></strong> and New York, an effort is underway to <u><strong>steer an opposite course</u></strong> — one that moves, incredibly enough, closer <u><strong>to cooperation with the Castro regime. Tossed overboard are demands for human rights, freedom and dignity for Cubans.</u></strong> In their place: the siren song of tourism partnerships and exchanges of academics and musicians.¶ A fresh wave of Cubans is disembarking on and around May 20 to participate in Cuba’s latest charm offensive. The capstone visit for this round features Mariela Castro Espín, daughter of Raul Castro and an activist for gay and lesbian rights, at the Latin American Studies Association in San Francisco. She will be received with acclaim as a voice of progressive tolerance on issues of individual sexual preference.¶ <u><strong>The objective</u></strong> of these latest Cuban visitors — salaried employees and privileged members of the regime — <u><strong>is to convince ordinary Americans that Cuba is already on a course to better days. We’re to believe that major economic change is underway, and that small portions of “democratic space,” as the Obama administration fondly refers to it, are being carved out.</u></strong>¶ The ultimate goal of spokespersons such as Mariela Castro is relatively simple: Win the coveted U.S. imprimatur of acceptance for Cuban-style, post-Castro socialism, and smooth the way for full diplomatic recognition. <u><strong>The eventual goal</u></strong>, of course, <u><strong>is to bring down the</u></strong> 1996 Helms-Burton Act and with it the <u><strong>trade embargo</u></strong>. That way, the fabled Castro Revolution may continue on a course of channeled change, with a succession of next-generation party apparatchiks, bureaucrats and military leaders fully in control in the wheelhouse.¶ <u><strong>Yet, as the Bush administration knew, and the Obama administration seems to forget, authentic change in Cuba requires far more than institutional tinkering and piecemeal economic reform or the creation of manufactured “democratic space.” It means taking these five fundamental steps toward authentic political reform</u></strong>:¶ Recognition of the right to independent political parties to exist legally and operate freely.¶ Free and fair elections.¶ Genuine freedom of expression, including unfiltered access to the Internet.¶ Freedom of association for civil society, private enterprise and organized labor.¶ Nothing more — and nothing less — will do.¶ <u><strong>The first step to real solidarity with the Cuban people is to correct an erroneous impression that the hired guns and apologists for the Castro regime who ride in first class cabins speak for all Cubans. Time for truth in advertising! They represent the Castro regime. They speak for the power elite in Havana.</u></strong> And they have clearly in view a succession scenario, or “soft landing,” for the post-Castro era.¶ On May 20, <u><strong>those interested in the future of U.S.-Cuba relations</u></strong>, and authentic liberty on the island, <u><strong>need to remember that the authentic voices of change are far more likely to be found below decks in Cuba’s permanent steerage class. Here you find the people barred from traveling. Here are the ones with limited access to the outside world. Here are the ones constantly harassed and threatened, left in jail and treated as enemies of the state.¶ It’s a difficult course to steer, but it’s the only one that will effect change. Solidarity with Cuba’s people begins below decks, not in luxury cabins with ocean views.</p></u></strong> </s>

Plan solves US-Cuban relations, boosts economic growth and trade, and fosters democratic ideals in Cuba

] /Wyo-MB Obama should lift the embargo. Allowing more travel and farm exports to Cuba will be good for democracy and the economy¶ 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 The embargo has failed to give us an ounce of extra leverage over what happens in Havana According to the US international trade commission, US farm exports would increase another $250m if restrictions were lifted on export financing Lifting the embargo should not mean that US taxpayers must now subsidise exports to Cuba. But neither should the government stand in the way 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.¶ 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.

[Daniel, director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C., The US Embargo of Cuba Is a Failure, 6-15-9, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/us-embargo-cuba-is-failure] /Wyo-MB 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.

<h4><strong>Plan solves US-Cuban relations, boosts economic growth and trade, and fosters democratic ideals in Cuba</h4><p>Griswold, 2009</p><p></strong>[Daniel, director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C., The US Embargo of Cuba Is a Failure, 6-15-9, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/us-embargo-cuba-is-failure<u><strong>] /Wyo-MB</p><p>Obama should lift the embargo. Allowing more travel and farm exports to Cuba will be good for democracy and the economy¶ </u></strong>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 <u><strong>changes to the US economic embargo are long overdue.¶</u></strong> <u><strong>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</u></strong>. <u><strong>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</u></strong>.¶ “¶ <u><strong>Congress and President Barack Obama should act now to lift the embargo to allow more travel and farm exports to Cuba.”¶</u></strong> <u><strong>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</u></strong>. 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. <u><strong>The embargo has failed to give us an ounce of extra leverage over what happens in Havana</u></strong>.¶ 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.¶ <u><strong>According to the US international trade commission, US farm exports would increase another $250m if restrictions were lifted on export financing</u></strong>. This should not be interpreted as a call for export-import bank subsidies. Trade with Cuba must be entirely commercial and market driven. <u><strong>Lifting the embargo should not mean that US taxpayers must now subsidise exports to Cuba. But neither should the government stand in the way</u></strong>.¶ 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.¶ <u><strong>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.¶</u></strong> Meanwhile, <u><strong>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.</p></u></strong>

Griswold, 2009

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Griswold, 2009 fulltext: [Daniel, director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C., The US Embargo of Cuba Is a Failure, 6-15-9, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/us-embargo-cuba-is-failure] /Wyo-MB 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. [/INST] <h4><strong>Plan solves US-Cuban relations, boosts economic growth and trade, and fosters democratic ideals in Cuba</h4><p>Griswold, 2009</p><p></strong>[Daniel, director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C., The US Embargo of Cuba Is a Failure, 6-15-9, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/us-embargo-cuba-is-failure<u><strong>] /Wyo-MB</p><p>Obama should lift the embargo. Allowing more travel and farm exports to Cuba will be good for democracy and the economy¶ </u></strong>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 <u><strong>changes to the US economic embargo are long overdue.¶</u></strong> <u><strong>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</u></strong>. <u><strong>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</u></strong>.¶ “¶ <u><strong>Congress and President Barack Obama should act now to lift the embargo to allow more travel and farm exports to Cuba.”¶</u></strong> <u><strong>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</u></strong>. 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. <u><strong>The embargo has failed to give us an ounce of extra leverage over what happens in Havana</u></strong>.¶ 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.¶ <u><strong>According to the US international trade commission, US farm exports would increase another $250m if restrictions were lifted on export financing</u></strong>. This should not be interpreted as a call for export-import bank subsidies. Trade with Cuba must be entirely commercial and market driven. <u><strong>Lifting the embargo should not mean that US taxpayers must now subsidise exports to Cuba. But neither should the government stand in the way</u></strong>.¶ 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.¶ <u><strong>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.¶</u></strong> Meanwhile, <u><strong>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.</p></u></strong> </s>

Removing the embargo is key to fix the economy

http://www.auburn.edu/~thomph1/cubahistory.pdf Trade with Cuba provides the opportunity for increased demand for US business services ¶ including engineering, construction, shipping, transport Tourism is expected to become a major industry, with Cuba already claiming interest in promoting ¶ multi-destination Caribbean tourism The US International Trade Commission conservatively estimates the embargo costs the US ¶ $1.2 billion annually in lost export revenue, not a huge amount but focused on particular industries ¶ and regions. The embargo costs the Southeastern US in particular

Curtis Jolly¶ Henry Thompson¶ Journal of Economics and Business, 2011 “The History and Potential of Trade between Cuba and the US”, http://www.auburn.edu/~thomph1/cubahistory.pdf, accessed 6/15/13,WFI/JF Trade with Cuba provides the opportunity for increased demand for US business services ¶ including engineering, construction, shipping, transport, banking, finance, insurance, and consulting. ¶ Tourism is expected to become a major industry, with Cuba already claiming interest in promoting ¶ multi-destination Caribbean tourism. ¶ Increased political pressure to liberalize trade can be expected as more US firms and workers ¶ become aware of the potential gains. Most Cubans in Miami now favor diplomatic relations with ¶ Cuba as well as limited trade according to the Institute for Public Opinion Research (2007). ¶ The US International Trade Commission conservatively estimates the embargo costs the US ¶ $1.2 billion annually in lost export revenue, not a huge amount but focused on particular industries ¶ and regions. The embargo costs the Southeastern US in particular.

<h4><strong>Removing the embargo is key to fix the economy</h4><p>Cassandra Copeland et al, 11</p><p></strong>Curtis Jolly¶ Henry Thompson¶ Journal of Economics and Business, 2011 “The History and Potential of Trade between Cuba and the US”, <u>http://www.auburn.edu/~thomph1/cubahistory.pdf</u>, accessed 6/15/13,WFI/JF</p><p><u><strong>Trade with Cuba provides the opportunity for increased demand for US business services ¶ including engineering, construction, shipping, transport</u></strong>, banking, finance, insurance, and consulting. ¶ <u><strong>Tourism is expected to become a major industry, with Cuba already claiming interest in promoting ¶ multi-destination Caribbean tourism</u></strong>. ¶ Increased political pressure to liberalize trade can be expected as more US firms and workers ¶ become aware of the potential gains. Most Cubans in Miami now favor diplomatic relations with ¶ Cuba as well as limited trade according to the Institute for Public Opinion Research (2007). ¶ <u><strong>The US International Trade Commission conservatively estimates the embargo costs the US ¶ $1.2 billion annually in lost export revenue, not a huge amount but focused on particular industries ¶ and regions. The embargo costs the Southeastern US in particular</u>.</p></strong>

Cassandra Copeland et al, 11

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Cassandra Copeland et al, 11 fulltext: Curtis Jolly¶ Henry Thompson¶ Journal of Economics and Business, 2011 “The History and Potential of Trade between Cuba and the US”, http://www.auburn.edu/~thomph1/cubahistory.pdf, accessed 6/15/13,WFI/JF Trade with Cuba provides the opportunity for increased demand for US business services ¶ including engineering, construction, shipping, transport, banking, finance, insurance, and consulting. ¶ Tourism is expected to become a major industry, with Cuba already claiming interest in promoting ¶ multi-destination Caribbean tourism. ¶ Increased political pressure to liberalize trade can be expected as more US firms and workers ¶ become aware of the potential gains. Most Cubans in Miami now favor diplomatic relations with ¶ Cuba as well as limited trade according to the Institute for Public Opinion Research (2007). ¶ The US International Trade Commission conservatively estimates the embargo costs the US ¶ $1.2 billion annually in lost export revenue, not a huge amount but focused on particular industries ¶ and regions. The embargo costs the Southeastern US in particular. [/INST] <h4><strong>Removing the embargo is key to fix the economy</h4><p>Cassandra Copeland et al, 11</p><p></strong>Curtis Jolly¶ Henry Thompson¶ Journal of Economics and Business, 2011 “The History and Potential of Trade between Cuba and the US”, <u>http://www.auburn.edu/~thomph1/cubahistory.pdf</u>, accessed 6/15/13,WFI/JF</p><p><u><strong>Trade with Cuba provides the opportunity for increased demand for US business services ¶ including engineering, construction, shipping, transport</u></strong>, banking, finance, insurance, and consulting. ¶ <u><strong>Tourism is expected to become a major industry, with Cuba already claiming interest in promoting ¶ multi-destination Caribbean tourism</u></strong>. ¶ Increased political pressure to liberalize trade can be expected as more US firms and workers ¶ become aware of the potential gains. Most Cubans in Miami now favor diplomatic relations with ¶ Cuba as well as limited trade according to the Institute for Public Opinion Research (2007). ¶ <u><strong>The US International Trade Commission conservatively estimates the embargo costs the US ¶ $1.2 billion annually in lost export revenue, not a huge amount but focused on particular industries ¶ and regions. The embargo costs the Southeastern US in particular</u>.</p></strong> </s>

Lifting embargo emboldens the regime—empirics prove won’t sustain transition

This is clearly the¶ wrong time to lift the embargo, because the¶ regime is under pressure—not only in -¶ ternally, but internationally the Castro government has¶ made a habit of scuttling U.S. efforts to¶ improve bilateral relations Obama .” In a gesture of goodwill, he eased¶ restrictions on family travel and remittances to the island. But Havana once again¶ failed to reciprocate: In December, Cuban¶ security agents arrested Alan Gross, a U.S.¶ Agency for International Development¶ (USAID) contractor seeking to foster civil¶ society on the island Cuban authorities continue¶ to respond to the aspirations of the Cuban¶ people with a clenched fist.” Would scrapping the embargo help spur liberalization?¶ Peter Orr, who served as USAID Cuba co -¶ ordinator under President Clinton, is doubtful. Foreign investment has been pouring¶ into Cuba since the mid-1990s, as have foreign tourists. Both have strengthened the¶ dictatorship. It is somewhat fanciful to¶ think that still more mojito-sipping sunbathers would catalyze a transformation.

What does all that mean for U.S. sanctions against Cuba? “This is clearly the¶ wrong time to lift the embargo, because the¶ regime is under pressure—not only in -¶ ternally, but internationally,” says former¶ State Department official Susan Kaufman¶ Purcell, director of the Center for Hemis -¶ pheric Policy at the University of Miami.¶ Moreover, the Castro government has¶ made a habit of scuttling U.S. efforts to¶ improve bilateral relations. When Presi -¶ dent Ford sought rapprochement, Cuba¶ dispatched a massive number of military¶ personnel to aid Communist forces in the¶ Angolan civil war. When President Carter¶ established a U.S. mission in Havana,¶ Fidel sent thousands of dangerous criminals and mental patients to Florida as part¶ of the Mariel boatlift. When President¶ Clinton loosened the embargo, Cuban¶ aircraft shot down two planes operated¶ by “Brothers to the Rescue,” a CubanAmerican group that assists seaborne¶ refugees.¶ Similarly, President Obama initially¶ hoped to launch “a new beginning with¶ Cuba.” In a gesture of goodwill, he eased¶ restrictions on family travel and remittances to the island. But Havana once again¶ failed to reciprocate: In December, Cuban¶ security agents arrested Alan Gross, a U.S.¶ Agency for International Development¶ (USAID) contractor seeking to foster civil¶ society on the island. The regime has since¶ been holding him on trumped-up spying¶ charges.¶ After the Gross detention, USAIDfunded trips aimed at nurturing Cuban¶ democracy were temporarily suspended.¶ But on April 9, the Miami Herald reported¶ that the agency had given its partner or -¶ ganizations the green light to resume¶ them. Cuban officials are “really worried”¶ about the USAID programs, says Latell,¶ author of the magisterial 2005 book After¶ Fidel. A 2006 Government Accounta -¶ bility Of fice study found that those¶ programs are plagued by managerial dif -¶ ficulties and inadequate oversight, but it¶ also noted that Cuban dissidents felt¶ USAID activi ties “provided moral sup- port and enhanced their ability to continue¶ their pro-democracy work.”¶ In a statement on March 24, Obama¶ lamented that “Cuban authorities continue¶ to respond to the aspirations of the Cuban¶ people with a clenched fist.” Would scrapping the embargo help spur liberalization?¶ Peter Orr, who served as USAID Cuba co -¶ ordinator under President Clinton, is doubtful. Foreign investment has been pouring¶ into Cuba since the mid-1990s, as have foreign tourists. Both have strengthened the¶ dictatorship. It is somewhat fanciful to¶ think that still more mojito-sipping sunbathers would catalyze a transformation.

<h4><strong>Lifting embargo emboldens the regime—empirics prove won’t sustain transition</h4><p>Currie, 2010</p><p></strong>[Duncan, National Review, 6/7/2010, Vol. 62 Issue 10, p28-30, 2p, 1 Color Photograph<u><strong>, Spare Not The Stick, Accesed online via Ebscohost] /Wyo-MB</p><p></u></strong>What does all that mean for U.S. sanctions against Cuba? “<u><strong>This is clearly the¶ wrong time to lift the embargo, because the¶ regime is under pressure—not only in -¶ ternally, but internationally</u></strong>,” says former¶ State Department official Susan Kaufman¶ Purcell, director of the Center for Hemis -¶ pheric Policy at the University of Miami.¶ Moreover, <u><strong>the Castro government has¶ made a habit of scuttling U.S. efforts to¶ improve bilateral relations</u></strong>. When Presi -¶ dent Ford sought rapprochement, Cuba¶ dispatched a massive number of military¶ personnel to aid Communist forces in the¶ Angolan civil war. When President Carter¶ established a U.S. mission in Havana,¶ Fidel sent thousands of dangerous criminals and mental patients to Florida as part¶ of the Mariel boatlift. When President¶ Clinton loosened the embargo, Cuban¶ aircraft shot down two planes operated¶ by “Brothers to the Rescue,” a CubanAmerican group that assists seaborne¶ refugees.¶ Similarly, President <u><strong>Obama</u></strong> initially¶ hoped to launch “a new beginning with¶ Cuba<u><strong>.” In a gesture of goodwill, he eased¶ restrictions on family travel and remittances to the island. But Havana once again¶ failed to reciprocate: In December, Cuban¶ security agents arrested Alan Gross, a U.S.¶ Agency for International Development¶ (USAID) contractor seeking to foster civil¶ society on the island</u></strong>. The regime has since¶ been holding him on trumped-up spying¶ charges.¶ After the Gross detention, USAIDfunded trips aimed at nurturing Cuban¶ democracy were temporarily suspended.¶ But on April 9, the Miami Herald reported¶ that the agency had given its partner or -¶ ganizations the green light to resume¶ them. Cuban officials are “really worried”¶ about the USAID programs, says Latell,¶ author of the magisterial 2005 book After¶ Fidel. A 2006 Government Accounta -¶ bility Of fice study found that those¶ programs are plagued by managerial dif -¶ ficulties and inadequate oversight, but it¶ also noted that Cuban dissidents felt¶ USAID activi ties “provided moral sup- port and enhanced their ability to continue¶ their pro-democracy work.”¶ In a statement on March 24, Obama¶ lamented that “<u><strong>Cuban authorities continue¶ to respond to the aspirations of the Cuban¶ people with a clenched fist.” Would scrapping the embargo help spur liberalization?¶ Peter Orr, who served as USAID Cuba co -¶ ordinator under President Clinton, is doubtful. Foreign investment has been pouring¶ into Cuba since the mid-1990s, as have foreign tourists. Both have strengthened the¶ dictatorship. It is somewhat fanciful to¶ think that still more mojito-sipping sunbathers would catalyze a transformation.</p></u></strong>

Currie, 2010 [Duncan, National Review, 6/7/2010, Vol. 62 Issue 10, p28-30, 2p, 1 Color Photograph, Spare Not The Stick, Accesed online via Ebscohost] /Wyo-MB

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Currie, 2010 [Duncan, National Review, 6/7/2010, Vol. 62 Issue 10, p28-30, 2p, 1 Color Photograph, Spare Not The Stick, Accesed online via Ebscohost] /Wyo-MB fulltext: What does all that mean for U.S. sanctions against Cuba? “This is clearly the¶ wrong time to lift the embargo, because the¶ regime is under pressure—not only in -¶ ternally, but internationally,” says former¶ State Department official Susan Kaufman¶ Purcell, director of the Center for Hemis -¶ pheric Policy at the University of Miami.¶ Moreover, the Castro government has¶ made a habit of scuttling U.S. efforts to¶ improve bilateral relations. When Presi -¶ dent Ford sought rapprochement, Cuba¶ dispatched a massive number of military¶ personnel to aid Communist forces in the¶ Angolan civil war. When President Carter¶ established a U.S. mission in Havana,¶ Fidel sent thousands of dangerous criminals and mental patients to Florida as part¶ of the Mariel boatlift. When President¶ Clinton loosened the embargo, Cuban¶ aircraft shot down two planes operated¶ by “Brothers to the Rescue,” a CubanAmerican group that assists seaborne¶ refugees.¶ Similarly, President Obama initially¶ hoped to launch “a new beginning with¶ Cuba.” In a gesture of goodwill, he eased¶ restrictions on family travel and remittances to the island. But Havana once again¶ failed to reciprocate: In December, Cuban¶ security agents arrested Alan Gross, a U.S.¶ Agency for International Development¶ (USAID) contractor seeking to foster civil¶ society on the island. The regime has since¶ been holding him on trumped-up spying¶ charges.¶ After the Gross detention, USAIDfunded trips aimed at nurturing Cuban¶ democracy were temporarily suspended.¶ But on April 9, the Miami Herald reported¶ that the agency had given its partner or -¶ ganizations the green light to resume¶ them. Cuban officials are “really worried”¶ about the USAID programs, says Latell,¶ author of the magisterial 2005 book After¶ Fidel. A 2006 Government Accounta -¶ bility Of fice study found that those¶ programs are plagued by managerial dif -¶ ficulties and inadequate oversight, but it¶ also noted that Cuban dissidents felt¶ USAID activi ties “provided moral sup- port and enhanced their ability to continue¶ their pro-democracy work.”¶ In a statement on March 24, Obama¶ lamented that “Cuban authorities continue¶ to respond to the aspirations of the Cuban¶ people with a clenched fist.” Would scrapping the embargo help spur liberalization?¶ Peter Orr, who served as USAID Cuba co -¶ ordinator under President Clinton, is doubtful. Foreign investment has been pouring¶ into Cuba since the mid-1990s, as have foreign tourists. Both have strengthened the¶ dictatorship. It is somewhat fanciful to¶ think that still more mojito-sipping sunbathers would catalyze a transformation. [/INST] <h4><strong>Lifting embargo emboldens the regime—empirics prove won’t sustain transition</h4><p>Currie, 2010</p><p></strong>[Duncan, National Review, 6/7/2010, Vol. 62 Issue 10, p28-30, 2p, 1 Color Photograph<u><strong>, Spare Not The Stick, Accesed online via Ebscohost] /Wyo-MB</p><p></u></strong>What does all that mean for U.S. sanctions against Cuba? “<u><strong>This is clearly the¶ wrong time to lift the embargo, because the¶ regime is under pressure—not only in -¶ ternally, but internationally</u></strong>,” says former¶ State Department official Susan Kaufman¶ Purcell, director of the Center for Hemis -¶ pheric Policy at the University of Miami.¶ Moreover, <u><strong>the Castro government has¶ made a habit of scuttling U.S. efforts to¶ improve bilateral relations</u></strong>. When Presi -¶ dent Ford sought rapprochement, Cuba¶ dispatched a massive number of military¶ personnel to aid Communist forces in the¶ Angolan civil war. When President Carter¶ established a U.S. mission in Havana,¶ Fidel sent thousands of dangerous criminals and mental patients to Florida as part¶ of the Mariel boatlift. When President¶ Clinton loosened the embargo, Cuban¶ aircraft shot down two planes operated¶ by “Brothers to the Rescue,” a CubanAmerican group that assists seaborne¶ refugees.¶ Similarly, President <u><strong>Obama</u></strong> initially¶ hoped to launch “a new beginning with¶ Cuba<u><strong>.” In a gesture of goodwill, he eased¶ restrictions on family travel and remittances to the island. But Havana once again¶ failed to reciprocate: In December, Cuban¶ security agents arrested Alan Gross, a U.S.¶ Agency for International Development¶ (USAID) contractor seeking to foster civil¶ society on the island</u></strong>. The regime has since¶ been holding him on trumped-up spying¶ charges.¶ After the Gross detention, USAIDfunded trips aimed at nurturing Cuban¶ democracy were temporarily suspended.¶ But on April 9, the Miami Herald reported¶ that the agency had given its partner or -¶ ganizations the green light to resume¶ them. Cuban officials are “really worried”¶ about the USAID programs, says Latell,¶ author of the magisterial 2005 book After¶ Fidel. A 2006 Government Accounta -¶ bility Of fice study found that those¶ programs are plagued by managerial dif -¶ ficulties and inadequate oversight, but it¶ also noted that Cuban dissidents felt¶ USAID activi ties “provided moral sup- port and enhanced their ability to continue¶ their pro-democracy work.”¶ In a statement on March 24, Obama¶ lamented that “<u><strong>Cuban authorities continue¶ to respond to the aspirations of the Cuban¶ people with a clenched fist.” Would scrapping the embargo help spur liberalization?¶ Peter Orr, who served as USAID Cuba co -¶ ordinator under President Clinton, is doubtful. Foreign investment has been pouring¶ into Cuba since the mid-1990s, as have foreign tourists. Both have strengthened the¶ dictatorship. It is somewhat fanciful to¶ think that still more mojito-sipping sunbathers would catalyze a transformation.</p></u></strong> </s>

Magnitude-

<h4>Magnitude- </h4>

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: None fulltext: None [/INST] <h4>Magnitude- </h4> </s>

Hemispheric co-operation is key to preventing illegal immigration from collapsing the economy

Migration is a powerful and dynamic force changing economies and societies across the Western Hemisphere. the impact of immigration on the U.S. economy has been significant and positive Immigrants boost economic output by increasing the size of the U.S. workforce and the productivity of American firm Fifteen percent of the U.S. civilian labor force is foreign born, with about 40 percent of it coming from a LAC country immigrants pay enough or more in federal, state, and local taxes to offset what they consume in public services. Low-skilled immigrants contribute to the economy by complementing an increasingly educated native-born workforce. the U.S. economy will continue to demand immigrant labor. Because of historically low U.S. birthrates and the aging of the baby boom generation, Immigrants and their offspring will be crucial for filling those jobs, keeping the U.S. labor force young and dynamic, and for keeping the pension system in balance. For the hemispheric labor market to function, illegal immigration must be addressed. Its negative effects are a product of its illegal nature, not of immigration itse abuse. It also harms native-born workers and legal immigrants by making them less competitive in some segments of the labor market , the chief beneficiaries of illegal immigration are lawbreaking employers and smugglers of illicit goods and people. The current U.S. approach to immigration has failed to achieve its objectives Yet increases in funding, the construction of the border fence, and the expansion of the U.S. Border Patrol have not had a significant impact on illegal immigration flows. Since 2000, the size of the illegal immigrant population has grown by more than 40 percent The first is that the flow of people and vehicles across the border is so large that policing it effectively is extremely difficult, regardless of the resources allocated to border control. the U.S. Border Patrol can only inspect a small fraction of the vehicles and persons entering the United States. tighter policing has made illegal border crossing more dangerous and expensive for migrants,bu tthis has neither deterred them from attempting to cross nor prevented them from succeeding. Those intent on crossing the border have found new ways to circumvent more stringent policing More illegal immigrants are also using legal ports of entry to enter the country with fake documents or by making false declarations of U.S. citizenship The increased costs and risks of crossing the border are having an unintended, negative effect for the United States: They are creating incentives for migrants to resettle permanently in the United States, rather than to go back and forth between the two countries based on shifts in U.S. labor demand. develop more effective policies, migration needs to be framed in a wider context. Immigration is a transnational issue whose effective management requires cooperation between migrant-sending and -receiving countries. If migration from the LAC countries to the United States is to be legal, humane, and responsive to the economic needs of both the receiving and sending countries, both sides must accept certain responsibilities.

Migration is a powerful and dynamic force changing economies and societies across the Western Hemisphere. Half a million Bolivians and a quarter-million Paraguayans have migrated to Argentina. Hundreds of thousands of Colombians live in Venezuela today, and thousands of Nicaraguans reside in Costa Rica. But by far the most important migration flows have been from the LAC countries to the United States—nearly 40 million people have migrated from the LAC region to the hemisphere’s largest economy. At the same time, immigration has become highly controversial in U.S. politics and has become a major source of tension in U.S. relations with some LAC countries, especially Mexico, which is by far the largest migrant-sending country. On balance, the impact of immigration on the U.S. economy has been significant and positive. Estimates of the net benefits to the U.S. economy put immigrants’ net contribution at $50 billion per year. Immigrants boost economic output by increasing the size of the U.S. workforce and the productivity of American firms. In the 1990s, half the growth in the U.S. labor force came from new immigrants. Fifteen percent of the U.S. civilian labor force is foreign born, with about 40 percent of it coming from a LAC country. On balance, immigrants pay enough or more in federal, state, and local taxes to offset what they consume in public services. Low-skilled immigrants (a category that includes most immigrants from the LAC countries) contribute to the economy by complementing an increasingly educated native-born workforce. In the decades ahead, the U.S. economy will continue to demand immigrant labor. Because of historically low U.S. birthrates and the aging of the baby boom generation, the total number of native-born workers will grow very little between 2000 and 2020. Those workers will be, on average, better educated every year and therefore less likely to accept unskilled jobs. Immigrants and their offspring will be crucial for filling those jobs, keeping the U.S. labor force young and dynamic, and for keeping the pension system in balance. For the hemispheric labor market to function, illegal immigration must be addressed. Its negative effects are a product of its illegal nature, not of immigration itself. Illegality pervades the lives of undocumented workers, undermines the rule of law in the United States, and exposes immigrants to abuse. It also harms native-born workers and legal immigrants by making them less competitive in some segments of the labor market, and it exacerbates social and cultural tensions that can stigmatize law-abiding Hispanic and Latino residents and U.S. citizens. In the United States, the chief beneficiaries of illegal immigration are lawbreaking employers and smugglers of illicit goods and people. An Ineffective Approach The current U.S. approach to immigration—based largely on devoting more and more resources to border control—has failed to achieve its objectives. The number of border patrol officers has more than tripled since 1996 to 18,000—about 9 officers per mile of border. Line-watch hours spent policing the U.S. border have increased annually from 2 million to more than 9 million. The ongoing construction of a 700-mile-long, 16-foot fence along segments of the United States–Mexico border has become the most visible symbol of this approach. About half of this fence has been completed, and its total eventual cost is estimated at $6–12 billion. Yet increases in funding, the construction of the border fence, and the expansion of the U.S. Border Patrol have not had a significant impact on illegal immigration flows. Since 2000, the size of the illegal immigrant population has grown by more than 40 percent; four out of five of these immigrants come from a LAC country. As figure 4 indicates, the number of hours spent policing the border has increased dramatically since the early 1990s. However, studies based on interviews with illegal migrants suggest that the probability of apprehension has remained constant. Meanwhile, the fence damages the global image of a country that has historically pLrindewdaittcshelhfoounrsi(tmsiollpioens)immigrationpolicy. There are several reasons for this failure. The first is that the flow of people and vehicles across the border is so large that policing it effectively is extremely difficult, regardless of the resources allocated to border control. Mexico is the United States’ third-largest trading partner, and most of that trade crosses by land. Every day, there are 1 million legal crossings of the United States–Mexico border. A quarter-million private vehicles and 12,000 trucks cross the border into the United States daily, without counting the traffic running in the opposite direction. Even with large budgets and modern equipment, the U.S. Border Patrol can only inspect a small fraction of the vehicles and persons entering the United States. In addition, tighter policing has made illegal border crossing more dangerous and expensive for migrants,bu tthis has neither deterred them from attempting to cross nor prevented them from succeeding. Those intent on crossing the border have found new ways to circumvent more stringent policing. Immigrants are increasingly turning to professional people smugglers, known as coyotes, whose fee for helping migrants cross has nearly quadrupled since the early 1990s to more than $2,000 per person today. Hiring a coyote virtually guarantees entry into the United States, and the promise of tenfold increases in earning power in the United States remains a powerful enticement for would-be immigrants. More illegal immigrants are also using legal ports of entry to enter the country with fake documents or by making false declarations of U.S. citizenship. According to a recent Government Accountability Office study using undercover investigators, the probability of a successful crossing through legal ports of entry is 93 percent. The increased costs and risks of crossing the border are having an unintended, negative effect for the United States: They are creating incentives for migrants to resettle permanently in the United States, rather than to go back and forth between the two countries based on shifts in U.S. labor demand. Meanwhile, enforcement of immigration laws inside the United States remains weak, primarily in the workplace. From 1986 to 2002, the U.S. government directed 60 percent of immigration enforcement funding to border control—six times the amount allocated to internal law enforcement. Among the OECD countries, the United States has some of the weakest employer sanctions for hiring illegal workers, and workplace enforcement in the United States is inconsistent and easily avoided. The failure of the U.S. Congress and federal government to agree on comprehensive immigration reform has led state and local governments to devise their own solutions, creating a patchwork of policies ranging from welcoming and inclusive to exclusionary and hostile. In 2007, 1,059 immigration- related bills and resolutions were introduced in state legislatures nationwide. Of these, 167 have been enacted. Many more initiatives and ordinances have been introduced at the city and county levels. So far, the problem of illegal immigration has been treated by the U.S. authorities mainly as a law enforcement problem tobe handled primarily, if not exclusively, by the United States. However, to develop more effective policies, migration needs to be framed in a wider context. Immigration is a transnational issue whose effective management requires cooperation between migrant-sending and -receiving countries. If migration from the LAC countries to the United States is to be legal, humane, and responsive to the economic needs of both the receiving and sending countries, both sides must accept certain responsibilities.

<h4>Hemispheric co-operation is key to preventing illegal immigration from collapsing the economy</h4><p><strong>Brookings 8 </strong>(The Brookings Institution. November. Rethinking. U.S.–Latin American Relations: A Hemispheric Partnership for a Turbulent World http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2008/1124_latin_america_partnership.aspx<u><strong>)</p><p>Migration is a powerful and dynamic force changing economies and societies across the Western Hemisphere.</u></strong> Half a million Bolivians and a quarter-million Paraguayans have migrated to Argentina. Hundreds of thousands of Colombians live in Venezuela today, and thousands of Nicaraguans reside in Costa Rica. But by far the most important migration flows have been from the LAC countries to the United States—nearly 40 million people have migrated from the LAC region to the hemisphere’s largest economy. At the same time, immigration has become highly controversial in U.S. politics and has become a major source of tension in U.S. relations with some LAC countries, especially Mexico, which is by far the largest migrant-sending country. On balance, <u><strong>the impact of immigration on the U.S. economy has been significant and positive</u></strong>. Estimates of the net benefits to the U.S. economy put immigrants’ net contribution at $50 billion per year. <u><strong>Immigrants boost economic output by increasing the size of the U.S. workforce and the productivity of American firm</u></strong>s. In the 1990s, half the growth in the U.S. labor force came from new immigrants. <u><strong>Fifteen percent of the U.S. civilian labor force is foreign born, with about 40 percent of it coming from a LAC country</u></strong>. On balance, <u><strong>immigrants pay enough or more in federal, state, and local taxes to offset what they consume in public services. Low-skilled immigrants </u></strong>(a category that includes most immigrants from the LAC countries) <u><strong>contribute to the economy by complementing an increasingly educated native-born workforce.</u></strong> In the decades ahead, <u><strong>the U.S. economy will continue to demand immigrant labor. Because of historically low U.S. birthrates and the aging of the baby boom generation, </u></strong>the total number of native-born workers will grow very little between 2000 and 2020. Those workers will be, on average, better educated every year and therefore less likely to accept unskilled jobs. <u><strong>Immigrants and their offspring will be crucial for filling those jobs, keeping the U.S. labor force young and dynamic, and for keeping the pension system in balance. For the hemispheric labor market to function, illegal immigration must be addressed. Its negative effects are a product of its illegal nature, not of immigration itse</u></strong>lf. Illegality pervades the lives of undocumented workers, undermines the rule of law in the United States, and exposes immigrants to <u><strong>abuse. It also harms native-born workers and legal immigrants by making them less competitive in some segments of the labor market</u></strong>, and it exacerbates social and cultural tensions that can stigmatize law-abiding Hispanic and Latino residents and U.S. citizens. In the United States<u><strong>, the chief beneficiaries of illegal immigration are lawbreaking employers and smugglers of illicit goods and people. </u></strong>An Ineffective Approach <u><strong>The current U.S. approach to immigration</u></strong>—based largely on devoting more and more resources to border control—<u><strong>has failed to achieve its objectives</u></strong>. The number of border patrol officers has more than tripled since 1996 to 18,000—about 9 officers per mile of border. Line-watch hours spent policing the U.S. border have increased annually from 2 million to more than 9 million. The ongoing construction of a 700-mile-long, 16-foot fence along segments of the United States–Mexico border has become the most visible symbol of this approach. About half of this fence has been completed, and its total eventual cost is estimated at $6–12 billion. <u><strong>Yet increases in funding, the construction of the border fence, and the expansion of the U.S. Border Patrol have not had a significant impact on illegal immigration flows. Since 2000, the size of the illegal immigrant population has grown by more than 40 percent</u></strong>; four out of five of these immigrants come from a LAC country. As figure 4 indicates, the number of hours spent policing the border has increased dramatically since the early 1990s. However, studies based on interviews with illegal migrants suggest that the probability of apprehension has remained constant. Meanwhile, the fence damages the global image of a country that has historically pLrindewdaittcshelhfoounrsi(tmsiollpioens)immigrationpolicy. There are several reasons for this failure. <u><strong>The first is that the flow of people and vehicles across the border is so large that policing it effectively is extremely difficult, regardless of the resources allocated to border control.</u></strong> Mexico is the United States’ third-largest trading partner, and most of that trade crosses by land. Every day, there are 1 million legal crossings of the United States–Mexico border. A quarter-million private vehicles and 12,000 trucks cross the border into the United States daily, without counting the traffic running in the opposite direction. Even with large budgets and modern equipment, <u><strong>the U.S. Border Patrol can only inspect a small fraction of the vehicles and persons entering the United States.</u></strong> In addition, <u><strong>tighter policing has made illegal border crossing more dangerous and expensive for migrants,bu tthis has neither deterred them from attempting to cross nor prevented them from succeeding. Those intent on crossing the border have found new ways to circumvent more stringent policing</u></strong>. Immigrants are increasingly turning to professional people smugglers, known as coyotes, whose fee for helping migrants cross has nearly quadrupled since the early 1990s to more than $2,000 per person today. Hiring a coyote virtually guarantees entry into the United States, and the promise of tenfold increases in earning power in the United States remains a powerful enticement for would-be immigrants. <u><strong>More illegal immigrants are also using legal ports of entry to enter the country with fake documents or by making false declarations of U.S. citizenship</u></strong>. According to a recent Government Accountability Office study using undercover investigators, the probability of a successful crossing through legal ports of entry is 93 percent. <u><strong>The increased costs and risks of crossing the border are having an unintended, negative effect for the United States: They are creating incentives for migrants to resettle permanently in the United States, rather than to go back and forth between the two countries based on shifts in U.S. labor demand. </u></strong>Meanwhile, enforcement of immigration laws inside the United States remains weak, primarily in the workplace. From 1986 to 2002, the U.S. government directed 60 percent of immigration enforcement funding to border control—six times the amount allocated to internal law enforcement. Among the OECD countries, the United States has some of the weakest employer sanctions for hiring illegal workers, and workplace enforcement in the United States is inconsistent and easily avoided. The failure of the U.S. Congress and federal government to agree on comprehensive immigration reform has led state and local governments to devise their own solutions, creating a patchwork of policies ranging from welcoming and inclusive to exclusionary and hostile. In 2007, 1,059 immigration- related bills and resolutions were introduced in state legislatures nationwide. Of these, 167 have been enacted. Many more initiatives and ordinances have been introduced at the city and county levels. So far, the problem of illegal immigration has been treated by the U.S. authorities mainly as a law enforcement problem tobe handled primarily, if not exclusively, by the United States. However, to <u><strong>develop more effective policies, migration needs to be framed in a wider context. Immigration is a transnational issue whose effective management requires cooperation between migrant-sending and -receiving countries. If migration from the LAC countries to the United States is to be legal, humane, and responsive to the economic needs of both the receiving and sending countries, both sides must accept certain responsibilities.</p></u></strong>

Brookings 8 (The Brookings Institution. November. Rethinking. U.S.–Latin American Relations: A Hemispheric Partnership for a Turbulent World http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2008/1124_latin_america_partnership.aspx)

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Brookings 8 (The Brookings Institution. November. Rethinking. U.S.–Latin American Relations: A Hemispheric Partnership for a Turbulent World http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2008/1124_latin_america_partnership.aspx) fulltext: Migration is a powerful and dynamic force changing economies and societies across the Western Hemisphere. Half a million Bolivians and a quarter-million Paraguayans have migrated to Argentina. Hundreds of thousands of Colombians live in Venezuela today, and thousands of Nicaraguans reside in Costa Rica. But by far the most important migration flows have been from the LAC countries to the United States—nearly 40 million people have migrated from the LAC region to the hemisphere’s largest economy. At the same time, immigration has become highly controversial in U.S. politics and has become a major source of tension in U.S. relations with some LAC countries, especially Mexico, which is by far the largest migrant-sending country. On balance, the impact of immigration on the U.S. economy has been significant and positive. Estimates of the net benefits to the U.S. economy put immigrants’ net contribution at $50 billion per year. Immigrants boost economic output by increasing the size of the U.S. workforce and the productivity of American firms. In the 1990s, half the growth in the U.S. labor force came from new immigrants. Fifteen percent of the U.S. civilian labor force is foreign born, with about 40 percent of it coming from a LAC country. On balance, immigrants pay enough or more in federal, state, and local taxes to offset what they consume in public services. Low-skilled immigrants (a category that includes most immigrants from the LAC countries) contribute to the economy by complementing an increasingly educated native-born workforce. In the decades ahead, the U.S. economy will continue to demand immigrant labor. Because of historically low U.S. birthrates and the aging of the baby boom generation, the total number of native-born workers will grow very little between 2000 and 2020. Those workers will be, on average, better educated every year and therefore less likely to accept unskilled jobs. Immigrants and their offspring will be crucial for filling those jobs, keeping the U.S. labor force young and dynamic, and for keeping the pension system in balance. For the hemispheric labor market to function, illegal immigration must be addressed. Its negative effects are a product of its illegal nature, not of immigration itself. Illegality pervades the lives of undocumented workers, undermines the rule of law in the United States, and exposes immigrants to abuse. It also harms native-born workers and legal immigrants by making them less competitive in some segments of the labor market, and it exacerbates social and cultural tensions that can stigmatize law-abiding Hispanic and Latino residents and U.S. citizens. In the United States, the chief beneficiaries of illegal immigration are lawbreaking employers and smugglers of illicit goods and people. An Ineffective Approach The current U.S. approach to immigration—based largely on devoting more and more resources to border control—has failed to achieve its objectives. The number of border patrol officers has more than tripled since 1996 to 18,000—about 9 officers per mile of border. Line-watch hours spent policing the U.S. border have increased annually from 2 million to more than 9 million. The ongoing construction of a 700-mile-long, 16-foot fence along segments of the United States–Mexico border has become the most visible symbol of this approach. About half of this fence has been completed, and its total eventual cost is estimated at $6–12 billion. Yet increases in funding, the construction of the border fence, and the expansion of the U.S. Border Patrol have not had a significant impact on illegal immigration flows. Since 2000, the size of the illegal immigrant population has grown by more than 40 percent; four out of five of these immigrants come from a LAC country. As figure 4 indicates, the number of hours spent policing the border has increased dramatically since the early 1990s. However, studies based on interviews with illegal migrants suggest that the probability of apprehension has remained constant. Meanwhile, the fence damages the global image of a country that has historically pLrindewdaittcshelhfoounrsi(tmsiollpioens)immigrationpolicy. There are several reasons for this failure. The first is that the flow of people and vehicles across the border is so large that policing it effectively is extremely difficult, regardless of the resources allocated to border control. Mexico is the United States’ third-largest trading partner, and most of that trade crosses by land. Every day, there are 1 million legal crossings of the United States–Mexico border. A quarter-million private vehicles and 12,000 trucks cross the border into the United States daily, without counting the traffic running in the opposite direction. Even with large budgets and modern equipment, the U.S. Border Patrol can only inspect a small fraction of the vehicles and persons entering the United States. In addition, tighter policing has made illegal border crossing more dangerous and expensive for migrants,bu tthis has neither deterred them from attempting to cross nor prevented them from succeeding. Those intent on crossing the border have found new ways to circumvent more stringent policing. Immigrants are increasingly turning to professional people smugglers, known as coyotes, whose fee for helping migrants cross has nearly quadrupled since the early 1990s to more than $2,000 per person today. Hiring a coyote virtually guarantees entry into the United States, and the promise of tenfold increases in earning power in the United States remains a powerful enticement for would-be immigrants. More illegal immigrants are also using legal ports of entry to enter the country with fake documents or by making false declarations of U.S. citizenship. According to a recent Government Accountability Office study using undercover investigators, the probability of a successful crossing through legal ports of entry is 93 percent. The increased costs and risks of crossing the border are having an unintended, negative effect for the United States: They are creating incentives for migrants to resettle permanently in the United States, rather than to go back and forth between the two countries based on shifts in U.S. labor demand. Meanwhile, enforcement of immigration laws inside the United States remains weak, primarily in the workplace. From 1986 to 2002, the U.S. government directed 60 percent of immigration enforcement funding to border control—six times the amount allocated to internal law enforcement. Among the OECD countries, the United States has some of the weakest employer sanctions for hiring illegal workers, and workplace enforcement in the United States is inconsistent and easily avoided. The failure of the U.S. Congress and federal government to agree on comprehensive immigration reform has led state and local governments to devise their own solutions, creating a patchwork of policies ranging from welcoming and inclusive to exclusionary and hostile. In 2007, 1,059 immigration- related bills and resolutions were introduced in state legislatures nationwide. Of these, 167 have been enacted. Many more initiatives and ordinances have been introduced at the city and county levels. So far, the problem of illegal immigration has been treated by the U.S. authorities mainly as a law enforcement problem tobe handled primarily, if not exclusively, by the United States. However, to develop more effective policies, migration needs to be framed in a wider context. Immigration is a transnational issue whose effective management requires cooperation between migrant-sending and -receiving countries. If migration from the LAC countries to the United States is to be legal, humane, and responsive to the economic needs of both the receiving and sending countries, both sides must accept certain responsibilities. [/INST] <h4>Hemispheric co-operation is key to preventing illegal immigration from collapsing the economy</h4><p><strong>Brookings 8 </strong>(The Brookings Institution. November. Rethinking. U.S.–Latin American Relations: A Hemispheric Partnership for a Turbulent World http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2008/1124_latin_america_partnership.aspx<u><strong>)</p><p>Migration is a powerful and dynamic force changing economies and societies across the Western Hemisphere.</u></strong> Half a million Bolivians and a quarter-million Paraguayans have migrated to Argentina. Hundreds of thousands of Colombians live in Venezuela today, and thousands of Nicaraguans reside in Costa Rica. But by far the most important migration flows have been from the LAC countries to the United States—nearly 40 million people have migrated from the LAC region to the hemisphere’s largest economy. At the same time, immigration has become highly controversial in U.S. politics and has become a major source of tension in U.S. relations with some LAC countries, especially Mexico, which is by far the largest migrant-sending country. On balance, <u><strong>the impact of immigration on the U.S. economy has been significant and positive</u></strong>. Estimates of the net benefits to the U.S. economy put immigrants’ net contribution at $50 billion per year. <u><strong>Immigrants boost economic output by increasing the size of the U.S. workforce and the productivity of American firm</u></strong>s. In the 1990s, half the growth in the U.S. labor force came from new immigrants. <u><strong>Fifteen percent of the U.S. civilian labor force is foreign born, with about 40 percent of it coming from a LAC country</u></strong>. On balance, <u><strong>immigrants pay enough or more in federal, state, and local taxes to offset what they consume in public services. Low-skilled immigrants </u></strong>(a category that includes most immigrants from the LAC countries) <u><strong>contribute to the economy by complementing an increasingly educated native-born workforce.</u></strong> In the decades ahead, <u><strong>the U.S. economy will continue to demand immigrant labor. Because of historically low U.S. birthrates and the aging of the baby boom generation, </u></strong>the total number of native-born workers will grow very little between 2000 and 2020. Those workers will be, on average, better educated every year and therefore less likely to accept unskilled jobs. <u><strong>Immigrants and their offspring will be crucial for filling those jobs, keeping the U.S. labor force young and dynamic, and for keeping the pension system in balance. For the hemispheric labor market to function, illegal immigration must be addressed. Its negative effects are a product of its illegal nature, not of immigration itse</u></strong>lf. Illegality pervades the lives of undocumented workers, undermines the rule of law in the United States, and exposes immigrants to <u><strong>abuse. It also harms native-born workers and legal immigrants by making them less competitive in some segments of the labor market</u></strong>, and it exacerbates social and cultural tensions that can stigmatize law-abiding Hispanic and Latino residents and U.S. citizens. In the United States<u><strong>, the chief beneficiaries of illegal immigration are lawbreaking employers and smugglers of illicit goods and people. </u></strong>An Ineffective Approach <u><strong>The current U.S. approach to immigration</u></strong>—based largely on devoting more and more resources to border control—<u><strong>has failed to achieve its objectives</u></strong>. The number of border patrol officers has more than tripled since 1996 to 18,000—about 9 officers per mile of border. Line-watch hours spent policing the U.S. border have increased annually from 2 million to more than 9 million. The ongoing construction of a 700-mile-long, 16-foot fence along segments of the United States–Mexico border has become the most visible symbol of this approach. About half of this fence has been completed, and its total eventual cost is estimated at $6–12 billion. <u><strong>Yet increases in funding, the construction of the border fence, and the expansion of the U.S. Border Patrol have not had a significant impact on illegal immigration flows. Since 2000, the size of the illegal immigrant population has grown by more than 40 percent</u></strong>; four out of five of these immigrants come from a LAC country. As figure 4 indicates, the number of hours spent policing the border has increased dramatically since the early 1990s. However, studies based on interviews with illegal migrants suggest that the probability of apprehension has remained constant. Meanwhile, the fence damages the global image of a country that has historically pLrindewdaittcshelhfoounrsi(tmsiollpioens)immigrationpolicy. There are several reasons for this failure. <u><strong>The first is that the flow of people and vehicles across the border is so large that policing it effectively is extremely difficult, regardless of the resources allocated to border control.</u></strong> Mexico is the United States’ third-largest trading partner, and most of that trade crosses by land. Every day, there are 1 million legal crossings of the United States–Mexico border. A quarter-million private vehicles and 12,000 trucks cross the border into the United States daily, without counting the traffic running in the opposite direction. Even with large budgets and modern equipment, <u><strong>the U.S. Border Patrol can only inspect a small fraction of the vehicles and persons entering the United States.</u></strong> In addition, <u><strong>tighter policing has made illegal border crossing more dangerous and expensive for migrants,bu tthis has neither deterred them from attempting to cross nor prevented them from succeeding. Those intent on crossing the border have found new ways to circumvent more stringent policing</u></strong>. Immigrants are increasingly turning to professional people smugglers, known as coyotes, whose fee for helping migrants cross has nearly quadrupled since the early 1990s to more than $2,000 per person today. Hiring a coyote virtually guarantees entry into the United States, and the promise of tenfold increases in earning power in the United States remains a powerful enticement for would-be immigrants. <u><strong>More illegal immigrants are also using legal ports of entry to enter the country with fake documents or by making false declarations of U.S. citizenship</u></strong>. According to a recent Government Accountability Office study using undercover investigators, the probability of a successful crossing through legal ports of entry is 93 percent. <u><strong>The increased costs and risks of crossing the border are having an unintended, negative effect for the United States: They are creating incentives for migrants to resettle permanently in the United States, rather than to go back and forth between the two countries based on shifts in U.S. labor demand. </u></strong>Meanwhile, enforcement of immigration laws inside the United States remains weak, primarily in the workplace. From 1986 to 2002, the U.S. government directed 60 percent of immigration enforcement funding to border control—six times the amount allocated to internal law enforcement. Among the OECD countries, the United States has some of the weakest employer sanctions for hiring illegal workers, and workplace enforcement in the United States is inconsistent and easily avoided. The failure of the U.S. Congress and federal government to agree on comprehensive immigration reform has led state and local governments to devise their own solutions, creating a patchwork of policies ranging from welcoming and inclusive to exclusionary and hostile. In 2007, 1,059 immigration- related bills and resolutions were introduced in state legislatures nationwide. Of these, 167 have been enacted. Many more initiatives and ordinances have been introduced at the city and county levels. So far, the problem of illegal immigration has been treated by the U.S. authorities mainly as a law enforcement problem tobe handled primarily, if not exclusively, by the United States. However, to <u><strong>develop more effective policies, migration needs to be framed in a wider context. Immigration is a transnational issue whose effective management requires cooperation between migrant-sending and -receiving countries. If migration from the LAC countries to the United States is to be legal, humane, and responsive to the economic needs of both the receiving and sending countries, both sides must accept certain responsibilities.</p></u></strong> </s>

Trade is key to the economy- opens up billions

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/01/16/its-time-for-the-u-s-to-end-its-senseless-embargo-of-cuba/ , estimates of the sanctions’ annual cost to the U.S. economy range from $1.2 to $3.6 billion, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Restrictions on trade disproportionately affect U.S. small businesses These restrictions translate into real reductions in income and employment for Americans in states like Florida, where the unemployment rate currently stands at 8.1 percent.

“It's Time For The U.S. To End Its Senseless Embargo Of Cuba” http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/01/16/its-time-for-the-u-s-to-end-its-senseless-embargo-of-cuba/, accessed 6/15/13,WFI/JF Yet, estimates of the sanctions’ annual cost to the U.S. economy range from $1.2 to $3.6 billion, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Restrictions on trade disproportionately affect U.S. small businesses who lack the transportation and financial infrastructure to skirt the embargo. These restrictions translate into real reductions in income and employment for Americans in states like Florida, where the unemployment rate currently stands at 8.1 percent.¶ What’s worse, U.S. sanctions encourage Cuba to collaborate with regional players that are less friendly to American interests. For instance, in 2011, the country inked a deal with Venezuela for the construction of an underwater communications link, circumventing its need to connect with US-owned networks close to its shores.¶ Repealing the embargo would fit into an American precedent of lifting trade and travel restrictions to countries who demonstrate progress towards democratic ideals. Romania, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary were all offered normal trade relations in the 1970s after preliminary reforms even though they were still in clear violation of several US resolutions condemning their human rights practices. China, a communist country and perennial human rights abuser, is the U.S.’s second largest trading partner, and in November, trade restrictions against Myanmar were lessened notwithstanding a fifty year history of genocide and human trafficking propagated by its military government.

<h4><strong>Trade is key to the economy- opens up billions</h4><p>Forbes, 13</p><p></strong>“It's Time For The U.S. To End Its Senseless Embargo Of Cuba” <u>http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/01/16/its-time-for-the-u-s-to-end-its-senseless-embargo-of-cuba/</u>, accessed 6/15/13,WFI/JF</p><p>Yet<u><strong>, estimates of the sanctions’ annual cost to the U.S. economy range from $1.2 to $3.6 billion, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Restrictions on trade disproportionately affect U.S. small businesses </u></strong>who lack the transportation and financial infrastructure to skirt the embargo. <u><strong>These restrictions translate into real reductions in income and employment for Americans in states like Florida, where the unemployment rate currently stands at 8.1 percent.</u></strong>¶ What’s worse, U.S. sanctions encourage Cuba to collaborate with regional players that are less friendly to American interests. For instance, in 2011, the country inked a deal with Venezuela for the construction of an underwater communications link, circumventing its need to connect with US-owned networks close to its shores.¶ Repealing the embargo would fit into an American precedent of lifting trade and travel restrictions to countries who demonstrate progress towards democratic ideals. Romania, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary were all offered normal trade relations in the 1970s after preliminary reforms even though they were still in clear violation of several US resolutions condemning their human rights practices. China, a communist country and perennial human rights abuser, is the U.S.’s second largest trading partner, and in November, trade restrictions against Myanmar were lessened notwithstanding a fifty year history of genocide and human trafficking propagated by its military government.</p>

Forbes, 13

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Forbes, 13 fulltext: “It's Time For The U.S. To End Its Senseless Embargo Of Cuba” http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/01/16/its-time-for-the-u-s-to-end-its-senseless-embargo-of-cuba/, accessed 6/15/13,WFI/JF Yet, estimates of the sanctions’ annual cost to the U.S. economy range from $1.2 to $3.6 billion, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Restrictions on trade disproportionately affect U.S. small businesses who lack the transportation and financial infrastructure to skirt the embargo. These restrictions translate into real reductions in income and employment for Americans in states like Florida, where the unemployment rate currently stands at 8.1 percent.¶ What’s worse, U.S. sanctions encourage Cuba to collaborate with regional players that are less friendly to American interests. For instance, in 2011, the country inked a deal with Venezuela for the construction of an underwater communications link, circumventing its need to connect with US-owned networks close to its shores.¶ Repealing the embargo would fit into an American precedent of lifting trade and travel restrictions to countries who demonstrate progress towards democratic ideals. Romania, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary were all offered normal trade relations in the 1970s after preliminary reforms even though they were still in clear violation of several US resolutions condemning their human rights practices. China, a communist country and perennial human rights abuser, is the U.S.’s second largest trading partner, and in November, trade restrictions against Myanmar were lessened notwithstanding a fifty year history of genocide and human trafficking propagated by its military government. [/INST] <h4><strong>Trade is key to the economy- opens up billions</h4><p>Forbes, 13</p><p></strong>“It's Time For The U.S. To End Its Senseless Embargo Of Cuba” <u>http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/01/16/its-time-for-the-u-s-to-end-its-senseless-embargo-of-cuba/</u>, accessed 6/15/13,WFI/JF</p><p>Yet<u><strong>, estimates of the sanctions’ annual cost to the U.S. economy range from $1.2 to $3.6 billion, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Restrictions on trade disproportionately affect U.S. small businesses </u></strong>who lack the transportation and financial infrastructure to skirt the embargo. <u><strong>These restrictions translate into real reductions in income and employment for Americans in states like Florida, where the unemployment rate currently stands at 8.1 percent.</u></strong>¶ What’s worse, U.S. sanctions encourage Cuba to collaborate with regional players that are less friendly to American interests. For instance, in 2011, the country inked a deal with Venezuela for the construction of an underwater communications link, circumventing its need to connect with US-owned networks close to its shores.¶ Repealing the embargo would fit into an American precedent of lifting trade and travel restrictions to countries who demonstrate progress towards democratic ideals. Romania, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary were all offered normal trade relations in the 1970s after preliminary reforms even though they were still in clear violation of several US resolutions condemning their human rights practices. China, a communist country and perennial human rights abuser, is the U.S.’s second largest trading partner, and in November, trade restrictions against Myanmar were lessened notwithstanding a fifty year history of genocide and human trafficking propagated by its military government.</p> </s>

And, the embargo is a critical bargaining chip to force governmental change in Cuba

The broader U.S. embargo should be¶ used as a tool to incentivize Cuban liberalization If America ditched sanctions tomorrow¶ without first obtaining serious concessions, it would be rewarding the Cuban¶ government at a time when that government appears increasingly vulnerable. The¶ embargo may seem a hopeless anachronism. But it could prove a valuable bargaining chip, and it’s worth keeping at¶ least a little while longer

The broader U.S. embargo should be¶ used as a tool to incentivize Cuban liberalization. Latell reckons that most senior¶ members of the military and Communist¶ bureaucracy—including Raúl Castro—¶ favor Chinese-style economic reforms,¶ though they do not necessarily want Cuba¶ to become what China is today. But Fidel¶ rejects the Deng Xiaoping model, and any¶ large-scale implementation of that model¶ presupposes his death. Latell suspects that¶ if Fidel died and Raúl (who turns 79 on¶ June 3) were still in control as president,¶ Havana would adopt a more pragmatic¶ approach to the United States, and might¶ even be willing to free political prisoners¶ in return for U.S. investment.¶ If America ditched sanctions tomorrow¶ without first obtaining serious concessions, it would be rewarding the Cuban¶ government at a time when that government appears increasingly vulnerable. The¶ embargo may seem a hopeless anachronism. But it could prove a valuable bargaining chip, and it’s worth keeping at¶ least a little while longer.

<h4><strong>And, the embargo is a critical bargaining chip to force governmental change in Cuba</h4><p>Currie, 2010</p><p></strong>[Duncan, National Review, 6/7/2010, Vol. 62 Issue 10, p28-30, 2p, 1 Color Photograph, Spare Not The Stick, Accesed online via Ebscohost] /Wyo-MB</p><p><u><strong>The broader U.S. embargo should be¶ used as a tool to incentivize Cuban liberalization</u></strong>. Latell reckons that most senior¶ members of the military and Communist¶ bureaucracy—including Raúl Castro—¶ favor Chinese-style economic reforms,¶ though they do not necessarily want Cuba¶ to become what China is today. But Fidel¶ rejects the Deng Xiaoping model, and any¶ large-scale implementation of that model¶ presupposes his death. Latell suspects that¶ if Fidel died and Raúl (who turns 79 on¶ June 3) were still in control as president,¶ Havana would adopt a more pragmatic¶ approach to the United States, and might¶ even be willing to free political prisoners¶ in return for U.S. investment.¶ <u><strong>If America ditched sanctions tomorrow¶ without first obtaining serious concessions, it would be rewarding the Cuban¶ government at a time when that government appears increasingly vulnerable. The¶ embargo may seem a hopeless anachronism. But it could prove a valuable bargaining chip, and it’s worth keeping at¶ least a little while longer</u></strong>.</p>

Currie, 2010 [Duncan, National Review, 6/7/2010, Vol. 62 Issue 10, p28-30, 2p, 1 Color Photograph, Spare Not The Stick, Accesed online via Ebscohost] /Wyo-MB

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Currie, 2010 [Duncan, National Review, 6/7/2010, Vol. 62 Issue 10, p28-30, 2p, 1 Color Photograph, Spare Not The Stick, Accesed online via Ebscohost] /Wyo-MB fulltext: The broader U.S. embargo should be¶ used as a tool to incentivize Cuban liberalization. Latell reckons that most senior¶ members of the military and Communist¶ bureaucracy—including Raúl Castro—¶ favor Chinese-style economic reforms,¶ though they do not necessarily want Cuba¶ to become what China is today. But Fidel¶ rejects the Deng Xiaoping model, and any¶ large-scale implementation of that model¶ presupposes his death. Latell suspects that¶ if Fidel died and Raúl (who turns 79 on¶ June 3) were still in control as president,¶ Havana would adopt a more pragmatic¶ approach to the United States, and might¶ even be willing to free political prisoners¶ in return for U.S. investment.¶ If America ditched sanctions tomorrow¶ without first obtaining serious concessions, it would be rewarding the Cuban¶ government at a time when that government appears increasingly vulnerable. The¶ embargo may seem a hopeless anachronism. But it could prove a valuable bargaining chip, and it’s worth keeping at¶ least a little while longer. [/INST] <h4><strong>And, the embargo is a critical bargaining chip to force governmental change in Cuba</h4><p>Currie, 2010</p><p></strong>[Duncan, National Review, 6/7/2010, Vol. 62 Issue 10, p28-30, 2p, 1 Color Photograph, Spare Not The Stick, Accesed online via Ebscohost] /Wyo-MB</p><p><u><strong>The broader U.S. embargo should be¶ used as a tool to incentivize Cuban liberalization</u></strong>. Latell reckons that most senior¶ members of the military and Communist¶ bureaucracy—including Raúl Castro—¶ favor Chinese-style economic reforms,¶ though they do not necessarily want Cuba¶ to become what China is today. But Fidel¶ rejects the Deng Xiaoping model, and any¶ large-scale implementation of that model¶ presupposes his death. Latell suspects that¶ if Fidel died and Raúl (who turns 79 on¶ June 3) were still in control as president,¶ Havana would adopt a more pragmatic¶ approach to the United States, and might¶ even be willing to free political prisoners¶ in return for U.S. investment.¶ <u><strong>If America ditched sanctions tomorrow¶ without first obtaining serious concessions, it would be rewarding the Cuban¶ government at a time when that government appears increasingly vulnerable. The¶ embargo may seem a hopeless anachronism. But it could prove a valuable bargaining chip, and it’s worth keeping at¶ least a little while longer</u></strong>.</p> </s>

Draws in other countries-

war between China, Taiwan and the U S has the potential to escalate into a nuclear conflict and a world war many countries other than the primary actors could be affected by such a conflict, including Japan, both Koreas, Russia, Australia, India and Great Britain all other countries in the world that participate in the global economy if China and the U S engage in a full-scale conflict, there are few countries in the world that will not be economically and/or militarily affected by it

(Lee J, American Military University, “The Chinese-Taiwanese Conflict: Possible Futures of a Confrontation between China, Taiwan and the United States of America”, http://www.lamp-method.org/eCommons/ Hunkovic.pdf) A war between China, Taiwan and the United States has the potential to escalate into a nuclear conflict and a third world war, therefore, many countries other than the primary actors could be affected by such a conflict, including Japan, both Koreas, Russia, Australia, India and Great Britain, if they were drawn into the war, as well as all other countries in the world that participate in the global economy, in which the United States and China are the two most dominant members. If China were able to successfully annex Taiwan, the possibility exists that they could then plan to attack Japan and begin a policy of aggressive expansionism in East and Southeast Asia, as well as the Pacific and even into India, which could in turn create an international standoff and deployment of military forces to contain the threat. In any case, if China and the United States engage in a full-scale conflict, there are few countries in the world that will not be economically and/or militarily affected by it. However, China, Taiwan and United States are the primary actors in this scenario, whose actions will determine its eventual outcome, therefore, other countries will not be considered in this study.

<h4>Draws in other countries- </h4><p><strong>Hunkovic 09</strong> </p><p>(Lee J, American Military University, “The Chinese-Taiwanese Conflict: Possible Futures of a Confrontation between China, Taiwan and the United States of America”, http://www.lamp-method.org/eCommons/ Hunkovic.pdf)</p><p>A <u><strong>war between China, Taiwan and the U</u></strong>nited <u><strong>S</u></strong>tates <u><strong>has the potential to escalate into a nuclear conflict and a </u></strong>third<u><strong> world war</u></strong>, therefore, <u><strong>many countries other than the primary actors could be affected by such a conflict, including Japan, both Koreas, Russia, Australia, India and Great Britain</u></strong>, if they were drawn into the war, as well as <u><strong>all other countries in the world that participate in the global economy</u></strong>, in which the United States and China are the two most dominant members. If China were able to successfully annex Taiwan, the possibility exists that they could then plan to attack Japan and begin a policy of aggressive expansionism in East and Southeast Asia, as well as the Pacific and even into India, which could in turn create an international standoff and deployment of military forces to contain the threat. In any case, <u><strong>if China and the U</u></strong>nited <u><strong>S</u></strong>tates <u><strong>engage in a full-scale conflict, there are few countries in the world that will not be economically and/or militarily affected by it</u></strong>. However, China, Taiwan and United States are the primary actors in this scenario, whose actions will determine its eventual outcome, therefore, other countries will not be considered in this study.</p>

Hunkovic 09

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Hunkovic 09 fulltext: (Lee J, American Military University, “The Chinese-Taiwanese Conflict: Possible Futures of a Confrontation between China, Taiwan and the United States of America”, http://www.lamp-method.org/eCommons/ Hunkovic.pdf) A war between China, Taiwan and the United States has the potential to escalate into a nuclear conflict and a third world war, therefore, many countries other than the primary actors could be affected by such a conflict, including Japan, both Koreas, Russia, Australia, India and Great Britain, if they were drawn into the war, as well as all other countries in the world that participate in the global economy, in which the United States and China are the two most dominant members. If China were able to successfully annex Taiwan, the possibility exists that they could then plan to attack Japan and begin a policy of aggressive expansionism in East and Southeast Asia, as well as the Pacific and even into India, which could in turn create an international standoff and deployment of military forces to contain the threat. In any case, if China and the United States engage in a full-scale conflict, there are few countries in the world that will not be economically and/or militarily affected by it. However, China, Taiwan and United States are the primary actors in this scenario, whose actions will determine its eventual outcome, therefore, other countries will not be considered in this study. [/INST] <h4>Draws in other countries- </h4><p><strong>Hunkovic 09</strong> </p><p>(Lee J, American Military University, “The Chinese-Taiwanese Conflict: Possible Futures of a Confrontation between China, Taiwan and the United States of America”, http://www.lamp-method.org/eCommons/ Hunkovic.pdf)</p><p>A <u><strong>war between China, Taiwan and the U</u></strong>nited <u><strong>S</u></strong>tates <u><strong>has the potential to escalate into a nuclear conflict and a </u></strong>third<u><strong> world war</u></strong>, therefore, <u><strong>many countries other than the primary actors could be affected by such a conflict, including Japan, both Koreas, Russia, Australia, India and Great Britain</u></strong>, if they were drawn into the war, as well as <u><strong>all other countries in the world that participate in the global economy</u></strong>, in which the United States and China are the two most dominant members. If China were able to successfully annex Taiwan, the possibility exists that they could then plan to attack Japan and begin a policy of aggressive expansionism in East and Southeast Asia, as well as the Pacific and even into India, which could in turn create an international standoff and deployment of military forces to contain the threat. In any case, <u><strong>if China and the U</u></strong>nited <u><strong>S</u></strong>tates <u><strong>engage in a full-scale conflict, there are few countries in the world that will not be economically and/or militarily affected by it</u></strong>. However, China, Taiwan and United States are the primary actors in this scenario, whose actions will determine its eventual outcome, therefore, other countries will not be considered in this study.</p> </s>

Hemispheric relations is key to regional multilateral trade

More than 18,000 U.S. companies have operations in Mexico, and a fifth of all U.S. trade is with the LAC countries. About 25 million U.S. residents travel to the LAC countries every year for business and pleasure LAC countries invest heavily in the United States the United States received capital inflows of $120 billion from the LAC countries. About 17 million people from these countries visit the United States every year cumulative growth of U.S. exports to the LAC region was higher than to all other regions and to the world as a whole, Trade with the LAC countries benefits the United States. It gives U.S. companies access to a $3.5 trillion market of 600 million people and access to low-cost suppliers, which increases their competitiveness in world markets. The LAC countries buy goods produced by skilled workers in the United States, and these workers benefit from greater demand for their labor and receive higher wages shareholders in U.S. companies benefit from more competitive and profitable firms, and American consumers enjoy access to lower-priced goods of greater quality and variety. Despite the benefits of hemispheric trade, domestic political support for trade liberalization is weakening in the United States With the Doha Round gridlocked and the FTAA fading, bilateral trade deals have become the preferred method for expanding U.S.-LAC trade all the countries in the Americas with which the United States has signed bilateral trade agreements. These bilateral agreements create trade diversion, make trade rules and regulations complex and cumbersome, draw political and diplomatic resources away from multilateral trade negotiations, and put relatively small economies in bilateral negotiations with the United States, where they have limited leverage. Bilateral agreements should be seen, at best, as very imperfect substitutes for multilateral trade liberalization.

In many ways, the core of the relationship between the United States and the LAC region is economic. U.S. companies and individuals have nearly $200 billion invested in the region, most of it in Mexico and Brazil. More than 18,000 U.S. companies have operations in Mexico, and a fifth of all U.S. trade is with the LAC countries. About 25 million U.S. residents travel to the LAC countries every year for business and pleasure. Households in the LAC countries received about $60 billion in remittance inflows in 2007 alone, much of it from relatives living in the United States. Mexico is by far the largest recipient of remittances in absolute terms, but in the small economies of El Salvador, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, and Nicaragua, remittances represent a major share of national income. The flows also run the other way. The LAC countries invest heavily in the United States. In 2007 alone, the United States received capital inflows of $120 billion from the LAC countries. About 17 million people from these countries visit the United States every year. The United States is the main trading partner of countries as diverse as Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Peru, and Venezuela. Trade and financial flows have grown over time, and in the process they have generated economic opportunities for all parties involved. Nowhere has deepening hemispheric integration been clearer than in trade. Between 1996 and 2007, the cumulative growth of U.S. exports to the LAC region was higher than to all other regions and to the world as a whole, as shown in figure 5. Mexico remains by far the United States’ most important trading partner in the LAC region (accounting for 58 percent of the region’s trade with the United States), but U.S. trade with other LAC countries, especially Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Peru, has been growing at double-digit rates. Trade with the LAC countries benefits the United States. It gives U.S. companies access to a $3.5 trillion market of 600 million people and access to low-cost suppliers, which increases their competitiveness in world markets. The LAC countries buy goods produced by skilled workers in the United States, and these workers benefit from greater demand for their labor and receive higher wages. Meanwhile, shareholders in U.S. companies benefit from more competitive and profitable firms, and American consumers enjoy access to lower-priced goods of greater quality and variety. At the same time, trade with the United States is critical to the economies of many LAC countries. Trade accounts for a third of Mexico’s economy, and more than 80 percent of its exports go to the United States. All the Central American, Caribbean, and Andean countries count the United States as their single most important export market, with between 40 and 50 percent of their total exports headed to the hemisphere’s largest economy. Hemispheric Trade: Running Out of Steam? Despite the benefits of hemispheric trade, domestic political support for trade liberalization is weakening in the United States. Between December 1999 and March 2007, the number of Americans who believe that trade agreements hurt the United States grew by 16 percentage points, to 46 percent, while the marginalized from the rest of the economy for geographic, ethnic, or political reasons are unlikely to partake in the benefits of free trade. Trade initiatives must work in tandem with targeted development and poverty-reduction policies. With the Doha Round gridlocked and the FTAA fading, bilateral trade deals have become the preferred method for expanding U.S.-LAC trade. Since 2003, the United States has signed trade agreements with Chile, Peru, Panama, Colombia, and—through the Central America–Dominican Republic–United States Free Trade Agreement—Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua. The Colombia and Panama agreements are still awaiting congressional approval in the United States. Figure 6 shows all the countries in the Americas with which the United States has signed bilateral trade agreements. The trend toward bilateral free trade agreements is not a welcome development. Compared with multilateral agreements, bilateral agreements are an inferior way to promote trade. These bilateral agreements create trade diversion, make trade rules and regulations complex and cumbersome, draw political and diplomatic resources away from multilateral trade negotiations, and put relatively small economies in bilateral negotiations with the United States, where they have limited leverage. Bilateral agreements should be seen, at best, as very imperfect substitutes for multilateral trade liberalization.

<h4>Hemispheric relations is key to regional multilateral trade</h4><p><strong>Brookings 8 </strong>(The Brookings Institution. November. Rethinking. U.S.–Latin American Relations: A Hemispheric Partnership for a Turbulent World http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2008/1124_latin_america_partnership.aspx<u><strong>)</p><p></u></strong>In many ways, the core of the relationship between the United States and the LAC region is economic. U.S. companies and individuals have nearly $200 billion invested in the region, most of it in Mexico and Brazil. <u><strong>More than 18,000 U.S. companies have operations in Mexico, and a fifth of all U.S. trade is with the LAC countries.</u></strong> <u><strong>About 25 million U.S. residents travel to the LAC countries every year for business and pleasure</u></strong>. Households in the LAC countries received about $60 billion in remittance inflows in 2007 alone, much of it from relatives living in the United States. Mexico is by far the largest recipient of remittances in absolute terms, but in the small economies of El Salvador, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, and Nicaragua, remittances represent a major share of national income. The flows also run the other way. The <u><strong>LAC countries invest heavily in the United States</u></strong>. In 2007 alone, <u><strong>the United States received capital inflows of $120 billion from the LAC countries. About 17 million people from these countries visit the United States every year</u></strong>. The United States is the main trading partner of countries as diverse as Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Peru, and Venezuela. Trade and financial flows have grown over time, and in the process they have generated economic opportunities for all parties involved. Nowhere has deepening hemispheric integration been clearer than in trade. Between 1996 and 2007, the <u><strong>cumulative growth of U.S. exports to the LAC region was higher than to all other regions and to the world as a whole,</u></strong> as shown in figure 5. Mexico remains by far the United States’ most important trading partner in the LAC region (accounting for 58 percent of the region’s trade with the United States), but U.S. trade with other LAC countries, especially Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Peru, has been growing at double-digit rates. <u><strong>Trade with the LAC countries benefits the United States. It gives U.S. companies access to a $3.5 trillion market of 600 million people and access to low-cost suppliers, which increases their competitiveness in world markets. The LAC countries buy goods produced by skilled workers in the United States, and these workers benefit from greater demand for their labor and receive higher wages</u></strong>. Meanwhile, <u><strong>shareholders in U.S. companies benefit from more competitive and profitable firms, and American consumers enjoy access to lower-priced goods of greater quality and variety. </u></strong>At the same time, trade with the United States is critical to the economies of many LAC countries. Trade accounts for a third of Mexico’s economy, and more than 80 percent of its exports go to the United States. All the Central American, Caribbean, and Andean countries count the United States as their single most important export market, with between 40 and 50 percent of their total exports headed to the hemisphere’s largest economy. Hemispheric Trade: Running Out of Steam? <u><strong>Despite the benefits of hemispheric trade, domestic political support for trade liberalization is weakening in the United States</u></strong>. Between December 1999 and March 2007, the number of Americans who believe that trade agreements hurt the United States grew by 16 percentage points, to 46 percent, while the marginalized from the rest of the economy for geographic, ethnic, or political reasons are unlikely to partake in the benefits of free trade. Trade initiatives must work in tandem with targeted development and poverty-reduction policies. <u><strong>With the Doha Round gridlocked and the FTAA fading, bilateral trade deals have become the preferred method for expanding U.S.-LAC trade</u></strong>. Since 2003, the United States has signed trade agreements with Chile, Peru, Panama, Colombia, and—through the Central America–Dominican Republic–United States Free Trade Agreement—Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua. The Colombia and Panama agreements are still awaiting congressional approval in the United States. Figure 6 shows <u><strong>all the countries in the Americas with which the United States has signed bilateral trade agreements. </u></strong>The trend toward bilateral free trade agreements is not a welcome development. Compared with multilateral agreements, bilateral agreements are an inferior way to promote trade. <u><strong>These bilateral agreements create trade diversion, make trade rules and regulations complex and cumbersome, draw political and diplomatic resources away from multilateral trade negotiations, and put relatively small economies in bilateral negotiations with the United States, where they have limited leverage. Bilateral agreements should be seen, at best, as very imperfect substitutes for multilateral trade liberalization.</p></u></strong>

Brookings 8 (The Brookings Institution. November. Rethinking. U.S.–Latin American Relations: A Hemispheric Partnership for a Turbulent World http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2008/1124_latin_america_partnership.aspx)

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Brookings 8 (The Brookings Institution. November. Rethinking. U.S.–Latin American Relations: A Hemispheric Partnership for a Turbulent World http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2008/1124_latin_america_partnership.aspx) fulltext: In many ways, the core of the relationship between the United States and the LAC region is economic. U.S. companies and individuals have nearly $200 billion invested in the region, most of it in Mexico and Brazil. More than 18,000 U.S. companies have operations in Mexico, and a fifth of all U.S. trade is with the LAC countries. About 25 million U.S. residents travel to the LAC countries every year for business and pleasure. Households in the LAC countries received about $60 billion in remittance inflows in 2007 alone, much of it from relatives living in the United States. Mexico is by far the largest recipient of remittances in absolute terms, but in the small economies of El Salvador, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, and Nicaragua, remittances represent a major share of national income. The flows also run the other way. The LAC countries invest heavily in the United States. In 2007 alone, the United States received capital inflows of $120 billion from the LAC countries. About 17 million people from these countries visit the United States every year. The United States is the main trading partner of countries as diverse as Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Peru, and Venezuela. Trade and financial flows have grown over time, and in the process they have generated economic opportunities for all parties involved. Nowhere has deepening hemispheric integration been clearer than in trade. Between 1996 and 2007, the cumulative growth of U.S. exports to the LAC region was higher than to all other regions and to the world as a whole, as shown in figure 5. Mexico remains by far the United States’ most important trading partner in the LAC region (accounting for 58 percent of the region’s trade with the United States), but U.S. trade with other LAC countries, especially Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Peru, has been growing at double-digit rates. Trade with the LAC countries benefits the United States. It gives U.S. companies access to a $3.5 trillion market of 600 million people and access to low-cost suppliers, which increases their competitiveness in world markets. The LAC countries buy goods produced by skilled workers in the United States, and these workers benefit from greater demand for their labor and receive higher wages. Meanwhile, shareholders in U.S. companies benefit from more competitive and profitable firms, and American consumers enjoy access to lower-priced goods of greater quality and variety. At the same time, trade with the United States is critical to the economies of many LAC countries. Trade accounts for a third of Mexico’s economy, and more than 80 percent of its exports go to the United States. All the Central American, Caribbean, and Andean countries count the United States as their single most important export market, with between 40 and 50 percent of their total exports headed to the hemisphere’s largest economy. Hemispheric Trade: Running Out of Steam? Despite the benefits of hemispheric trade, domestic political support for trade liberalization is weakening in the United States. Between December 1999 and March 2007, the number of Americans who believe that trade agreements hurt the United States grew by 16 percentage points, to 46 percent, while the marginalized from the rest of the economy for geographic, ethnic, or political reasons are unlikely to partake in the benefits of free trade. Trade initiatives must work in tandem with targeted development and poverty-reduction policies. With the Doha Round gridlocked and the FTAA fading, bilateral trade deals have become the preferred method for expanding U.S.-LAC trade. Since 2003, the United States has signed trade agreements with Chile, Peru, Panama, Colombia, and—through the Central America–Dominican Republic–United States Free Trade Agreement—Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua. The Colombia and Panama agreements are still awaiting congressional approval in the United States. Figure 6 shows all the countries in the Americas with which the United States has signed bilateral trade agreements. The trend toward bilateral free trade agreements is not a welcome development. Compared with multilateral agreements, bilateral agreements are an inferior way to promote trade. These bilateral agreements create trade diversion, make trade rules and regulations complex and cumbersome, draw political and diplomatic resources away from multilateral trade negotiations, and put relatively small economies in bilateral negotiations with the United States, where they have limited leverage. Bilateral agreements should be seen, at best, as very imperfect substitutes for multilateral trade liberalization. [/INST] <h4>Hemispheric relations is key to regional multilateral trade</h4><p><strong>Brookings 8 </strong>(The Brookings Institution. November. Rethinking. U.S.–Latin American Relations: A Hemispheric Partnership for a Turbulent World http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2008/1124_latin_america_partnership.aspx<u><strong>)</p><p></u></strong>In many ways, the core of the relationship between the United States and the LAC region is economic. U.S. companies and individuals have nearly $200 billion invested in the region, most of it in Mexico and Brazil. <u><strong>More than 18,000 U.S. companies have operations in Mexico, and a fifth of all U.S. trade is with the LAC countries.</u></strong> <u><strong>About 25 million U.S. residents travel to the LAC countries every year for business and pleasure</u></strong>. Households in the LAC countries received about $60 billion in remittance inflows in 2007 alone, much of it from relatives living in the United States. Mexico is by far the largest recipient of remittances in absolute terms, but in the small economies of El Salvador, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, and Nicaragua, remittances represent a major share of national income. The flows also run the other way. The <u><strong>LAC countries invest heavily in the United States</u></strong>. In 2007 alone, <u><strong>the United States received capital inflows of $120 billion from the LAC countries. About 17 million people from these countries visit the United States every year</u></strong>. The United States is the main trading partner of countries as diverse as Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Peru, and Venezuela. Trade and financial flows have grown over time, and in the process they have generated economic opportunities for all parties involved. Nowhere has deepening hemispheric integration been clearer than in trade. Between 1996 and 2007, the <u><strong>cumulative growth of U.S. exports to the LAC region was higher than to all other regions and to the world as a whole,</u></strong> as shown in figure 5. Mexico remains by far the United States’ most important trading partner in the LAC region (accounting for 58 percent of the region’s trade with the United States), but U.S. trade with other LAC countries, especially Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Peru, has been growing at double-digit rates. <u><strong>Trade with the LAC countries benefits the United States. It gives U.S. companies access to a $3.5 trillion market of 600 million people and access to low-cost suppliers, which increases their competitiveness in world markets. The LAC countries buy goods produced by skilled workers in the United States, and these workers benefit from greater demand for their labor and receive higher wages</u></strong>. Meanwhile, <u><strong>shareholders in U.S. companies benefit from more competitive and profitable firms, and American consumers enjoy access to lower-priced goods of greater quality and variety. </u></strong>At the same time, trade with the United States is critical to the economies of many LAC countries. Trade accounts for a third of Mexico’s economy, and more than 80 percent of its exports go to the United States. All the Central American, Caribbean, and Andean countries count the United States as their single most important export market, with between 40 and 50 percent of their total exports headed to the hemisphere’s largest economy. Hemispheric Trade: Running Out of Steam? <u><strong>Despite the benefits of hemispheric trade, domestic political support for trade liberalization is weakening in the United States</u></strong>. Between December 1999 and March 2007, the number of Americans who believe that trade agreements hurt the United States grew by 16 percentage points, to 46 percent, while the marginalized from the rest of the economy for geographic, ethnic, or political reasons are unlikely to partake in the benefits of free trade. Trade initiatives must work in tandem with targeted development and poverty-reduction policies. <u><strong>With the Doha Round gridlocked and the FTAA fading, bilateral trade deals have become the preferred method for expanding U.S.-LAC trade</u></strong>. Since 2003, the United States has signed trade agreements with Chile, Peru, Panama, Colombia, and—through the Central America–Dominican Republic–United States Free Trade Agreement—Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua. The Colombia and Panama agreements are still awaiting congressional approval in the United States. Figure 6 shows <u><strong>all the countries in the Americas with which the United States has signed bilateral trade agreements. </u></strong>The trend toward bilateral free trade agreements is not a welcome development. Compared with multilateral agreements, bilateral agreements are an inferior way to promote trade. <u><strong>These bilateral agreements create trade diversion, make trade rules and regulations complex and cumbersome, draw political and diplomatic resources away from multilateral trade negotiations, and put relatively small economies in bilateral negotiations with the United States, where they have limited leverage. Bilateral agreements should be seen, at best, as very imperfect substitutes for multilateral trade liberalization.</p></u></strong> </s>

Economic engagement with Mexico is key to U.S. economy

http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/State_of_Border_Trade_Economy_0.pdf Commerce between the United States and Mexico is one of the great yet underappreciated— success stories of the global economy in 2011 U.S.-Mexico goods and services trade probably reached the major milestone of one-half trillion dollars The United States is Mexico’s top trading partner, and Mexico is the United States’ second largest export market and third largest trading partne

And Christopher Wilson, Woodrow Wilson Center “The State of Trade, Competitiveness and Economic ¶ Well-being in the U.S.-Mexico Border Region” http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/State_of_Border_Trade_Economy_0.pdf, accessed 6/15/13,WYO/JF Commerce between the United States and Mexico is one of the great—yet underappreciated—¶ success stories of the global economy. In fact, in 2011 U.S.-Mexico goods and services trade ¶ probably reached the major milestone of one-half trillion dollars with virtually no recognition.1¶ The United States is Mexico’s top trading partner, and Mexico—which has gained¶ macroeconomic stability and expanded its middle class over the last two decades—is the ¶ United States’ second largest export market and third largest trading partner. Seventy percent ¶ of bilateral commerce crosses the border via trucks, meaning the border region is literally ¶ where “the rubber hits the road” for bilateral relations. This also means that not only California ¶ and Baja California, but also Michigan and Michoacán, all have a major stake in efficient and ¶ secure border management.

<h4><strong>Economic engagement with Mexico is key to U.S. economy</h4><p>Erik Lee, 12</p><p></strong> And Christopher Wilson, Woodrow Wilson Center “The State of Trade, Competitiveness and Economic ¶ Well-being in the U.S.-Mexico Border Region” <u>http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/State_of_Border_Trade_Economy_0.pdf</u>, accessed 6/15/13,WYO/JF</p><p><u><strong>Commerce between the United States and Mexico is one of the great</u></strong>—<u><strong>yet underappreciated—</u></strong>¶<u><strong> success stories of the global economy</u></strong>. In fact, <u><strong>in 2011 U.S.-Mexico goods and services trade </u></strong>¶<u><strong> probably reached the major milestone of one-half trillion dollars</u></strong> with virtually no recognition.1¶<u><strong> The United States is Mexico’s top trading partner, and Mexico</u></strong>—which has gained¶ macroeconomic stability and expanded its middle class over the last two decades—<u><strong>is the </u></strong>¶<u><strong> United States’ second largest export market and third largest trading partne</u></strong>r. Seventy percent ¶ of bilateral commerce crosses the border via trucks, meaning the border region is literally ¶ where “the rubber hits the road” for bilateral relations. This also means that not only California ¶ and Baja California, but also Michigan and Michoacán, all have a major stake in efficient and ¶ secure border management.</p>

Erik Lee, 12

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Erik Lee, 12 fulltext: And Christopher Wilson, Woodrow Wilson Center “The State of Trade, Competitiveness and Economic ¶ Well-being in the U.S.-Mexico Border Region” http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/State_of_Border_Trade_Economy_0.pdf, accessed 6/15/13,WYO/JF Commerce between the United States and Mexico is one of the great—yet underappreciated—¶ success stories of the global economy. In fact, in 2011 U.S.-Mexico goods and services trade ¶ probably reached the major milestone of one-half trillion dollars with virtually no recognition.1¶ The United States is Mexico’s top trading partner, and Mexico—which has gained¶ macroeconomic stability and expanded its middle class over the last two decades—is the ¶ United States’ second largest export market and third largest trading partner. Seventy percent ¶ of bilateral commerce crosses the border via trucks, meaning the border region is literally ¶ where “the rubber hits the road” for bilateral relations. This also means that not only California ¶ and Baja California, but also Michigan and Michoacán, all have a major stake in efficient and ¶ secure border management. [/INST] <h4><strong>Economic engagement with Mexico is key to U.S. economy</h4><p>Erik Lee, 12</p><p></strong> And Christopher Wilson, Woodrow Wilson Center “The State of Trade, Competitiveness and Economic ¶ Well-being in the U.S.-Mexico Border Region” <u>http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/State_of_Border_Trade_Economy_0.pdf</u>, accessed 6/15/13,WYO/JF</p><p><u><strong>Commerce between the United States and Mexico is one of the great</u></strong>—<u><strong>yet underappreciated—</u></strong>¶<u><strong> success stories of the global economy</u></strong>. In fact, <u><strong>in 2011 U.S.-Mexico goods and services trade </u></strong>¶<u><strong> probably reached the major milestone of one-half trillion dollars</u></strong> with virtually no recognition.1¶<u><strong> The United States is Mexico’s top trading partner, and Mexico</u></strong>—which has gained¶ macroeconomic stability and expanded its middle class over the last two decades—<u><strong>is the </u></strong>¶<u><strong> United States’ second largest export market and third largest trading partne</u></strong>r. Seventy percent ¶ of bilateral commerce crosses the border via trucks, meaning the border region is literally ¶ where “the rubber hits the road” for bilateral relations. This also means that not only California ¶ and Baja California, but also Michigan and Michoacán, all have a major stake in efficient and ¶ secure border management.</p> </s>

Embargo should be strengthened—aff just supports Cuban squo government

] /Wyo-MB Cuba is using the embargo as a scapegoat for all of its woes without any immediate fear of reinstated restrictions the goal is to promote Cuban democracy and freedom through non-violent and non-invasive means while refraining from providing any support to the current oppressive Cuban government, the current legislation regarding the embargo and travel ban against Cuba needs to be modernized and strengthened. The need for an embargo has never been more important or potentially effective, even considering the current human rights and economic arguments against the embargo.

[Mitchell, International Policy Digest, Time to Strengthen the Cuban Embargo, 5-9-13, http://www.internationalpolicydigest.org/2013/05/09/time-to-strengthen-the-cuban-embargo/] /Wyo-MB Undoubtedly, Cuba is capitalizing on this weakness by using the embargo as a scapegoat for all of its woes without any immediate fear of reinstated restrictions. Because the goal is to promote Cuban democracy and freedom through non-violent and non-invasive means while refraining from providing any support to the current oppressive Cuban government, the current legislation regarding the embargo and travel ban against Cuba needs to be modernized and strengthened. The need for an embargo has never been more important or potentially effective, even considering the current human rights and economic arguments against the embargo.

<h4><strong>Embargo should be strengthened—aff just supports Cuban squo government</h4><p>Bustillo, 2013</p><p></strong>[Mitchell, International Policy Digest, Time to Strengthen the Cuban Embargo, 5-9-13, http://www.internationalpolicydigest.org/2013/05/09/time-to-strengthen-the-cuban-embargo/<u><strong>] /Wyo-MB</p><p></u></strong>Undoubtedly, <u><strong>Cuba is </u></strong>capitalizing on this weakness by <u><strong>using the embargo as a scapegoat for all of its woes without any immediate fear of reinstated restrictions</u></strong>. Because <u><strong>the goal is to promote Cuban democracy and freedom through non-violent and non-invasive means while refraining from providing any support to the current oppressive Cuban government, the current legislation regarding the embargo and travel ban against Cuba needs to be modernized and strengthened. The need for an embargo has never been more important or potentially effective, even considering the current human rights and economic arguments against the embargo.</p></u></strong>

Bustillo, 2013

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Bustillo, 2013 fulltext: [Mitchell, International Policy Digest, Time to Strengthen the Cuban Embargo, 5-9-13, http://www.internationalpolicydigest.org/2013/05/09/time-to-strengthen-the-cuban-embargo/] /Wyo-MB Undoubtedly, Cuba is capitalizing on this weakness by using the embargo as a scapegoat for all of its woes without any immediate fear of reinstated restrictions. Because the goal is to promote Cuban democracy and freedom through non-violent and non-invasive means while refraining from providing any support to the current oppressive Cuban government, the current legislation regarding the embargo and travel ban against Cuba needs to be modernized and strengthened. The need for an embargo has never been more important or potentially effective, even considering the current human rights and economic arguments against the embargo. [/INST] <h4><strong>Embargo should be strengthened—aff just supports Cuban squo government</h4><p>Bustillo, 2013</p><p></strong>[Mitchell, International Policy Digest, Time to Strengthen the Cuban Embargo, 5-9-13, http://www.internationalpolicydigest.org/2013/05/09/time-to-strengthen-the-cuban-embargo/<u><strong>] /Wyo-MB</p><p></u></strong>Undoubtedly, <u><strong>Cuba is </u></strong>capitalizing on this weakness by <u><strong>using the embargo as a scapegoat for all of its woes without any immediate fear of reinstated restrictions</u></strong>. Because <u><strong>the goal is to promote Cuban democracy and freedom through non-violent and non-invasive means while refraining from providing any support to the current oppressive Cuban government, the current legislation regarding the embargo and travel ban against Cuba needs to be modernized and strengthened. The need for an embargo has never been more important or potentially effective, even considering the current human rights and economic arguments against the embargo.</p></u></strong> </s>

2. Timeframe- immediately undermines China’s ability to contain Taiwan’s actions because Cuba plays the most critical role in supporting the Chinese position- collapse of this relations causes fast response from China to contain

<h4>2. Timeframe- immediately undermines China’s ability to contain Taiwan’s actions because Cuba plays the most critical role in supporting the Chinese position- collapse of this relations causes fast response from China to contain</h4>

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: None fulltext: None [/INST] <h4>2. Timeframe- immediately undermines China’s ability to contain Taiwan’s actions because Cuba plays the most critical role in supporting the Chinese position- collapse of this relations causes fast response from China to contain</h4> </s>

The Embargo Makes US look bad internationally

the U.S. is largely alone in restricting access to Cuba. The embargo has long been a point of friction between the United States and allies in Europe, South America, and Canada. Every year since 1992, the U.S. has been publically condemned in the United Nations for maintaining counterproductive and worn out trade and migration restrictions against Cuba

At present, the U.S. is largely alone in restricting access to Cuba. The embargo has long been a point of friction between the United States and allies in Europe, South America, and Canada. Every year since 1992, the U.S. has been publically condemned in the United Nations for maintaining counterproductive and worn out trade and migration restrictions against Cuba despite the fact that nearly all 5,911 U.S. companies nationalized during the Castro takeover have dropped their claims.

<h4><strong>The Embargo Makes US look bad internationally</h4><p>Hanson, Batten, and Ealey, 2013</p><p></strong>[Daniel, Dayne, and Harrison, Daniel Hanson is an economics researcher at the American Enterprise Institute. Dayne Batten is affiliated with the University of North Carolina Department of Public Policy. Harrison Ealey is a financial analyst, It's Time For The U.S. To End Its Senseless Embargo Of Cuba, 1-16-13, http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/01/16/its-time-for-the-u-s-to-end-its-senseless-embargo-of-cuba/] /Wyo-MB</p><p>At present, <u><strong>the U.S. is largely alone in restricting access to Cuba. The embargo has long been a point of friction between the United States and allies in Europe, South America, and Canada. Every year since 1992, the U.S. has been publically condemned in the United Nations for maintaining counterproductive and worn out trade and migration restrictions against Cuba</u></strong> despite the fact that nearly all 5,911 U.S. companies nationalized during the Castro takeover have dropped their claims.</p>

Hanson, Batten, and Ealey, 2013 [Daniel, Dayne, and Harrison, Daniel Hanson is an economics researcher at the American Enterprise Institute. Dayne Batten is affiliated with the University of North Carolina Department of Public Policy. Harrison Ealey is a financial analyst, It's Time For The U.S. To End Its Senseless Embargo Of Cuba, 1-16-13, http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/01/16/its-time-for-the-u-s-to-end-its-senseless-embargo-of-cuba/] /Wyo-MB

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Hanson, Batten, and Ealey, 2013 [Daniel, Dayne, and Harrison, Daniel Hanson is an economics researcher at the American Enterprise Institute. Dayne Batten is affiliated with the University of North Carolina Department of Public Policy. Harrison Ealey is a financial analyst, It's Time For The U.S. To End Its Senseless Embargo Of Cuba, 1-16-13, http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/01/16/its-time-for-the-u-s-to-end-its-senseless-embargo-of-cuba/] /Wyo-MB fulltext: At present, the U.S. is largely alone in restricting access to Cuba. The embargo has long been a point of friction between the United States and allies in Europe, South America, and Canada. Every year since 1992, the U.S. has been publically condemned in the United Nations for maintaining counterproductive and worn out trade and migration restrictions against Cuba despite the fact that nearly all 5,911 U.S. companies nationalized during the Castro takeover have dropped their claims. [/INST] <h4><strong>The Embargo Makes US look bad internationally</h4><p>Hanson, Batten, and Ealey, 2013</p><p></strong>[Daniel, Dayne, and Harrison, Daniel Hanson is an economics researcher at the American Enterprise Institute. Dayne Batten is affiliated with the University of North Carolina Department of Public Policy. Harrison Ealey is a financial analyst, It's Time For The U.S. To End Its Senseless Embargo Of Cuba, 1-16-13, http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/01/16/its-time-for-the-u-s-to-end-its-senseless-embargo-of-cuba/] /Wyo-MB</p><p>At present, <u><strong>the U.S. is largely alone in restricting access to Cuba. The embargo has long been a point of friction between the United States and allies in Europe, South America, and Canada. Every year since 1992, the U.S. has been publically condemned in the United Nations for maintaining counterproductive and worn out trade and migration restrictions against Cuba</u></strong> despite the fact that nearly all 5,911 U.S. companies nationalized during the Castro takeover have dropped their claims.</p> </s>

Trade with Mexico is key to the U.S. economy- exports, imports, dual production

http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/State_of_Border_Trade_Economy_0.pdf Commerce between the United States and Mexico is one of the great ye underappreciated success stories of the global economy. The United States is Mexico’s top trading partner With more than a billion dollars of commercial traffic crossing the border each day, it is literally at the U.S.-Mexico border region where “the rubber hits the road” in terms of this expanded regional trade An estimated six million U.S. jobs and probably even more Mexican jobs depend on bilateraltrade.2 The six Mexican and four U.S. border states have especially close bilateral economic ties, but what is often unappreciated is that this economic value extends far beyond the border region The United States in an even more important market for Mexican exports. Seventy-nine percent of Mexican exports are sold to the United States, including products produced in the border region and throughout the country The quantity of U.S.-Mexico trade is impressive, but its quality makes it unique. The United States and Mexico do not just sell goods to one another, they actually work together to manufacture them This system of joint production has two important consequences. First, it means that our economies are profoundly linked. We tend to experience growth and recession together, and productivity gains or losses on one side of the border generally cause a corresponding gain or loss in competitiveness on the other side as well. In sum, we will largely succeed or fail together and must therefore join forces to increase the competitiveness of the region. Second, the fact that goods often cross the border several times as they are being produced creates a multiplier effect for gains and losses in border efficiency

And Christopher Wilson, Woodrow Wilson Center “The State of Trade, Competitiveness and Economic ¶ Well-being in the U.S.-Mexico Border Region” http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/State_of_Border_Trade_Economy_0.pdf, accessed 6/15/13,WYO/JF Commerce between the United States and Mexico is one of the great yet highly ¶ underappreciated success stories of the global economy. The United States is Mexico’s top ¶ trading partner, and Mexico—which has made enormous strides in its macroeconomic picture ¶ in the last two decades—is the U.S.’ third-ranked partner in terms of total trade. ¶ The economic vitality of the U.S.-Mexico border region—which includes manufacturing, ¶ infrastructure, human capital and tourism, among other elements—is a key part of this overall ¶ economic success. With more than a billion dollars of commercial traffic crossing the border ¶ each day, it is literally at the U.S.-Mexico border region where “the rubber hits the road” in ¶ terms of this expanded regional trade. This is because more than 70% of total binational ¶ commerce passes through the border region via trucks. This already massive truck traffic is ¶ expected to increase significantly in the coming decades (see Figure 1 below). Since the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1994, total trade ¶ between the two countries has more than quintupled, and goods and services trade is now at a half trillion dollars per year. An estimated six million U.S. jobs and probably even more Mexican ¶ jobs depend on bilateraltrade.2¶ The six Mexican and four U.S. border states have especially close bilateral economic ties, but ¶ what is often unappreciated is that this economic value extends far beyond the border region. ¶ Mexico, for example, is the top buyer of exports from states as far away as New Hampshire ¶ (mostly computers and electronics). In fact, Mexico is the first or second most important export ¶ market for twenty-one states from Colorado to Ohio, and twenty U.S. states sell more than a ¶ billion dollars’ worth of goods to Mexico each year. The United States in an even more ¶ important market for Mexican exports. Seventy-nine percent of Mexican exports are sold to the ¶ United States, including products produced in the border region and throughout the country.3¶ Crude oil, for example, which is mostly produced in Mexico’s Gulf Coast states, isthe top single ¶ export to the United States, but automobiles and auto-parts, which make up an even greater ¶ share of exports when taken together, are mainly made in the center and north of the country.4¶ The quantity of U.S.-Mexico trade is impressive, but its quality makes it unique. The United ¶ States and Mexico do not just sell goods to one another, they actually work together to ¶ manufacture them. Through a process known as production sharing, materials and parts often ¶ cross back and forth between factories on each side of the border as a final product is made ¶ and assembled. As a result, U.S. imports from Mexico contain, on average, 40 percent U.S. ¶ content, and Mexico’s imports from the U.S. also have a high level of Mexican content. 5 This system of joint production has two important consequences. First, it means that our ¶ economies are profoundly linked. We tend to experience growth and recession together, and ¶ productivity gains or losses on one side of the border generally cause a corresponding gain or ¶ loss in competitiveness on the other side as well. In sum, we will largely succeed or fail together ¶ and must therefore join forces to increase the competitiveness of the region. Second, the fact ¶ that goods often cross the border several times as they are being produced creates a multiplier ¶ effect for gains and losses in border efficiency. Whereas goods from China only go through ¶ customs and inspection once as they enter the U.S. or Mexico, products built by regional ¶ manufacturers bear the costs of long and unpredictable border wait times and significant ¶ customs requirements each time they cross the U.S.-Mexico border.

<h4><strong>Trade with Mexico is key to the U.S. economy- exports, imports, dual production</h4><p>Erik Lee, 12</p><p></strong> And Christopher Wilson, Woodrow Wilson Center “The State of Trade, Competitiveness and Economic ¶ Well-being in the U.S.-Mexico Border Region” <u>http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/State_of_Border_Trade_Economy_0.pdf</u>, accessed 6/15/13,WYO/JF</p><p><u><strong>Commerce between the United States and Mexico is one of the great ye</u></strong>t highly ¶ <u><strong>underappreciated success stories of the global economy. The United States is Mexico’s top </u></strong>¶<u><strong> trading partner</u></strong>, and Mexico—which has made enormous strides in its macroeconomic picture ¶ in the last two decades—is the U.S.’ third-ranked partner in terms of total trade. ¶ The economic vitality of the U.S.-Mexico border region—which includes manufacturing, ¶ infrastructure, human capital and tourism, among other elements—is a key part of this overall ¶ economic success. <u><strong>With more than a billion dollars of commercial traffic crossing the border </u></strong>¶<u><strong> each day, it is literally at the U.S.-Mexico border region where “the rubber hits the road” in </u></strong>¶<u><strong> terms of this expanded regional trade</u></strong>. This is because more than 70% of total binational ¶ commerce passes through the border region via trucks. This already massive truck traffic is ¶ expected to increase significantly in the coming decades (see Figure 1 below). Since the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1994, total trade ¶ between the two countries has more than quintupled, and goods and services trade is now at a half trillion dollars per year. <u><strong>An estimated six million U.S. jobs and probably even more Mexican </u></strong>¶<u><strong> jobs depend on bilateraltrade.2</u></strong>¶ <u><strong>The six Mexican and four U.S. border states have especially close bilateral economic ties, but </u></strong>¶<u><strong> what is often unappreciated is that this economic value extends far beyond the border region</u></strong>. ¶ Mexico, for example, is the top buyer of exports from states as far away as New Hampshire ¶ (mostly computers and electronics). In fact, Mexico is the first or second most important export ¶ market for twenty-one states from Colorado to Ohio, and twenty U.S. states sell more than a ¶ billion dollars’ worth of goods to Mexico each year. <u><strong>The United States in an even more </u></strong>¶<u><strong> important market for Mexican exports.</u></strong> <u><strong>Seventy-nine percent of Mexican exports are sold to the </u></strong>¶<u><strong> United States, including products produced in the border region and throughout the country</u></strong>.3¶ Crude oil, for example, which is mostly produced in Mexico’s Gulf Coast states, isthe top single ¶ export to the United States, but automobiles and auto-parts, which make up an even greater ¶ share of exports when taken together, are mainly made in the center and north of the country.4¶ <u><strong>The quantity of U.S.-Mexico trade is impressive, but its quality makes it unique. The United </u></strong>¶<u><strong> States and Mexico do not just sell goods to one another, they actually work together to </u></strong>¶<u><strong> manufacture them</u></strong>. Through a process known as production sharing, materials and parts often ¶ cross back and forth between factories on each side of the border as a final product is made ¶ and assembled. As a result, U.S. imports from Mexico contain, on average, 40 percent U.S. ¶ content, and Mexico’s imports from the U.S. also have a high level of Mexican content. 5 <u><strong>This system of joint production has two important consequences. First, it means that our </u></strong>¶<u><strong> economies are profoundly linked. We tend to experience growth and recession together, and </u></strong>¶<u><strong> productivity gains or losses on one side of the border generally cause a corresponding gain or </u></strong>¶<u><strong> loss in competitiveness on the other side as well. In sum, we will largely succeed or fail together </u></strong>¶<u><strong> and must therefore join forces to increase the competitiveness of the region. Second, the fact </u></strong>¶<u><strong> that goods often cross the border several times as they are being produced creates a multiplier </u></strong>¶<u><strong> effect for gains and losses in border efficiency</u></strong>. Whereas goods from China only go through ¶ customs and inspection once as they enter the U.S. or Mexico, products built by regional ¶ manufacturers bear the costs of long and unpredictable border wait times and significant ¶ customs requirements each time they cross the U.S.-Mexico border. </p>

Erik Lee, 12

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Erik Lee, 12 fulltext: And Christopher Wilson, Woodrow Wilson Center “The State of Trade, Competitiveness and Economic ¶ Well-being in the U.S.-Mexico Border Region” http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/State_of_Border_Trade_Economy_0.pdf, accessed 6/15/13,WYO/JF Commerce between the United States and Mexico is one of the great yet highly ¶ underappreciated success stories of the global economy. The United States is Mexico’s top ¶ trading partner, and Mexico—which has made enormous strides in its macroeconomic picture ¶ in the last two decades—is the U.S.’ third-ranked partner in terms of total trade. ¶ The economic vitality of the U.S.-Mexico border region—which includes manufacturing, ¶ infrastructure, human capital and tourism, among other elements—is a key part of this overall ¶ economic success. With more than a billion dollars of commercial traffic crossing the border ¶ each day, it is literally at the U.S.-Mexico border region where “the rubber hits the road” in ¶ terms of this expanded regional trade. This is because more than 70% of total binational ¶ commerce passes through the border region via trucks. This already massive truck traffic is ¶ expected to increase significantly in the coming decades (see Figure 1 below). Since the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1994, total trade ¶ between the two countries has more than quintupled, and goods and services trade is now at a half trillion dollars per year. An estimated six million U.S. jobs and probably even more Mexican ¶ jobs depend on bilateraltrade.2¶ The six Mexican and four U.S. border states have especially close bilateral economic ties, but ¶ what is often unappreciated is that this economic value extends far beyond the border region. ¶ Mexico, for example, is the top buyer of exports from states as far away as New Hampshire ¶ (mostly computers and electronics). In fact, Mexico is the first or second most important export ¶ market for twenty-one states from Colorado to Ohio, and twenty U.S. states sell more than a ¶ billion dollars’ worth of goods to Mexico each year. The United States in an even more ¶ important market for Mexican exports. Seventy-nine percent of Mexican exports are sold to the ¶ United States, including products produced in the border region and throughout the country.3¶ Crude oil, for example, which is mostly produced in Mexico’s Gulf Coast states, isthe top single ¶ export to the United States, but automobiles and auto-parts, which make up an even greater ¶ share of exports when taken together, are mainly made in the center and north of the country.4¶ The quantity of U.S.-Mexico trade is impressive, but its quality makes it unique. The United ¶ States and Mexico do not just sell goods to one another, they actually work together to ¶ manufacture them. Through a process known as production sharing, materials and parts often ¶ cross back and forth between factories on each side of the border as a final product is made ¶ and assembled. As a result, U.S. imports from Mexico contain, on average, 40 percent U.S. ¶ content, and Mexico’s imports from the U.S. also have a high level of Mexican content. 5 This system of joint production has two important consequences. First, it means that our ¶ economies are profoundly linked. We tend to experience growth and recession together, and ¶ productivity gains or losses on one side of the border generally cause a corresponding gain or ¶ loss in competitiveness on the other side as well. In sum, we will largely succeed or fail together ¶ and must therefore join forces to increase the competitiveness of the region. Second, the fact ¶ that goods often cross the border several times as they are being produced creates a multiplier ¶ effect for gains and losses in border efficiency. Whereas goods from China only go through ¶ customs and inspection once as they enter the U.S. or Mexico, products built by regional ¶ manufacturers bear the costs of long and unpredictable border wait times and significant ¶ customs requirements each time they cross the U.S.-Mexico border. [/INST] <h4><strong>Trade with Mexico is key to the U.S. economy- exports, imports, dual production</h4><p>Erik Lee, 12</p><p></strong> And Christopher Wilson, Woodrow Wilson Center “The State of Trade, Competitiveness and Economic ¶ Well-being in the U.S.-Mexico Border Region” <u>http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/State_of_Border_Trade_Economy_0.pdf</u>, accessed 6/15/13,WYO/JF</p><p><u><strong>Commerce between the United States and Mexico is one of the great ye</u></strong>t highly ¶ <u><strong>underappreciated success stories of the global economy. The United States is Mexico’s top </u></strong>¶<u><strong> trading partner</u></strong>, and Mexico—which has made enormous strides in its macroeconomic picture ¶ in the last two decades—is the U.S.’ third-ranked partner in terms of total trade. ¶ The economic vitality of the U.S.-Mexico border region—which includes manufacturing, ¶ infrastructure, human capital and tourism, among other elements—is a key part of this overall ¶ economic success. <u><strong>With more than a billion dollars of commercial traffic crossing the border </u></strong>¶<u><strong> each day, it is literally at the U.S.-Mexico border region where “the rubber hits the road” in </u></strong>¶<u><strong> terms of this expanded regional trade</u></strong>. This is because more than 70% of total binational ¶ commerce passes through the border region via trucks. This already massive truck traffic is ¶ expected to increase significantly in the coming decades (see Figure 1 below). Since the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1994, total trade ¶ between the two countries has more than quintupled, and goods and services trade is now at a half trillion dollars per year. <u><strong>An estimated six million U.S. jobs and probably even more Mexican </u></strong>¶<u><strong> jobs depend on bilateraltrade.2</u></strong>¶ <u><strong>The six Mexican and four U.S. border states have especially close bilateral economic ties, but </u></strong>¶<u><strong> what is often unappreciated is that this economic value extends far beyond the border region</u></strong>. ¶ Mexico, for example, is the top buyer of exports from states as far away as New Hampshire ¶ (mostly computers and electronics). In fact, Mexico is the first or second most important export ¶ market for twenty-one states from Colorado to Ohio, and twenty U.S. states sell more than a ¶ billion dollars’ worth of goods to Mexico each year. <u><strong>The United States in an even more </u></strong>¶<u><strong> important market for Mexican exports.</u></strong> <u><strong>Seventy-nine percent of Mexican exports are sold to the </u></strong>¶<u><strong> United States, including products produced in the border region and throughout the country</u></strong>.3¶ Crude oil, for example, which is mostly produced in Mexico’s Gulf Coast states, isthe top single ¶ export to the United States, but automobiles and auto-parts, which make up an even greater ¶ share of exports when taken together, are mainly made in the center and north of the country.4¶ <u><strong>The quantity of U.S.-Mexico trade is impressive, but its quality makes it unique. The United </u></strong>¶<u><strong> States and Mexico do not just sell goods to one another, they actually work together to </u></strong>¶<u><strong> manufacture them</u></strong>. Through a process known as production sharing, materials and parts often ¶ cross back and forth between factories on each side of the border as a final product is made ¶ and assembled. As a result, U.S. imports from Mexico contain, on average, 40 percent U.S. ¶ content, and Mexico’s imports from the U.S. also have a high level of Mexican content. 5 <u><strong>This system of joint production has two important consequences. First, it means that our </u></strong>¶<u><strong> economies are profoundly linked. We tend to experience growth and recession together, and </u></strong>¶<u><strong> productivity gains or losses on one side of the border generally cause a corresponding gain or </u></strong>¶<u><strong> loss in competitiveness on the other side as well. In sum, we will largely succeed or fail together </u></strong>¶<u><strong> and must therefore join forces to increase the competitiveness of the region. Second, the fact </u></strong>¶<u><strong> that goods often cross the border several times as they are being produced creates a multiplier </u></strong>¶<u><strong> effect for gains and losses in border efficiency</u></strong>. Whereas goods from China only go through ¶ customs and inspection once as they enter the U.S. or Mexico, products built by regional ¶ manufacturers bear the costs of long and unpredictable border wait times and significant ¶ customs requirements each time they cross the U.S.-Mexico border. </p> </s>

Now is key time to use embargo to force regime change, Venezuala regime change means that Cuba can’t stand up to the embargo

No doubt, it has been a fruitless 50 years since the embargo was enacted. Little has changed as far as democracy and human rights are concerned. To maintain control, Cuba has “managed to offset much of the effects over the years in large part because the Soviets subsidized the island for three decades after the collapse of the Berlin Wall, Venezuela is its new patron However, Venezuela is now undergoing a political transition of its own Therefore, now is the ideal time to take action. Without Venezuela’s support, the Cuban government will assuredly face an economic crisis. Strengthening the embargo to limit U.S. dollars flowing into Cuba would place further pressure on the Cuban government and has the potential to trigger an economic collapse. A change in the Cuban political climate is within reach.

[Mitchell, International Policy Digest, Time to Strengthen the Cuban Embargo, 5-9-13, http://www.internationalpolicydigest.org/2013/05/09/time-to-strengthen-the-cuban-embargo/] /Wyo-MB No doubt, it has been a fruitless 50 years since the embargo was enacted. Little has changed as far as democracy and human rights are concerned. To maintain control, Cuba has “managed to offset much of the effects over the years in large part because the Soviets subsidized the island for three decades, because the regime welcomed Canadian, Mexican and European capital after the collapse of the Berlin Wall, and because Venezuela is its new patron,” according to Llosa. However, Venezuela is now undergoing a political transition of its own with the recent death of Hugo Chávez, its president for the past 14 years, and the controversial election of Nicolás Maduro. Despite being Chávez’s handpicked successor, Maduro only won by a narrow margin and will likely be forced to cut spending on social programs and foreign assistance in an effort to stabilize Venezuela’s dire economic problems. Therefore, now is the ideal time to take action. Without Venezuela’s support, the Cuban government will assuredly face an economic crisis. Strengthening the embargo to limit U.S. dollars flowing into Cuba would place further pressure on the Cuban government and has the potential to trigger an economic collapse. A change in the Cuban political climate is within reach.

<h4><strong>Now is key time to use embargo to force regime change, Venezuala regime change means that Cuba can’t stand up to the embargo</h4><p>Bustillo, 2013</p><p></strong>[Mitchell, International Policy Digest, Time to Strengthen the Cuban Embargo, 5-9-13, http://www.internationalpolicydigest.org/2013/05/09/time-to-strengthen-the-cuban-embargo/] /Wyo-MB</p><p><u><strong>No doubt, it has been a fruitless 50 years since the embargo was enacted. Little has changed as far as democracy and human rights are concerned.</u></strong> <u><strong>To maintain control, Cuba has “managed to offset much of the effects over the years in large part because the Soviets subsidized the island for three decades</u></strong>, because the regime welcomed Canadian, Mexican and European capital <u><strong>after the collapse of the Berlin Wall,</u></strong> and because <u><strong>Venezuela is its new patron</u></strong>,” according to Llosa. <u><strong>However, Venezuela is now undergoing a political transition of its own</u></strong> with the recent death of Hugo Chávez, its president for the past 14 years, and the controversial election of Nicolás Maduro. Despite being Chávez’s handpicked successor, Maduro only won by a narrow margin and will likely be forced to cut spending on social programs and foreign assistance in an effort to stabilize Venezuela’s dire economic problems. <u><strong>Therefore, now is the ideal time to take action. Without Venezuela’s support, the Cuban government will assuredly face an economic crisis. Strengthening the embargo to limit U.S. dollars flowing into Cuba would place further pressure on the Cuban government and has the potential to trigger an economic collapse. A change in the Cuban political climate is within reach.</p></u></strong>

Bustillo, 2013

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Bustillo, 2013 fulltext: [Mitchell, International Policy Digest, Time to Strengthen the Cuban Embargo, 5-9-13, http://www.internationalpolicydigest.org/2013/05/09/time-to-strengthen-the-cuban-embargo/] /Wyo-MB No doubt, it has been a fruitless 50 years since the embargo was enacted. Little has changed as far as democracy and human rights are concerned. To maintain control, Cuba has “managed to offset much of the effects over the years in large part because the Soviets subsidized the island for three decades, because the regime welcomed Canadian, Mexican and European capital after the collapse of the Berlin Wall, and because Venezuela is its new patron,” according to Llosa. However, Venezuela is now undergoing a political transition of its own with the recent death of Hugo Chávez, its president for the past 14 years, and the controversial election of Nicolás Maduro. Despite being Chávez’s handpicked successor, Maduro only won by a narrow margin and will likely be forced to cut spending on social programs and foreign assistance in an effort to stabilize Venezuela’s dire economic problems. Therefore, now is the ideal time to take action. Without Venezuela’s support, the Cuban government will assuredly face an economic crisis. Strengthening the embargo to limit U.S. dollars flowing into Cuba would place further pressure on the Cuban government and has the potential to trigger an economic collapse. A change in the Cuban political climate is within reach. [/INST] <h4><strong>Now is key time to use embargo to force regime change, Venezuala regime change means that Cuba can’t stand up to the embargo</h4><p>Bustillo, 2013</p><p></strong>[Mitchell, International Policy Digest, Time to Strengthen the Cuban Embargo, 5-9-13, http://www.internationalpolicydigest.org/2013/05/09/time-to-strengthen-the-cuban-embargo/] /Wyo-MB</p><p><u><strong>No doubt, it has been a fruitless 50 years since the embargo was enacted. Little has changed as far as democracy and human rights are concerned.</u></strong> <u><strong>To maintain control, Cuba has “managed to offset much of the effects over the years in large part because the Soviets subsidized the island for three decades</u></strong>, because the regime welcomed Canadian, Mexican and European capital <u><strong>after the collapse of the Berlin Wall,</u></strong> and because <u><strong>Venezuela is its new patron</u></strong>,” according to Llosa. <u><strong>However, Venezuela is now undergoing a political transition of its own</u></strong> with the recent death of Hugo Chávez, its president for the past 14 years, and the controversial election of Nicolás Maduro. Despite being Chávez’s handpicked successor, Maduro only won by a narrow margin and will likely be forced to cut spending on social programs and foreign assistance in an effort to stabilize Venezuela’s dire economic problems. <u><strong>Therefore, now is the ideal time to take action. Without Venezuela’s support, the Cuban government will assuredly face an economic crisis. Strengthening the embargo to limit U.S. dollars flowing into Cuba would place further pressure on the Cuban government and has the potential to trigger an economic collapse. A change in the Cuban political climate is within reach.</p></u></strong> </s>

3. Probability- Impact most probable- China becoming more aggressive and rhetoric ensures use of force

In unusually strong language, China ratcheted up the rhetoric against Taiwan in remarks published Wednesday and threatened that "the use of force may become unavoidable" if the island's leaders pursue independence curbing any efforts the island makes toward independence is the ultimate goal of the mainland, which will go to war if necessary. "If the Taiwan authorities collude with all splittist forces to openly engage in pro-independence activities and challenge the mainland and the one-China principle, the use of force may become unavoidable," Wang was quoted Taiwan independence means war Beijing has long threatened the use of force against Taiwan if it formally declares independence, but rarely so dramatically

In unusually strong language, China ratcheted up the rhetoric against Taiwan in remarks published Wednesday and threatened that "the use of force may become unavoidable" if the island's leaders pursue independence. The warning from Beijing came as Taiwan prepares to elect a new leader in March. President Chen Shui-bian, running for office again, has won over more voters since he came up with plans for a new constitution and a law on referendums that could conceivably lead to citizens voting on Taiwanese independence. Wang Zaixi, a top mainland official who deals with the Taiwan issue, said curbing any efforts the island makes toward independence is the ultimate goal of the mainland, which will go to war if necessary. "If the Taiwan authorities collude with all splittist forces to openly engage in pro-independence activities and challenge the mainland and the one-China principle, the use of force may become unavoidable," Wang was quoted as saying in China Daily, an English-language newspaper with a wide foreign audience. Separatists will "pay a high cost if they think we will not use force," said Wang, vice minister of the Taiwan Affairs Office of China's Cabinet. "Taiwan independence means war." Wang, who was speaking at a seminar on cross-straits relations, also tempered his remarks by adding that "the people of Taiwan are our brothers and sisters. We are not willing to meet at the battleground." The Chinese Cabinet's Taiwan Affairs Office in Beijing had no immediate comment on Wednesday. The Mainland Affairs Council in Taipei was silent hours after Wang's remarks were published — a rare move from a normally responsive government. Beijing has long threatened the use of force against Taiwan if it formally declares independence, but rarely so dramatically. The two sides split amid civil war in 1949, and Beijing insists that Taiwan belongs to China and must accept eventual unification. But the language, the strongest in years, was unusual even in that context.

<h4><strong>3. Probability- Impact most probable- China becoming more aggressive and rhetoric ensures use of force</h4><p>CBS News 09</p><p></strong>(CBS News, “China: Taiwan Independence = War,” February 11, 2009, http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-202_162-587588.html) wyo-mm</p><p><u><strong>In unusually strong language, China ratcheted up the rhetoric against Taiwan in remarks published Wednesday and threatened that "the use of force may become unavoidable" if the island's leaders pursue independence</u></strong>. The warning from Beijing came as Taiwan prepares to elect a new leader in March. President Chen Shui-bian, running for office again, has won over more voters since he came up with plans for a new constitution and a law on referendums that could conceivably lead to citizens voting on Taiwanese independence. Wang Zaixi, a top mainland official who deals with the Taiwan issue, said <u><strong>curbing any efforts the island makes toward independence is the ultimate goal of the mainland, which will go to war if necessary. "If the Taiwan authorities collude with all splittist forces to openly engage in pro-independence activities and challenge the mainland and the one-China principle, the use of force may become unavoidable," Wang was quoted</u></strong> as saying in China Daily, an English-language newspaper with a wide foreign audience. Separatists will "pay a high cost if they think we will not use force," said Wang, vice minister of the Taiwan Affairs Office of China's Cabinet. "<u><strong>Taiwan independence means war</u></strong>." Wang, who was speaking at a seminar on cross-straits relations, also tempered his remarks by adding that "the people of Taiwan are our brothers and sisters. We are not willing to meet at the battleground." The Chinese Cabinet's Taiwan Affairs Office in Beijing had no immediate comment on Wednesday. The Mainland Affairs Council in Taipei was silent hours after Wang's remarks were published — a rare move from a normally responsive government. <u><strong>Beijing has long threatened the use of force against Taiwan if it formally declares independence, but rarely so dramatically</u></strong>. The two sides split amid civil war in 1949, and Beijing insists that Taiwan belongs to China and must accept eventual unification. But the language, the strongest in years, was unusual even in that context.</p>

CBS News 09 (CBS News, “China: Taiwan Independence = War,” February 11, 2009, http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-202_162-587588.html) wyo-mm

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: CBS News 09 (CBS News, “China: Taiwan Independence = War,” February 11, 2009, http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-202_162-587588.html) wyo-mm fulltext: In unusually strong language, China ratcheted up the rhetoric against Taiwan in remarks published Wednesday and threatened that "the use of force may become unavoidable" if the island's leaders pursue independence. The warning from Beijing came as Taiwan prepares to elect a new leader in March. President Chen Shui-bian, running for office again, has won over more voters since he came up with plans for a new constitution and a law on referendums that could conceivably lead to citizens voting on Taiwanese independence. Wang Zaixi, a top mainland official who deals with the Taiwan issue, said curbing any efforts the island makes toward independence is the ultimate goal of the mainland, which will go to war if necessary. "If the Taiwan authorities collude with all splittist forces to openly engage in pro-independence activities and challenge the mainland and the one-China principle, the use of force may become unavoidable," Wang was quoted as saying in China Daily, an English-language newspaper with a wide foreign audience. Separatists will "pay a high cost if they think we will not use force," said Wang, vice minister of the Taiwan Affairs Office of China's Cabinet. "Taiwan independence means war." Wang, who was speaking at a seminar on cross-straits relations, also tempered his remarks by adding that "the people of Taiwan are our brothers and sisters. We are not willing to meet at the battleground." The Chinese Cabinet's Taiwan Affairs Office in Beijing had no immediate comment on Wednesday. The Mainland Affairs Council in Taipei was silent hours after Wang's remarks were published — a rare move from a normally responsive government. Beijing has long threatened the use of force against Taiwan if it formally declares independence, but rarely so dramatically. The two sides split amid civil war in 1949, and Beijing insists that Taiwan belongs to China and must accept eventual unification. But the language, the strongest in years, was unusual even in that context. [/INST] <h4><strong>3. Probability- Impact most probable- China becoming more aggressive and rhetoric ensures use of force</h4><p>CBS News 09</p><p></strong>(CBS News, “China: Taiwan Independence = War,” February 11, 2009, http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-202_162-587588.html) wyo-mm</p><p><u><strong>In unusually strong language, China ratcheted up the rhetoric against Taiwan in remarks published Wednesday and threatened that "the use of force may become unavoidable" if the island's leaders pursue independence</u></strong>. The warning from Beijing came as Taiwan prepares to elect a new leader in March. President Chen Shui-bian, running for office again, has won over more voters since he came up with plans for a new constitution and a law on referendums that could conceivably lead to citizens voting on Taiwanese independence. Wang Zaixi, a top mainland official who deals with the Taiwan issue, said <u><strong>curbing any efforts the island makes toward independence is the ultimate goal of the mainland, which will go to war if necessary. "If the Taiwan authorities collude with all splittist forces to openly engage in pro-independence activities and challenge the mainland and the one-China principle, the use of force may become unavoidable," Wang was quoted</u></strong> as saying in China Daily, an English-language newspaper with a wide foreign audience. Separatists will "pay a high cost if they think we will not use force," said Wang, vice minister of the Taiwan Affairs Office of China's Cabinet. "<u><strong>Taiwan independence means war</u></strong>." Wang, who was speaking at a seminar on cross-straits relations, also tempered his remarks by adding that "the people of Taiwan are our brothers and sisters. We are not willing to meet at the battleground." The Chinese Cabinet's Taiwan Affairs Office in Beijing had no immediate comment on Wednesday. The Mainland Affairs Council in Taipei was silent hours after Wang's remarks were published — a rare move from a normally responsive government. <u><strong>Beijing has long threatened the use of force against Taiwan if it formally declares independence, but rarely so dramatically</u></strong>. The two sides split amid civil war in 1949, and Beijing insists that Taiwan belongs to China and must accept eventual unification. But the language, the strongest in years, was unusual even in that context.</p> </s>

Current stance erodes US influence in Cuba and Latin America and undermines democracy and human rights promotion

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 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. we have provided the Cuban authorities with an excuse to denounce their legitimate efforts to build a more open society.

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.

<h4><strong>Current stance erodes US influence in Cuba and Latin America and undermines democracy and human rights promotion</h4><p>Huddleston and Pascual, 2010</p><p><u>[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 </p><p></u></strong>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. <u><strong>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</u></strong>. Perversely, the policy of <u><strong>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. </u></strong>And by too tightly embracing Cuba’s brave dissidents, <u><strong>we have provided the Cuban authorities with an excuse to denounce their legitimate efforts to build a more open society.</p></u></strong>

Huddleston 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

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Huddleston 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 fulltext: 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. [/INST] <h4><strong>Current stance erodes US influence in Cuba and Latin America and undermines democracy and human rights promotion</h4><p>Huddleston and Pascual, 2010</p><p><u>[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 </p><p></u></strong>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. <u><strong>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</u></strong>. Perversely, the policy of <u><strong>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. </u></strong>And by too tightly embracing Cuba’s brave dissidents, <u><strong>we have provided the Cuban authorities with an excuse to denounce their legitimate efforts to build a more open society.</p></u></strong> </s>

Mexico is key to U.S. trade- second largest trade partner

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32934.pdf The bilateral economic relationship with Mexico is of key interest to the United States because of Mexico’s proximity volume of trade and the strong cultural and economic ties between the two countries. Mexico is one of the United States’ key trading partners, ranking second among U.S. export markets and third in total U.S. trade the United States and Mexico have developed significant economic ties.

Specialist in International Trade and Finance¶ “U.S.-Mexico Economic Relations: ¶ Trends, Issues, and Implications” http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32934.pdf, accessed 6/15/13,WFI/JF The bilateral economic relationship with Mexico is of key interest to the United States because of ¶ Mexico’s proximity, the high volume of trade with Mexico, and the strong cultural and economic ¶ ties between the two countries. Mexico is one of the United States’ key trading partners, ranking ¶ second among U.S. export markets and third in total U.S. trade (imports plus exports). Under the ¶ North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the United States and Mexico have developed ¶ significant economic ties. Trade between the two countries more than tripled since the agreement ¶ was implemented in 1994. Through NAFTA, the United States, Mexico, and Canada form the ¶ world’s largest free trade area, with about one-third of the world’s total gross domestic product ¶ (GDP). Mexico has a population of 114 million people, making it the most populous Spanish speaking country in the world and the third-most populous country in the Western Hemisphere ¶ (after the United States and Brazil).

<h4>Mexico is key to U.S. trade<strong>- second largest trade partner</h4><p>M. Angeles Villarreal, 12</p><p></strong>Specialist in International Trade and Finance¶ “U.S.-Mexico Economic Relations: ¶ Trends, Issues, and Implications” <u>http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32934.pdf</u>, accessed 6/15/13,WFI/JF</p><p><u><strong>The bilateral economic relationship with Mexico is of key interest to the United States because of </u></strong>¶<u><strong> Mexico’s proximity</u></strong>, the high <u><strong>volume of trade </u></strong>with Mexico, <u><strong>and the strong cultural and economic </u></strong>¶<u><strong> ties between the two countries. Mexico is one of the United States’ key trading partners, ranking </u></strong>¶<u><strong> second among U.S. export markets and third in total U.S. trade</u></strong> (imports plus exports). Under the ¶ North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), <u><strong>the United States and Mexico have developed </u></strong>¶<u><strong> significant economic ties.</u></strong> Trade between the two countries more than tripled since the agreement ¶ was implemented in 1994. Through NAFTA, the United States, Mexico, and Canada form the ¶ world’s largest free trade area, with about one-third of the world’s total gross domestic product ¶ (GDP). Mexico has a population of 114 million people, making it the most populous Spanish speaking country in the world and the third-most populous country in the Western Hemisphere ¶ (after the United States and Brazil).</p>

M. Angeles Villarreal, 12

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: M. Angeles Villarreal, 12 fulltext: Specialist in International Trade and Finance¶ “U.S.-Mexico Economic Relations: ¶ Trends, Issues, and Implications” http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32934.pdf, accessed 6/15/13,WFI/JF The bilateral economic relationship with Mexico is of key interest to the United States because of ¶ Mexico’s proximity, the high volume of trade with Mexico, and the strong cultural and economic ¶ ties between the two countries. Mexico is one of the United States’ key trading partners, ranking ¶ second among U.S. export markets and third in total U.S. trade (imports plus exports). Under the ¶ North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the United States and Mexico have developed ¶ significant economic ties. Trade between the two countries more than tripled since the agreement ¶ was implemented in 1994. Through NAFTA, the United States, Mexico, and Canada form the ¶ world’s largest free trade area, with about one-third of the world’s total gross domestic product ¶ (GDP). Mexico has a population of 114 million people, making it the most populous Spanish speaking country in the world and the third-most populous country in the Western Hemisphere ¶ (after the United States and Brazil). [/INST] <h4>Mexico is key to U.S. trade<strong>- second largest trade partner</h4><p>M. Angeles Villarreal, 12</p><p></strong>Specialist in International Trade and Finance¶ “U.S.-Mexico Economic Relations: ¶ Trends, Issues, and Implications” <u>http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32934.pdf</u>, accessed 6/15/13,WFI/JF</p><p><u><strong>The bilateral economic relationship with Mexico is of key interest to the United States because of </u></strong>¶<u><strong> Mexico’s proximity</u></strong>, the high <u><strong>volume of trade </u></strong>with Mexico, <u><strong>and the strong cultural and economic </u></strong>¶<u><strong> ties between the two countries. Mexico is one of the United States’ key trading partners, ranking </u></strong>¶<u><strong> second among U.S. export markets and third in total U.S. trade</u></strong> (imports plus exports). Under the ¶ North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), <u><strong>the United States and Mexico have developed </u></strong>¶<u><strong> significant economic ties.</u></strong> Trade between the two countries more than tripled since the agreement ¶ was implemented in 1994. Through NAFTA, the United States, Mexico, and Canada form the ¶ world’s largest free trade area, with about one-third of the world’s total gross domestic product ¶ (GDP). Mexico has a population of 114 million people, making it the most populous Spanish speaking country in the world and the third-most populous country in the Western Hemisphere ¶ (after the United States and Brazil).</p> </s>

China influence over Cuba key to maintain strength on Taiwan-

As the issue of Taiwan has become more tense and aggravating for Chinese policies, Beijing has increased its relations with Cuba A important dimension in Beijing's current alliance with Cuba is that Cuba is located in the heart of the Caribbean where Taiwan has been able to retain diplomatic recognition from a considerable number of the region's states. Cuba's political influence throughout the region is extremely valuable to China's long-term policy of eroding Taiwan's standing Cuba is an important political actor with strong ties to influential political forces and governments from which China benefits; Cuba has a positive and constructive image derived from its alliance with China, an image aimed at undermining Taiwan's fading regional leverage

(Amuchastegui, The Free Library, “Cuba and China: similarities and differences.,” September 1, 2006, http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Cuba+and+China%3A+similarities+and+differences.-a0151844511) /wyo-mm As the issue of Taiwan has become more tense and aggravating for Chinese policies, Beijing has increased its relations with Cuba. This has been a dominant trend since the early 1990s, but especially in recent years following Taiwan's increased hostility toward China backed by the Bush administration. A second important dimension in Beijing's current alliance with Cuba is that Cuba is located in the heart of the Caribbean where Taiwan has been able to retain diplomatic recognition from a considerable number of the region's states. Cuba's political influence throughout the region is extremely valuable to China's long-term policy of eroding Taiwan's standing. First, Cuba is an important political actor with strong ties to influential political forces and governments from which China benefits; second, Cuba has throughout the region a positive and constructive image derived from its alliance with China, an image aimed at undermining Taiwan's fading regional leverage. These two factors today are increasingly reinforced by the alliance between Venezuela and Cuba, which is a third factor that has augmented China's interest in Cuba. Economic considerations are no less important. Nickel, cobalt and oil are vital to China's economy. Because Cuba is a source for all three commodities, China is willing to grant Cuba exceptional privileges in terms of financial arrangements, insurance backing, rescheduling of debt and long-term investments in mining, oil, biotechnology, and tourism.

<h4><strong>China influence over Cuba key to maintain strength on Taiwan-</h4><p>Domingo 06</p><p></strong>(Amuchastegui, The Free Library, “Cuba and China: similarities and differences.,” September 1, 2006, http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Cuba+and+China%3A+similarities+and+differences.-a0151844511) /wyo-mm</p><p><u><strong>As the issue of Taiwan has become more tense and aggravating for Chinese policies, Beijing has increased its relations with Cuba</u></strong>. This has been a dominant trend since the early 1990s, but especially in recent years following Taiwan's increased hostility toward China backed by the Bush administration. <u><strong>A</u></strong> second <u><strong>important dimension in Beijing's current alliance with Cuba is that Cuba is located in the heart of the Caribbean where Taiwan has been able to retain diplomatic recognition from a considerable number of the region's states. Cuba's political influence throughout the region is extremely valuable to China's long-term policy of eroding Taiwan's standing</u></strong>. First, <u><strong>Cuba is an important political actor with strong ties to influential political forces and governments from which China benefits;</u></strong> second, <u><strong>Cuba has</u></strong> throughout the region <u><strong>a positive and constructive image derived from its alliance with China, an image aimed at undermining Taiwan's fading regional leverage</u></strong>. These two factors today are increasingly reinforced by the alliance between Venezuela and Cuba, which is a third factor that has augmented China's interest in Cuba. Economic considerations are no less important. Nickel, cobalt and oil are vital to China's economy. Because Cuba is a source for all three commodities, China is willing to grant Cuba exceptional privileges in terms of financial arrangements, insurance backing, rescheduling of debt and long-term investments in mining, oil, biotechnology, and tourism.</p>

Domingo 06

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Domingo 06 fulltext: (Amuchastegui, The Free Library, “Cuba and China: similarities and differences.,” September 1, 2006, http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Cuba+and+China%3A+similarities+and+differences.-a0151844511) /wyo-mm As the issue of Taiwan has become more tense and aggravating for Chinese policies, Beijing has increased its relations with Cuba. This has been a dominant trend since the early 1990s, but especially in recent years following Taiwan's increased hostility toward China backed by the Bush administration. A second important dimension in Beijing's current alliance with Cuba is that Cuba is located in the heart of the Caribbean where Taiwan has been able to retain diplomatic recognition from a considerable number of the region's states. Cuba's political influence throughout the region is extremely valuable to China's long-term policy of eroding Taiwan's standing. First, Cuba is an important political actor with strong ties to influential political forces and governments from which China benefits; second, Cuba has throughout the region a positive and constructive image derived from its alliance with China, an image aimed at undermining Taiwan's fading regional leverage. These two factors today are increasingly reinforced by the alliance between Venezuela and Cuba, which is a third factor that has augmented China's interest in Cuba. Economic considerations are no less important. Nickel, cobalt and oil are vital to China's economy. Because Cuba is a source for all three commodities, China is willing to grant Cuba exceptional privileges in terms of financial arrangements, insurance backing, rescheduling of debt and long-term investments in mining, oil, biotechnology, and tourism. [/INST] <h4><strong>China influence over Cuba key to maintain strength on Taiwan-</h4><p>Domingo 06</p><p></strong>(Amuchastegui, The Free Library, “Cuba and China: similarities and differences.,” September 1, 2006, http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Cuba+and+China%3A+similarities+and+differences.-a0151844511) /wyo-mm</p><p><u><strong>As the issue of Taiwan has become more tense and aggravating for Chinese policies, Beijing has increased its relations with Cuba</u></strong>. This has been a dominant trend since the early 1990s, but especially in recent years following Taiwan's increased hostility toward China backed by the Bush administration. <u><strong>A</u></strong> second <u><strong>important dimension in Beijing's current alliance with Cuba is that Cuba is located in the heart of the Caribbean where Taiwan has been able to retain diplomatic recognition from a considerable number of the region's states. Cuba's political influence throughout the region is extremely valuable to China's long-term policy of eroding Taiwan's standing</u></strong>. First, <u><strong>Cuba is an important political actor with strong ties to influential political forces and governments from which China benefits;</u></strong> second, <u><strong>Cuba has</u></strong> throughout the region <u><strong>a positive and constructive image derived from its alliance with China, an image aimed at undermining Taiwan's fading regional leverage</u></strong>. These two factors today are increasingly reinforced by the alliance between Venezuela and Cuba, which is a third factor that has augmented China's interest in Cuba. Economic considerations are no less important. Nickel, cobalt and oil are vital to China's economy. Because Cuba is a source for all three commodities, China is willing to grant Cuba exceptional privileges in terms of financial arrangements, insurance backing, rescheduling of debt and long-term investments in mining, oil, biotechnology, and tourism.</p> </s>

Cuba has made moves to boost relations, it is up the U.S. to take steps to build the relationship

Fifty years after the United States enacted an embargo on all trade and commercial transactions with Cuba, relations between the two countries remain at a standstill the Obama administration has prioritized domestic politics over foreign policy in its relationship with Cuba, even as Cuban President Raul Castro has been "moving in the direction of the kind of reforms that every administration over the last fifty years has called upon Cuba to make." Cuba is strengthening ties with global powers like Brazil, as the Castro administration seeks to open up new economic and social spaces for its citizens. It's not realistic to expect the United States to undertake a series of unilateral moves toward normalization; it needs a willing partner. I believe we have one in Havana but have failed to read the signals. Raul Castro has now been in the politics of implementing a fairly wide range of economic and political and social reforms are his priority He's moving in the direction of the kind of reforms that every administration over the last fifty years has called upon Cuba to make, albeit under the rubric of a one-party system. There's a broad range of cooperation--neighborhood security in the Gulf of Mexico, as Cuba has just started drilling for oil, counternarcotics, and natural disasters--between the two countries that is still not happening, and that gives me the impression that the United States has been unwilling to take "yes" for an answer and respond positively to steps taken by Cuba.

Fifty years after the United States enacted an embargo on all trade and commercial transactions with Cuba, relations between the two countries remain at a standstill. Julia E. Sweig, CFR's director of Latin American studies, says the Obama administration has prioritized domestic politics over foreign policy in its relationship with Cuba, even as Cuban President Raul Castro has been "moving in the direction of the kind of reforms that every administration over the last fifty years has called upon Cuba to make." The case of American USAID contractor Alan Gross, currently serving a fifteen-year prison sentence in Cuba (CubanTriangle) on charges of attempting to upend the regime through a U.S.-authorized democracy promotion program, has also heightened tensions, she says. Meanwhile, Sweig adds, Cuba is strengthening ties with global powers like Brazil, as well as the Catholic Church, as the Castro administration seeks to open up new economic and social spaces for its citizens.¶ We've passed the fifty-year mark of the breakdown of diplomatic ties between Cuba and the United States. Where do we stand now? Is normalizing relations even remotely on the table on either side?¶ Let me start by talking about three geographical points on the map that are relevant to the answer. In Washington, the Obama administration, consistent with the approach of the Bush administration, has made a political decision to subordinate foreign policy and national interest-based decisions to domestic politics with respect to its Cuba policy. There is a bipartisan group of members of Congress--Democrats and Republicans, House and Senate--who represent Florida, a state where there are many swing votes that deliver the electoral votes for any president. Those individuals not only deliver votes, but they deliver campaign finance, and generally make a lot of noise, and that combination has persuaded the White House that reelection is more of a priority than taking on the heavy lifting to set the United States on the path of normalization with Cuba for now.¶ The second point is what's happening in Cuba. It's not realistic to expect the United States to undertake a series of unilateral moves toward normalization; it needs a willing partner. I believe we have one in Havana but have failed to read the signals. Raul Castro has now been in office since the beginning of 2008. Raul holds the reins on both foreign policy and domestic policy, and, domestically, the politics of implementing a fairly wide range of economic and political and social reforms are his priority. In a deal that was coordinated with the help of the Cuban Catholic Church and Spain, he released all of the political prisoners in Cuba. He also is taking a number of steps that imply a major rewriting of the social contract in Cuba to shrink the size of the state and give Cuban individuals more freedom--economically, especially, but also in terms of speech--than we've seen in the last fifty years. He has privatized the residential real estate and car market[s], expanded much-needed agrarian reform, lifted caps on salaries, and greatly expanded space for small businesses. He also is moving to deal with corruption and to prepare the groundwork for a great deal more foreign investment. He's moving in the direction of the kind of reforms that every administration over the last fifty years has called upon Cuba to make, albeit under the rubric of a one-party system. There's a broad range of cooperation--neighborhood security in the Gulf of Mexico, as Cuba has just started drilling for oil, counternarcotics, and natural disasters--between the two countries that is still not happening, and that gives me the impression that the United States has been unwilling to take "yes" for an answer and respond positively to steps taken by Cuba.

<h4><strong>Cuba has made moves to boost relations, it is up the U.S. to take steps to build the relationship</h4><p>Sweig, 2012</p><p><u>[Julia E. Sweig, Nelson and David Rockefeller Senior Fellow for Latin America Studies and Director for Latin America Studies, Council on Foreign Relations, 2-28-12, The Frozen U.S.-Cuba Relationship, http://www.cfr.org/cuba/frozen-us-cuba-relationship/p27510] /Wyo-MB</p><p>Fifty years after the United States enacted an embargo on all trade and commercial transactions with Cuba, relations between the two countries remain at a standstill</u></strong>. Julia E. Sweig, CFR's director of Latin American studies, says <u><strong>the Obama administration has prioritized domestic politics over foreign policy in its relationship with Cuba, even as Cuban President Raul Castro has been "moving in the direction of the kind of reforms that every administration over the last fifty years has called upon Cuba to make."</u></strong> The case of American USAID contractor Alan Gross, currently serving a fifteen-year prison sentence in Cuba (CubanTriangle) on charges of attempting to upend the regime through a U.S.-authorized democracy promotion program, has also heightened tensions, she says. Meanwhile, Sweig adds, <u><strong>Cuba is strengthening ties with global powers like Brazil,</u></strong> as well as the Catholic Church, <u><strong>as the Castro administration seeks to open up new economic and social spaces for its citizens.</u></strong>¶ We've passed the fifty-year mark of the breakdown of diplomatic ties between Cuba and the United States. Where do we stand now? Is normalizing relations even remotely on the table on either side?¶ Let me start by talking about three geographical points on the map that are relevant to the answer. In Washington, the Obama administration, consistent with the approach of the Bush administration, has made a political decision to subordinate foreign policy and national interest-based decisions to domestic politics with respect to its Cuba policy. There is a bipartisan group of members of Congress--Democrats and Republicans, House and Senate--who represent Florida, a state where there are many swing votes that deliver the electoral votes for any president. Those individuals not only deliver votes, but they deliver campaign finance, and generally make a lot of noise, and that combination has persuaded the White House that reelection is more of a priority than taking on the heavy lifting to set the United States on the path of normalization with Cuba for now.¶ The second point is what's happening in Cuba. <u><strong>It's not realistic to expect the United States to undertake a series of unilateral moves toward normalization; it needs a willing partner. I believe we have one in Havana but have failed to read the signals.</u></strong> <u><strong>Raul Castro has now been in</u></strong> office since the beginning of 2008. Raul holds the reins on both foreign policy and domestic policy, and, domestically, <u><strong>the politics of implementing a fairly wide range of economic and political and social reforms are his priority</u></strong>. In a deal that was coordinated with the help of the Cuban Catholic Church and Spain, he released all of the political prisoners in Cuba. He also is taking a number of steps that imply a major rewriting of the social contract in Cuba to shrink the size of the state and give Cuban individuals more freedom--economically, especially, but also in terms of speech--than we've seen in the last fifty years. He has privatized the residential real estate and car market[s], expanded much-needed agrarian reform, lifted caps on salaries, and greatly expanded space for small businesses. He also is moving to deal with corruption and to prepare the groundwork for a great deal more foreign investment. <u><strong>He's moving in the direction of the kind of reforms that every administration over the last fifty years has called upon Cuba to make, albeit under the rubric of a one-party system. There's a broad range of cooperation--neighborhood security in the Gulf of Mexico, as Cuba has just started drilling for oil, counternarcotics, and natural disasters--between the two countries that is still not happening, and that gives me the impression that the United States has been unwilling to take "yes" for an answer and respond positively to steps taken by Cuba.</p></u></strong>

Sweig, 2012 [Julia E. Sweig, Nelson and David Rockefeller Senior Fellow for Latin America Studies and Director for Latin America Studies, Council on Foreign Relations, 2-28-12, The Frozen U.S.-Cuba Relationship, http://www.cfr.org/cuba/frozen-us-cuba-relationship/p27510] /Wyo-MB

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Sweig, 2012 [Julia E. Sweig, Nelson and David Rockefeller Senior Fellow for Latin America Studies and Director for Latin America Studies, Council on Foreign Relations, 2-28-12, The Frozen U.S.-Cuba Relationship, http://www.cfr.org/cuba/frozen-us-cuba-relationship/p27510] /Wyo-MB fulltext: Fifty years after the United States enacted an embargo on all trade and commercial transactions with Cuba, relations between the two countries remain at a standstill. Julia E. Sweig, CFR's director of Latin American studies, says the Obama administration has prioritized domestic politics over foreign policy in its relationship with Cuba, even as Cuban President Raul Castro has been "moving in the direction of the kind of reforms that every administration over the last fifty years has called upon Cuba to make." The case of American USAID contractor Alan Gross, currently serving a fifteen-year prison sentence in Cuba (CubanTriangle) on charges of attempting to upend the regime through a U.S.-authorized democracy promotion program, has also heightened tensions, she says. Meanwhile, Sweig adds, Cuba is strengthening ties with global powers like Brazil, as well as the Catholic Church, as the Castro administration seeks to open up new economic and social spaces for its citizens.¶ We've passed the fifty-year mark of the breakdown of diplomatic ties between Cuba and the United States. Where do we stand now? Is normalizing relations even remotely on the table on either side?¶ Let me start by talking about three geographical points on the map that are relevant to the answer. In Washington, the Obama administration, consistent with the approach of the Bush administration, has made a political decision to subordinate foreign policy and national interest-based decisions to domestic politics with respect to its Cuba policy. There is a bipartisan group of members of Congress--Democrats and Republicans, House and Senate--who represent Florida, a state where there are many swing votes that deliver the electoral votes for any president. Those individuals not only deliver votes, but they deliver campaign finance, and generally make a lot of noise, and that combination has persuaded the White House that reelection is more of a priority than taking on the heavy lifting to set the United States on the path of normalization with Cuba for now.¶ The second point is what's happening in Cuba. It's not realistic to expect the United States to undertake a series of unilateral moves toward normalization; it needs a willing partner. I believe we have one in Havana but have failed to read the signals. Raul Castro has now been in office since the beginning of 2008. Raul holds the reins on both foreign policy and domestic policy, and, domestically, the politics of implementing a fairly wide range of economic and political and social reforms are his priority. In a deal that was coordinated with the help of the Cuban Catholic Church and Spain, he released all of the political prisoners in Cuba. He also is taking a number of steps that imply a major rewriting of the social contract in Cuba to shrink the size of the state and give Cuban individuals more freedom--economically, especially, but also in terms of speech--than we've seen in the last fifty years. He has privatized the residential real estate and car market[s], expanded much-needed agrarian reform, lifted caps on salaries, and greatly expanded space for small businesses. He also is moving to deal with corruption and to prepare the groundwork for a great deal more foreign investment. He's moving in the direction of the kind of reforms that every administration over the last fifty years has called upon Cuba to make, albeit under the rubric of a one-party system. There's a broad range of cooperation--neighborhood security in the Gulf of Mexico, as Cuba has just started drilling for oil, counternarcotics, and natural disasters--between the two countries that is still not happening, and that gives me the impression that the United States has been unwilling to take "yes" for an answer and respond positively to steps taken by Cuba. [/INST] <h4><strong>Cuba has made moves to boost relations, it is up the U.S. to take steps to build the relationship</h4><p>Sweig, 2012</p><p><u>[Julia E. Sweig, Nelson and David Rockefeller Senior Fellow for Latin America Studies and Director for Latin America Studies, Council on Foreign Relations, 2-28-12, The Frozen U.S.-Cuba Relationship, http://www.cfr.org/cuba/frozen-us-cuba-relationship/p27510] /Wyo-MB</p><p>Fifty years after the United States enacted an embargo on all trade and commercial transactions with Cuba, relations between the two countries remain at a standstill</u></strong>. Julia E. Sweig, CFR's director of Latin American studies, says <u><strong>the Obama administration has prioritized domestic politics over foreign policy in its relationship with Cuba, even as Cuban President Raul Castro has been "moving in the direction of the kind of reforms that every administration over the last fifty years has called upon Cuba to make."</u></strong> The case of American USAID contractor Alan Gross, currently serving a fifteen-year prison sentence in Cuba (CubanTriangle) on charges of attempting to upend the regime through a U.S.-authorized democracy promotion program, has also heightened tensions, she says. Meanwhile, Sweig adds, <u><strong>Cuba is strengthening ties with global powers like Brazil,</u></strong> as well as the Catholic Church, <u><strong>as the Castro administration seeks to open up new economic and social spaces for its citizens.</u></strong>¶ We've passed the fifty-year mark of the breakdown of diplomatic ties between Cuba and the United States. Where do we stand now? Is normalizing relations even remotely on the table on either side?¶ Let me start by talking about three geographical points on the map that are relevant to the answer. In Washington, the Obama administration, consistent with the approach of the Bush administration, has made a political decision to subordinate foreign policy and national interest-based decisions to domestic politics with respect to its Cuba policy. There is a bipartisan group of members of Congress--Democrats and Republicans, House and Senate--who represent Florida, a state where there are many swing votes that deliver the electoral votes for any president. Those individuals not only deliver votes, but they deliver campaign finance, and generally make a lot of noise, and that combination has persuaded the White House that reelection is more of a priority than taking on the heavy lifting to set the United States on the path of normalization with Cuba for now.¶ The second point is what's happening in Cuba. <u><strong>It's not realistic to expect the United States to undertake a series of unilateral moves toward normalization; it needs a willing partner. I believe we have one in Havana but have failed to read the signals.</u></strong> <u><strong>Raul Castro has now been in</u></strong> office since the beginning of 2008. Raul holds the reins on both foreign policy and domestic policy, and, domestically, <u><strong>the politics of implementing a fairly wide range of economic and political and social reforms are his priority</u></strong>. In a deal that was coordinated with the help of the Cuban Catholic Church and Spain, he released all of the political prisoners in Cuba. He also is taking a number of steps that imply a major rewriting of the social contract in Cuba to shrink the size of the state and give Cuban individuals more freedom--economically, especially, but also in terms of speech--than we've seen in the last fifty years. He has privatized the residential real estate and car market[s], expanded much-needed agrarian reform, lifted caps on salaries, and greatly expanded space for small businesses. He also is moving to deal with corruption and to prepare the groundwork for a great deal more foreign investment. <u><strong>He's moving in the direction of the kind of reforms that every administration over the last fifty years has called upon Cuba to make, albeit under the rubric of a one-party system. There's a broad range of cooperation--neighborhood security in the Gulf of Mexico, as Cuba has just started drilling for oil, counternarcotics, and natural disasters--between the two countries that is still not happening, and that gives me the impression that the United States has been unwilling to take "yes" for an answer and respond positively to steps taken by Cuba.</p></u></strong> </s>

US policies can’t change Cuban governance

] /Wyo-MB actions must first be taken by Cuba. the Soviet Union and China did not open thanks to American diplomacy alone. Actions taken by those countries’ respective leadership were key. There’s little sign of such a shift in Cuba. While Cuban President Raul Castro has made signs of being willing to talk to the United States, those moves have been interfered with by Raul’s brother Fidel. It is important, however, to remember that this is a transformation that can only happen through a change in Cuba’s policies, toward a more pluralist, democratic political system and more open economy. It is not a transformation that can happen simply through a change in our policies toward Cuba.

[Michael Orion, ember of the Young Leaders Program at the Heritage Foundation, Cuba: Change Is Not One Sided, 4-3-10, http://blog.heritage.org/2010/04/03/cuba-change-is-not-one-sided/] /Wyo-MB Lacey’s post-embargo Cuba sure sounds wonderful, but it forgets about the actions that must first be taken by Cuba. While engagement by the United States was useful, the Soviet Union and China did not open thanks to American diplomacy alone. Actions taken by those countries’ respective leadership were key. Gorbachev engaged in a policy of glasnost (“openness”) that played an invaluable role in the dissolution of the Soviet empire. Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping opened his country to investment and the start of private competition (with countries like Singapore as a model). There’s little sign of such a shift in Cuba. While Cuban President Raul Castro has made signs of being willing to talk to the United States, those moves have been interfered with by Raul’s brother Fidel. A freer Cuba would be beneficial to everyone. It is important, however, to remember that this is a transformation that can only happen through a change in Cuba’s policies, toward a more pluralist, democratic political system and more open economy. It is not a transformation that can happen simply through a change in our policies toward Cuba.

<h4><strong>US policies can’t change Cuban governance</h4><p>Powell, 2010</p><p></strong>[Michael Orion, ember of the Young Leaders Program at the Heritage Foundation, Cuba: Change Is Not One Sided, 4-3-10, http://blog.heritage.org/2010/04/03/cuba-change-is-not-one-sided/<u><strong>] /Wyo-MB</p><p></u></strong>Lacey’s post-embargo Cuba sure sounds wonderful, but it forgets about the <u><strong>actions</u></strong> that <u><strong>must first be taken by Cuba.</u></strong> While engagement by the United States was useful, <u><strong>the Soviet Union and China did not open thanks to American diplomacy alone. Actions taken by those countries’ respective leadership were key. </u></strong>Gorbachev engaged in a policy of glasnost (“openness”) that played an invaluable role in the dissolution of the Soviet empire. Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping opened his country to investment and the start of private competition (with countries like Singapore as a model). <u><strong>There’s little sign of such a shift in Cuba. While Cuban President Raul Castro has made signs of being willing to talk to the United States, those moves have been interfered with by Raul’s brother Fidel.</u></strong> A freer Cuba would be beneficial to everyone. <u><strong>It is important, however, to remember that this is a transformation that can only happen through a change in Cuba’s policies, toward a more pluralist, democratic political system and more open economy. It is not a transformation that can happen simply through a change in our policies toward Cuba.</p></u></strong>

Powell, 2010

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Powell, 2010 fulltext: [Michael Orion, ember of the Young Leaders Program at the Heritage Foundation, Cuba: Change Is Not One Sided, 4-3-10, http://blog.heritage.org/2010/04/03/cuba-change-is-not-one-sided/] /Wyo-MB Lacey’s post-embargo Cuba sure sounds wonderful, but it forgets about the actions that must first be taken by Cuba. While engagement by the United States was useful, the Soviet Union and China did not open thanks to American diplomacy alone. Actions taken by those countries’ respective leadership were key. Gorbachev engaged in a policy of glasnost (“openness”) that played an invaluable role in the dissolution of the Soviet empire. Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping opened his country to investment and the start of private competition (with countries like Singapore as a model). There’s little sign of such a shift in Cuba. While Cuban President Raul Castro has made signs of being willing to talk to the United States, those moves have been interfered with by Raul’s brother Fidel. A freer Cuba would be beneficial to everyone. It is important, however, to remember that this is a transformation that can only happen through a change in Cuba’s policies, toward a more pluralist, democratic political system and more open economy. It is not a transformation that can happen simply through a change in our policies toward Cuba. [/INST] <h4><strong>US policies can’t change Cuban governance</h4><p>Powell, 2010</p><p></strong>[Michael Orion, ember of the Young Leaders Program at the Heritage Foundation, Cuba: Change Is Not One Sided, 4-3-10, http://blog.heritage.org/2010/04/03/cuba-change-is-not-one-sided/<u><strong>] /Wyo-MB</p><p></u></strong>Lacey’s post-embargo Cuba sure sounds wonderful, but it forgets about the <u><strong>actions</u></strong> that <u><strong>must first be taken by Cuba.</u></strong> While engagement by the United States was useful, <u><strong>the Soviet Union and China did not open thanks to American diplomacy alone. Actions taken by those countries’ respective leadership were key. </u></strong>Gorbachev engaged in a policy of glasnost (“openness”) that played an invaluable role in the dissolution of the Soviet empire. Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping opened his country to investment and the start of private competition (with countries like Singapore as a model). <u><strong>There’s little sign of such a shift in Cuba. While Cuban President Raul Castro has made signs of being willing to talk to the United States, those moves have been interfered with by Raul’s brother Fidel.</u></strong> A freer Cuba would be beneficial to everyone. <u><strong>It is important, however, to remember that this is a transformation that can only happen through a change in Cuba’s policies, toward a more pluralist, democratic political system and more open economy. It is not a transformation that can happen simply through a change in our policies toward Cuba.</p></u></strong> </s>

Mexico is key trade market for the U.S.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32934.pdf Mexico is the United States’ third-largest trade partner after China and Canada. Mexico ranks second among U.S. export markets after Canada, and is the third-leading supplier of U.S. imports. U.S. trade with Mexico increased rapidly since NAFTA S. exports to Mexico increased from $54.8 billion in 1994 to $174.4 billion in 2011, The trade balance with Mexico went from a surplus of $3.1 billion in 1994 to a deficit of $99.5 billion in 2011

Specialist in International Trade and Finance¶ “U.S.-Mexico Economic Relations: ¶ Trends, Issues, and Implications” http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32934.pdf, accessed 6/15/13,WFI/JF The United States is, by far, Mexico’s leading partner in merchandise trade, while Mexico is the ¶ United States’ third-largest trade partner after China and Canada. Mexico ranks second among ¶ U.S. export markets after Canada, and is the third-leading supplier of U.S. imports. U.S. trade ¶ with Mexico increased rapidly since NAFTA entered into force in January 1994. U.S. exports to ¶ Mexico increased from $54.8 billion in 1994 to $174.4 billion in 2011, an increase of 218%. ¶ Imports from Mexico increased from $51.6 billion in 1994 to $285.4 billion in 2011, an increase ¶ of 453% (see Figure 1). In services, the United States had a surplus of $2.2 billion in 2010 (the most recent available data). U.S. exports in services to Mexico totaled $3.8 billion in 2010, while ¶ U.S. imports totaled $1.6 billion.5¶ Total services trade with Mexico is approximately equal to 1% ¶ of total merchandise trade with Mexico. ¶ The trade balance with Mexico went from a surplus of $3.1 billion in 1994 to a deficit of $99.5 ¶ billion in 2011. In 2011, 13% of total U.S. merchandise exports were destined for Mexico and ¶ 12% of U.S. merchandise imports came from Mexico. After the significant decrease in trade in ¶ 2009 that resulted from the global economic downturn, U.S.-Mexico trade increased considerably ¶ in 2010 and 2011. Part of the increase in trade with Mexico may be attributed to the increasing ¶ trade in energy. Crude petroleum oil accounts for 15% of total U.S. imports from Mexico. The ¶ value of U.S. crude oil imports from Mexico increased over 500% since the 1990s, increasing ¶ from $6.3 billion in 1996 to $39.8 billion in 2011. Mexico is the leading destination for U.S. ¶ exports in refined oil. The value of U.S. refined oil exports to Mexico increased by $18.4 billion ¶ from 1996 to 2011, from $1.0 billion to $19.4 billion, approximately an 1800% increase.6

<h4><strong>Mexico is key trade market for the U.S.</h4><p>M. Angeles Villarreal, 12</p><p></strong>Specialist in International Trade and Finance¶ “U.S.-Mexico Economic Relations: ¶ Trends, Issues, and Implications” <u>http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32934.pdf</u>, accessed 6/15/13,WFI/JF</p><p>The United States is, by far, Mexico’s leading partner in merchandise trade, while <u><strong>Mexico is the </u></strong>¶<u><strong> United States’ third-largest trade partner after China and Canada. Mexico ranks second among </u></strong>¶<u><strong> U.S. export markets after Canada, and is the third-leading supplier of U.S. imports. U.S. trade </u></strong>¶<u><strong> with Mexico increased rapidly since NAFTA </u></strong>entered into force in January 1994. U.<u><strong>S. exports to </u></strong>¶<u><strong> Mexico increased from $54.8 billion in 1994 to $174.4 billion in 2011,</u></strong> an increase of 218%. ¶ Imports from Mexico increased from $51.6 billion in 1994 to $285.4 billion in 2011, an increase ¶ of 453% (see Figure 1). In services, the United States had a surplus of $2.2 billion in 2010 (the most recent available data). U.S. exports in services to Mexico totaled $3.8 billion in 2010, while ¶ U.S. imports totaled $1.6 billion.5¶ Total services trade with Mexico is approximately equal to 1% ¶ of total merchandise trade with Mexico. ¶<u><strong> The trade balance with Mexico went from a surplus of $3.1 billion in 1994 to a deficit of $99.5 </u></strong>¶<u><strong> billion in 2011</u></strong>. In 2011, 13% of total U.S. merchandise exports were destined for Mexico and ¶ 12% of U.S. merchandise imports came from Mexico. After the significant decrease in trade in ¶ 2009 that resulted from the global economic downturn, U.S.-Mexico trade increased considerably ¶ in 2010 and 2011. Part of the increase in trade with Mexico may be attributed to the increasing ¶ trade in energy. Crude petroleum oil accounts for 15% of total U.S. imports from Mexico. The ¶ value of U.S. crude oil imports from Mexico increased over 500% since the 1990s, increasing ¶ from $6.3 billion in 1996 to $39.8 billion in 2011. Mexico is the leading destination for U.S. ¶ exports in refined oil. The value of U.S. refined oil exports to Mexico increased by $18.4 billion ¶ from 1996 to 2011, from $1.0 billion to $19.4 billion, approximately an 1800% increase.6</p>

M. Angeles Villarreal, 12

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: M. Angeles Villarreal, 12 fulltext: Specialist in International Trade and Finance¶ “U.S.-Mexico Economic Relations: ¶ Trends, Issues, and Implications” http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32934.pdf, accessed 6/15/13,WFI/JF The United States is, by far, Mexico’s leading partner in merchandise trade, while Mexico is the ¶ United States’ third-largest trade partner after China and Canada. Mexico ranks second among ¶ U.S. export markets after Canada, and is the third-leading supplier of U.S. imports. U.S. trade ¶ with Mexico increased rapidly since NAFTA entered into force in January 1994. U.S. exports to ¶ Mexico increased from $54.8 billion in 1994 to $174.4 billion in 2011, an increase of 218%. ¶ Imports from Mexico increased from $51.6 billion in 1994 to $285.4 billion in 2011, an increase ¶ of 453% (see Figure 1). In services, the United States had a surplus of $2.2 billion in 2010 (the most recent available data). U.S. exports in services to Mexico totaled $3.8 billion in 2010, while ¶ U.S. imports totaled $1.6 billion.5¶ Total services trade with Mexico is approximately equal to 1% ¶ of total merchandise trade with Mexico. ¶ The trade balance with Mexico went from a surplus of $3.1 billion in 1994 to a deficit of $99.5 ¶ billion in 2011. In 2011, 13% of total U.S. merchandise exports were destined for Mexico and ¶ 12% of U.S. merchandise imports came from Mexico. After the significant decrease in trade in ¶ 2009 that resulted from the global economic downturn, U.S.-Mexico trade increased considerably ¶ in 2010 and 2011. Part of the increase in trade with Mexico may be attributed to the increasing ¶ trade in energy. Crude petroleum oil accounts for 15% of total U.S. imports from Mexico. The ¶ value of U.S. crude oil imports from Mexico increased over 500% since the 1990s, increasing ¶ from $6.3 billion in 1996 to $39.8 billion in 2011. Mexico is the leading destination for U.S. ¶ exports in refined oil. The value of U.S. refined oil exports to Mexico increased by $18.4 billion ¶ from 1996 to 2011, from $1.0 billion to $19.4 billion, approximately an 1800% increase.6 [/INST] <h4><strong>Mexico is key trade market for the U.S.</h4><p>M. Angeles Villarreal, 12</p><p></strong>Specialist in International Trade and Finance¶ “U.S.-Mexico Economic Relations: ¶ Trends, Issues, and Implications” <u>http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32934.pdf</u>, accessed 6/15/13,WFI/JF</p><p>The United States is, by far, Mexico’s leading partner in merchandise trade, while <u><strong>Mexico is the </u></strong>¶<u><strong> United States’ third-largest trade partner after China and Canada. Mexico ranks second among </u></strong>¶<u><strong> U.S. export markets after Canada, and is the third-leading supplier of U.S. imports. U.S. trade </u></strong>¶<u><strong> with Mexico increased rapidly since NAFTA </u></strong>entered into force in January 1994. U.<u><strong>S. exports to </u></strong>¶<u><strong> Mexico increased from $54.8 billion in 1994 to $174.4 billion in 2011,</u></strong> an increase of 218%. ¶ Imports from Mexico increased from $51.6 billion in 1994 to $285.4 billion in 2011, an increase ¶ of 453% (see Figure 1). In services, the United States had a surplus of $2.2 billion in 2010 (the most recent available data). U.S. exports in services to Mexico totaled $3.8 billion in 2010, while ¶ U.S. imports totaled $1.6 billion.5¶ Total services trade with Mexico is approximately equal to 1% ¶ of total merchandise trade with Mexico. ¶<u><strong> The trade balance with Mexico went from a surplus of $3.1 billion in 1994 to a deficit of $99.5 </u></strong>¶<u><strong> billion in 2011</u></strong>. In 2011, 13% of total U.S. merchandise exports were destined for Mexico and ¶ 12% of U.S. merchandise imports came from Mexico. After the significant decrease in trade in ¶ 2009 that resulted from the global economic downturn, U.S.-Mexico trade increased considerably ¶ in 2010 and 2011. Part of the increase in trade with Mexico may be attributed to the increasing ¶ trade in energy. Crude petroleum oil accounts for 15% of total U.S. imports from Mexico. The ¶ value of U.S. crude oil imports from Mexico increased over 500% since the 1990s, increasing ¶ from $6.3 billion in 1996 to $39.8 billion in 2011. Mexico is the leading destination for U.S. ¶ exports in refined oil. The value of U.S. refined oil exports to Mexico increased by $18.4 billion ¶ from 1996 to 2011, from $1.0 billion to $19.4 billion, approximately an 1800% increase.6</p> </s>

Cuban healthcare system flourishing now

Cuba is a Third World country that aspires to First World medicine and health. Its healthcare system is not only a national public good but also a vital export commodity. Under the Castro brothers' rule, Cubans' average life expectancy has increased from 58 years (in 1950) to 77 years giving Cuba the world's 55th-highest life expectancy ranking Fifty years ago, the major causes of disease and death in Cuba were tropical and mosquito-borne microbes. Today, Cuba's major health challenges mirror those of the United States:

[Laurie, LAURIE GARRETT is Senior Fellow for Global Health at the Council on Foreign Relations, Castrocare in crisis: will lifting the embargo make things worse?, Foreign Affairs. 89.4 (July-August 2010): p61, Accessed online via academic onefile] /Wyo-MB Cuba is a Third World country that aspires to First World medicine and health. Its healthcare system is not only a national public good but also a vital export commodity. Under the Castro brothers' rule, Cubans' average life expectancy has increased from 58 years (in 1950) to 77 years (in 2009), giving Cuba the world's 55th-highest life expectancy ranking, only six places behind the United States. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), Cuba has the second-lowest child mortality rate in the Americas (the United States places third) and the lowest per capita HIV/AIDS prevalence. Fifty years ago, the major causes of disease and death in Cuba were tropical and mosquito-borne microbes. Today, Cuba's major health challenges mirror those of the United States: cancer, cardiovascular disease, obesity, diabetes, and other chronic ailments related to aging, tobacco use, and excessive fat consumption.

<h4><strong>Cuban healthcare system flourishing now</h4><p>Garett, 2010</p><p></strong>[Laurie, LAURIE GARRETT is Senior Fellow for Global Health at the Council on Foreign Relations, Castrocare in crisis: will lifting the embargo make things worse?, Foreign Affairs. 89.4 (July-August 2010): p61, Accessed online via academic onefile] /Wyo-MB</p><p><u><strong>Cuba is a Third World country that aspires to First World medicine and health. Its healthcare system is not only a national public good but also a vital export commodity. Under the Castro brothers' rule, Cubans' average life expectancy has increased from 58 years (in 1950) to 77 years</u></strong> (in 2009), <u><strong>giving Cuba the world's 55th-highest life expectancy ranking</u></strong>, only six places behind the United States. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), Cuba has the second-lowest child mortality rate in the Americas (the United States places third) and the lowest per capita HIV/AIDS prevalence. <u><strong>Fifty years ago, the major causes of disease and death in Cuba were tropical and mosquito-borne microbes. Today, Cuba's major health challenges mirror those of the United States:</u></strong> cancer, cardiovascular disease, obesity, diabetes, and other chronic ailments related to aging, tobacco use, and excessive fat consumption.</p>

Garett, 2010

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Garett, 2010 fulltext: [Laurie, LAURIE GARRETT is Senior Fellow for Global Health at the Council on Foreign Relations, Castrocare in crisis: will lifting the embargo make things worse?, Foreign Affairs. 89.4 (July-August 2010): p61, Accessed online via academic onefile] /Wyo-MB Cuba is a Third World country that aspires to First World medicine and health. Its healthcare system is not only a national public good but also a vital export commodity. Under the Castro brothers' rule, Cubans' average life expectancy has increased from 58 years (in 1950) to 77 years (in 2009), giving Cuba the world's 55th-highest life expectancy ranking, only six places behind the United States. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), Cuba has the second-lowest child mortality rate in the Americas (the United States places third) and the lowest per capita HIV/AIDS prevalence. Fifty years ago, the major causes of disease and death in Cuba were tropical and mosquito-borne microbes. Today, Cuba's major health challenges mirror those of the United States: cancer, cardiovascular disease, obesity, diabetes, and other chronic ailments related to aging, tobacco use, and excessive fat consumption. [/INST] <h4><strong>Cuban healthcare system flourishing now</h4><p>Garett, 2010</p><p></strong>[Laurie, LAURIE GARRETT is Senior Fellow for Global Health at the Council on Foreign Relations, Castrocare in crisis: will lifting the embargo make things worse?, Foreign Affairs. 89.4 (July-August 2010): p61, Accessed online via academic onefile] /Wyo-MB</p><p><u><strong>Cuba is a Third World country that aspires to First World medicine and health. Its healthcare system is not only a national public good but also a vital export commodity. Under the Castro brothers' rule, Cubans' average life expectancy has increased from 58 years (in 1950) to 77 years</u></strong> (in 2009), <u><strong>giving Cuba the world's 55th-highest life expectancy ranking</u></strong>, only six places behind the United States. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), Cuba has the second-lowest child mortality rate in the Americas (the United States places third) and the lowest per capita HIV/AIDS prevalence. <u><strong>Fifty years ago, the major causes of disease and death in Cuba were tropical and mosquito-borne microbes. Today, Cuba's major health challenges mirror those of the United States:</u></strong> cancer, cardiovascular disease, obesity, diabetes, and other chronic ailments related to aging, tobacco use, and excessive fat consumption.</p> </s>

Cuba key-

China claims Taiwan as parts of its domain, and has bristled at Western support for what it calls separatist movements Cuban officials share China's view. The Chinese government "sees questions like Taiwan ... to be of the highest strategic import, The fact that Cuba is always on their side in these issues is crucial to China

(Tom, McClatchy Newspapers, “'Old friends' Cuba, China strengthen ties,” September 16, 2009, http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2009/09/16/75560/old-friends-cuba-china-strengthen.html#.UcD9F_mThSQ) /wyo-mm Trade between the countries is often cited as being more than $2.5 billion, but that's peanuts for a powerhouse such as China. "The political returns are the most important,'' Wang said. "Cuba has provided consistent support for China's international stance, especially with the Taiwan issue.'' China claims Tibet and Taiwan as parts of its domain, and has bristled at Western support for what it calls separatist movements in both places. Cuban officials have said repeatedly that they share China's view. The Chinese government "sees questions like Tibet, Taiwan ... to be of the highest strategic import,'' said Daniel Erikson, a Latin America expert at the Inter-American Dialogue, a nonpartisan research center on Western Hemisphere affairs. "The fact that Cuba is always on their side in these issues is crucial to China.'' There are, of course, financial considerations — China is now Cuba's second-biggest trading partner, and there are hopes in Beijing that as Havana opens its markets, Chinese companies will get a big chunk of industries such as cellphones and consumer goods. China has made a $500 million deal to invest in Cuban nickel, a key component in the steel needed by China's construction boom. Cuba also gives Beijing a vantage point for the rest of the Caribbean and a source of informed counsel in a Latin American neighborhood where some governments have turned left in recent years.

<h4><strong>Cuba key-</h4><p>Lasseter 09</p><p></strong>(Tom, McClatchy Newspapers, “'Old friends' Cuba, China strengthen ties,” September 16, 2009, http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2009/09/16/75560/old-friends-cuba-china-strengthen.html#.UcD9F_mThSQ) /wyo-mm</p><p>Trade between the countries is often cited as being more than $2.5 billion, but that's peanuts for a powerhouse such as China. "The political returns are the most important,'' Wang said. "Cuba has provided consistent support for China's international stance, especially with the Taiwan issue.'' <u><strong>China claims</u></strong> Tibet and <u><strong>Taiwan as parts of its domain, and has bristled at Western support for what it calls separatist movements</u></strong> in both places. <u><strong>Cuban officials</u></strong> have said repeatedly that they <u><strong>share China's view. The Chinese government "sees questions like</u></strong> Tibet, <u><strong>Taiwan ... to be of the highest strategic import,</u></strong>'' said Daniel Erikson, a Latin America expert at the Inter-American Dialogue, a nonpartisan research center on Western Hemisphere affairs. "<u><strong>The fact that Cuba is always on their side in these issues is crucial to China</u></strong>.'' There are, of course, financial considerations — China is now Cuba's second-biggest trading partner, and there are hopes in Beijing that as Havana opens its markets, Chinese companies will get a big chunk of industries such as cellphones and consumer goods. China has made a $500 million deal to invest in Cuban nickel, a key component in the steel needed by China's construction boom. Cuba also gives Beijing a vantage point for the rest of the Caribbean and a source of informed counsel in a Latin American neighborhood where some governments have turned left in recent years.</p>

Lasseter 09

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Lasseter 09 fulltext: (Tom, McClatchy Newspapers, “'Old friends' Cuba, China strengthen ties,” September 16, 2009, http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2009/09/16/75560/old-friends-cuba-china-strengthen.html#.UcD9F_mThSQ) /wyo-mm Trade between the countries is often cited as being more than $2.5 billion, but that's peanuts for a powerhouse such as China. "The political returns are the most important,'' Wang said. "Cuba has provided consistent support for China's international stance, especially with the Taiwan issue.'' China claims Tibet and Taiwan as parts of its domain, and has bristled at Western support for what it calls separatist movements in both places. Cuban officials have said repeatedly that they share China's view. The Chinese government "sees questions like Tibet, Taiwan ... to be of the highest strategic import,'' said Daniel Erikson, a Latin America expert at the Inter-American Dialogue, a nonpartisan research center on Western Hemisphere affairs. "The fact that Cuba is always on their side in these issues is crucial to China.'' There are, of course, financial considerations — China is now Cuba's second-biggest trading partner, and there are hopes in Beijing that as Havana opens its markets, Chinese companies will get a big chunk of industries such as cellphones and consumer goods. China has made a $500 million deal to invest in Cuban nickel, a key component in the steel needed by China's construction boom. Cuba also gives Beijing a vantage point for the rest of the Caribbean and a source of informed counsel in a Latin American neighborhood where some governments have turned left in recent years. [/INST] <h4><strong>Cuba key-</h4><p>Lasseter 09</p><p></strong>(Tom, McClatchy Newspapers, “'Old friends' Cuba, China strengthen ties,” September 16, 2009, http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2009/09/16/75560/old-friends-cuba-china-strengthen.html#.UcD9F_mThSQ) /wyo-mm</p><p>Trade between the countries is often cited as being more than $2.5 billion, but that's peanuts for a powerhouse such as China. "The political returns are the most important,'' Wang said. "Cuba has provided consistent support for China's international stance, especially with the Taiwan issue.'' <u><strong>China claims</u></strong> Tibet and <u><strong>Taiwan as parts of its domain, and has bristled at Western support for what it calls separatist movements</u></strong> in both places. <u><strong>Cuban officials</u></strong> have said repeatedly that they <u><strong>share China's view. The Chinese government "sees questions like</u></strong> Tibet, <u><strong>Taiwan ... to be of the highest strategic import,</u></strong>'' said Daniel Erikson, a Latin America expert at the Inter-American Dialogue, a nonpartisan research center on Western Hemisphere affairs. "<u><strong>The fact that Cuba is always on their side in these issues is crucial to China</u></strong>.'' There are, of course, financial considerations — China is now Cuba's second-biggest trading partner, and there are hopes in Beijing that as Havana opens its markets, Chinese companies will get a big chunk of industries such as cellphones and consumer goods. China has made a $500 million deal to invest in Cuban nickel, a key component in the steel needed by China's construction boom. Cuba also gives Beijing a vantage point for the rest of the Caribbean and a source of informed counsel in a Latin American neighborhood where some governments have turned left in recent years.</p> </s>

Anti-Americanism is growing in Latin America – extending an olive branch to Cuba is necessary to re-establish our regional soft power

Anti-Americanism has become the political chant de jour for leaders seeking long-term as well as short-term gains in Latin American elections. In Venezuela, the anti-American rhetoric spewed by Chavez masks his otherwise autocratic tendencies, while countries like Bolivia and Ecuador tilt further away from Washington, The systemic neglect for eight years during the Bush Administration meant that political capital was never seriously spent dealing with issues affecting the region Recent examples of U.S. unilateralism, disregard for international law and norms, and a growing financial crisis, have all been seized by a new generation of populist Latin American leaders who stoke anti-American sentiment. The region, is absolutely critical to our national interest and security. Over thirty percent of our oil comes from Latin America - more than the U.S. imports from the Middle East south of America's borders, a deepening polarization is spreading throughout the entire region. In the last few years ideological allies in Bolivia, Ecuador, and Venezuela have written and approved new constitutions that have consolidated the power of the executive, while extending - or in Venezuela's case eliminating - presidential term limits Traditionally the U.S. has projected its influence by using varying combinations of hard and soft power. It has been a long time since the U S last sponsored or supported military action in Latin America, and Latin American citizens and their governments would view any overt display of American hard power in the region negatively. Soft power, can win over people and governments without resorting to coercion, The key to soft power is not simply a strong military, but an enduring sense of legitimacy that can then be projected across the globe to advance particular policies. The key to this legitimacy is a good image and a reputation as a responsible actor on the global and regional stage. A good reputation and image can go a long way toward generating goodwill, which ultimately will help the U.S. when it tries to sell unpopular ideas and reforms in the region. to effectively employ soft power in Latin America, the U.S. must repair its image by going on a diplomatic offensive and reminding, not just Latin America's leaders, but also the Latin American people, of the important relationship between the U.S. and Latin America Many of the problems facing Latin America today cannot be addressed in the absence of U.S. leadership and cooperation. Working with other nations to address these challenges is the best way to shore up legitimacy, earn respect, and repair America's image. Washington will have to not only strengthen its existing relationships in the region, but also win over new allies, who look to us for "ideas and solutions, not lectures." n5 . Cuba, , is a keystone nation in Latin America, having disproportionately dominated Washington's policy toward the region for decades. As a result of its continuing tensions with Havana, America's reputation in the region has suffered, as has its ability to deal with other countries. Latin American governments that hoped to endear themselves to the U.S. had to pass the Cuba "litmus test." But now the tables have turned, and the Obama Administration, if it wants to repair America's image in the region, will have to pass a Cuba litmus test of its own. America must once again be admired if we are going to expect other countries to follow our example. warming relations with Cuba would have a reverberating effect throughout Latin America, and would go a long way toward creating goodwill.

Anti-Americanism has become the political chant de jour for leaders seeking long-term as well as short-term gains in Latin American elections. In Venezuela, the anti-American rhetoric spewed by Hugo Chavez masks his otherwise autocratic tendencies, while countries like Bolivia and Ecuador tilt further away from Washington, both rhetorically and substantively. The former expelled the U.S. Ambassador in October 2008, and the latter has refused to renew Washington's lease on an airbase traditionally used for counter-narcotics missions. The systemic neglect for eight years during the Bush Administration meant that political capital was never seriously spent dealing with issues affecting the region. Because of this, President Bush was unable to get much headway with his proposal to reform immigration, and his free trade agreement with Colombia encountered significant opposition in Congress. Recent examples of U.S. unilateralism, disregard for international law and norms, and a growing financial crisis, have all been seized by a new generation of populist Latin American leaders who stoke anti-American sentiment. The region, however, is absolutely critical to our national interest and security. Over thirty percent of our oil comes from Latin America - more than the U.S. imports from the Middle East. Additionally, over half of the foreign-born population in the United States is Latin American, meaning that a significant portion of American society is intrinsically tied to the region. n1 These immigrants, as well as their sons and daughters, have already begun to take their place amongst America's social, cultural, and political elite. Just south of America's borders, a deepening polarization is spreading throughout the entire region. In the last few years ideological allies in Bolivia, Ecuador, and Venezuela have written and approved new constitutions that have consolidated the power of the executive, while extending - or in Venezuela's case eliminating - presidential term limits. In Venezuela the polarization has been drawn along economic lines, whereby Chavez's base of support continues to be poor Venezuelans. In Bolivia the polarization has been drawn along racial lines: the preamble to the new Bolivian constitution, approved in January 2009, makes reference to the "disastrous colonial times," a moment in history that Bolivians of Andean-descent particularly lament. Those regions in Bolivia with the most people of European or mixed descent have consistently voted for increased provincial autonomy and against the constitutional changes proposed by President Morales. Perhaps due to its sweeping changes, the new Constitution was rejected by four of Bolivia's nine provinces. n2 Like Bolivia, Latin America is still searching for its identity. [*191] Traditionally the U.S. has projected its influence by using varying combinations of hard and soft power. It has been a long time since the United States last sponsored or supported military action in Latin America, and although highly context-dependent, it is very likely that Latin American citizens and their governments would view any overt display of American hard power in the region negatively. n3 One can only imagine the fodder an American military excursion into Latin America would provide for a leader like Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, or Evo Morales of Bolivia. Soft power, on the other hand, can win over people and governments without resorting to coercion, but is limited by other factors. The key to soft power is not simply a strong military, though having one helps, but rather an enduring sense of legitimacy that can then be projected across the globe to advance particular policies. The key to this legitimacy is a good image and a reputation as a responsible actor on the global and regional stage. A good reputation and image can go a long way toward generating goodwill, which ultimately will help the U.S. when it tries to sell unpopular ideas and reforms in the region. n4 In order to effectively employ soft power in Latin America, the U.S. must repair its image by going on a diplomatic offensive and reminding, not just Latin America's leaders, but also the Latin American people, of the important relationship between the U.S. and Latin America. Many of the problems facing Latin America today cannot be addressed in the absence of U.S. leadership and cooperation. Working with other nations to address these challenges is the best way to shore up legitimacy, earn respect, and repair America's image. Although this proposal focuses heavily on Cuba, every country in Latin America is a potential friend. Washington will have to not only strengthen its existing relationships in the region, but also win over new allies, who look to us for "ideas and solutions, not lectures." n5 When analyzing ecosystems, environmental scientists seek out "keystone species." These are organisms that, despite their small size, function as lynchpins for, or barometers of, the entire system's stability. Cuba, despite its size and isolation, is a keystone nation in Latin America, having disproportionately dominated Washington's policy toward the region for decades. n6 As a result of its continuing tensions with Havana, America's reputation [*192] in the region has suffered, as has its ability to deal with other countries. n7 For fifty years, Latin American governments that hoped to endear themselves to the U.S. had to pass the Cuba "litmus test." But now the tables have turned, and the Obama Administration, if it wants to repair America's image in the region, will have to pass a Cuba litmus test of its own. n8 In short, America must once again be admired if we are going to expect other countries to follow our example. To that end, warming relations with Cuba would have a reverberating effect throughout Latin America, and would go a long way toward creating goodwill.

<h4>Anti-Americanism is growing in Latin America – extending an olive branch to Cuba is necessary to re-establish our regional soft power </h4><p><strong>Perez</strong> JD Yale Law School <strong>2010</strong> David “America's Cuba Policy: The Way Forward: A Policy Recommendation for the U.S. State Department” Harvard Latino Law Review lexis </p><p><u><strong>Anti-Americanism has become the political chant de jour for leaders seeking long-term as well as short-term gains in Latin American elections.</u></strong> <u><strong>In Venezuela, the anti-American rhetoric spewed by</u></strong> Hugo <u><strong>Chavez masks his otherwise autocratic tendencies, while countries like Bolivia and Ecuador tilt further away from Washington,</u></strong> both rhetorically and substantively. The former expelled the U.S. Ambassador in October 2008, and the latter has refused to renew Washington's lease on an airbase traditionally used for counter-narcotics missions. <u><strong>The systemic neglect for eight years during the Bush Administration meant that political capital was never seriously spent dealing with issues affecting the region</u></strong>. Because of this, President Bush was unable to get much headway with his proposal to reform immigration, and his free trade agreement with Colombia encountered significant opposition in Congress. <u><strong>Recent examples of U.S. unilateralism, disregard for international law and norms, and a growing financial crisis, have all been seized by a new generation of populist Latin American leaders who stoke anti-American sentiment.</p><p>The region,</u></strong> however, <u><strong>is absolutely critical to our national interest and security. Over thirty percent of our oil comes from Latin America - more than the U.S. imports from the Middle East</u></strong>. Additionally, over half of the foreign-born population in the United States is Latin American, meaning that a significant portion of American society is intrinsically tied to the region. n1 These immigrants, as well as their sons and daughters, have already begun to take their place amongst America's social, cultural, and political elite.</p><p>Just <u><strong>south of America's borders, a deepening polarization is spreading throughout the entire region. In the last few years ideological allies in Bolivia, Ecuador, and Venezuela have written and approved new constitutions that have consolidated the power of the executive, while extending - or in Venezuela's case eliminating - presidential term limits</u></strong>. In Venezuela the polarization has been drawn along economic lines, whereby Chavez's base of support continues to be poor Venezuelans. In Bolivia the polarization has been drawn along racial lines: the preamble to the new Bolivian constitution, approved in January 2009, makes reference to the "disastrous colonial times," a moment in history that Bolivians of Andean-descent particularly lament. Those regions in Bolivia with the most people of European or mixed descent have consistently voted for increased provincial autonomy and against the constitutional changes proposed by President Morales. Perhaps due to its sweeping changes, the new Constitution was rejected by four of Bolivia's nine provinces. n2 Like Bolivia, Latin America is still searching for its identity.</p><p> [*191] <u><strong>Traditionally the U.S. has projected its influence by using varying combinations of hard and soft power. It has been a long time since the U</u></strong>nited <u><strong>S</u></strong>tates <u><strong>last sponsored or supported military action in Latin America, and</u></strong> although highly context-dependent, it is very likely that <u><strong>Latin American citizens and their governments would view any overt display of American hard power in the region negatively.</u></strong> n3 One can only imagine the fodder an American military excursion into Latin America would provide for a leader like Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, or Evo Morales of Bolivia. <u><strong>Soft power,</u></strong> on the other hand, <u><strong>can win over people and governments without resorting to coercion,</u></strong> but is limited by other factors.</p><p><u><strong>The key to soft power is not simply a strong military,</u></strong> though having one helps, <u><strong>but</u></strong> rather <u><strong>an enduring sense of legitimacy that can then be projected across the globe to advance particular policies. The key to this legitimacy is a good image and a reputation as a responsible actor on the global and regional stage. A good reputation and image can go a long way toward generating goodwill, which ultimately will help the U.S. when it tries to sell unpopular ideas and reforms in the region.</u></strong> n4</p><p>In order <u><strong>to effectively employ soft power in Latin America, the U.S. must repair its image by going on a diplomatic offensive and reminding, not just Latin America's leaders, but also the Latin American people, of the important relationship between the U.S. and Latin America</u></strong>. <u><strong>Many of the problems facing Latin America today cannot be addressed in the absence of U.S. leadership and cooperation.</u></strong> <u><strong>Working with other nations to address these challenges is the best way to shore up legitimacy, earn respect, and repair America's image.</u></strong> Although this proposal focuses heavily on Cuba, every country in Latin America is a potential friend. <u><strong>Washington will have to not only strengthen its existing relationships in the region, but also win over new allies, who look to us for "ideas and solutions, not lectures." n5</p><p></u></strong>When analyzing ecosystems, environmental scientists seek out "keystone species." These are organisms that, despite their small size, function as lynchpins for, or barometers of, the entire system's stability<u><strong>.</u></strong> <u><strong>Cuba,</u></strong> despite its size and isolation<u><strong>, is a keystone nation in Latin America,</u></strong> <u><strong>having disproportionately dominated Washington's policy toward the region for decades.</u></strong> n6 <u><strong>As a result of its continuing tensions with Havana, America's reputation</u></strong> [*192] <u><strong>in the region has suffered, as has its ability to deal with other countries.</u></strong> n7 For fifty years, <u><strong>Latin American governments that hoped to endear themselves to the U.S. had to pass the Cuba "litmus test." But now the tables have turned, and the Obama Administration, if it wants to repair America's image in the region, will have to pass a Cuba litmus test of its own.</u></strong> n8 In short, <u><strong>America must once again be admired if we are going to expect other countries to follow our example.</u></strong> To that end, <u><strong>warming relations with Cuba would have a reverberating effect throughout Latin America, and would go a long way toward creating goodwill.</p></u></strong>

Perez JD Yale Law School 2010 David “America's Cuba Policy: The Way Forward: A Policy Recommendation for the U.S. State Department” Harvard Latino Law Review lexis

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Perez JD Yale Law School 2010 David “America's Cuba Policy: The Way Forward: A Policy Recommendation for the U.S. State Department” Harvard Latino Law Review lexis fulltext: Anti-Americanism has become the political chant de jour for leaders seeking long-term as well as short-term gains in Latin American elections. In Venezuela, the anti-American rhetoric spewed by Hugo Chavez masks his otherwise autocratic tendencies, while countries like Bolivia and Ecuador tilt further away from Washington, both rhetorically and substantively. The former expelled the U.S. Ambassador in October 2008, and the latter has refused to renew Washington's lease on an airbase traditionally used for counter-narcotics missions. The systemic neglect for eight years during the Bush Administration meant that political capital was never seriously spent dealing with issues affecting the region. Because of this, President Bush was unable to get much headway with his proposal to reform immigration, and his free trade agreement with Colombia encountered significant opposition in Congress. Recent examples of U.S. unilateralism, disregard for international law and norms, and a growing financial crisis, have all been seized by a new generation of populist Latin American leaders who stoke anti-American sentiment. The region, however, is absolutely critical to our national interest and security. Over thirty percent of our oil comes from Latin America - more than the U.S. imports from the Middle East. Additionally, over half of the foreign-born population in the United States is Latin American, meaning that a significant portion of American society is intrinsically tied to the region. n1 These immigrants, as well as their sons and daughters, have already begun to take their place amongst America's social, cultural, and political elite. Just south of America's borders, a deepening polarization is spreading throughout the entire region. In the last few years ideological allies in Bolivia, Ecuador, and Venezuela have written and approved new constitutions that have consolidated the power of the executive, while extending - or in Venezuela's case eliminating - presidential term limits. In Venezuela the polarization has been drawn along economic lines, whereby Chavez's base of support continues to be poor Venezuelans. In Bolivia the polarization has been drawn along racial lines: the preamble to the new Bolivian constitution, approved in January 2009, makes reference to the "disastrous colonial times," a moment in history that Bolivians of Andean-descent particularly lament. Those regions in Bolivia with the most people of European or mixed descent have consistently voted for increased provincial autonomy and against the constitutional changes proposed by President Morales. Perhaps due to its sweeping changes, the new Constitution was rejected by four of Bolivia's nine provinces. n2 Like Bolivia, Latin America is still searching for its identity. [*191] Traditionally the U.S. has projected its influence by using varying combinations of hard and soft power. It has been a long time since the United States last sponsored or supported military action in Latin America, and although highly context-dependent, it is very likely that Latin American citizens and their governments would view any overt display of American hard power in the region negatively. n3 One can only imagine the fodder an American military excursion into Latin America would provide for a leader like Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, or Evo Morales of Bolivia. Soft power, on the other hand, can win over people and governments without resorting to coercion, but is limited by other factors. The key to soft power is not simply a strong military, though having one helps, but rather an enduring sense of legitimacy that can then be projected across the globe to advance particular policies. The key to this legitimacy is a good image and a reputation as a responsible actor on the global and regional stage. A good reputation and image can go a long way toward generating goodwill, which ultimately will help the U.S. when it tries to sell unpopular ideas and reforms in the region. n4 In order to effectively employ soft power in Latin America, the U.S. must repair its image by going on a diplomatic offensive and reminding, not just Latin America's leaders, but also the Latin American people, of the important relationship between the U.S. and Latin America. Many of the problems facing Latin America today cannot be addressed in the absence of U.S. leadership and cooperation. Working with other nations to address these challenges is the best way to shore up legitimacy, earn respect, and repair America's image. Although this proposal focuses heavily on Cuba, every country in Latin America is a potential friend. Washington will have to not only strengthen its existing relationships in the region, but also win over new allies, who look to us for "ideas and solutions, not lectures." n5 When analyzing ecosystems, environmental scientists seek out "keystone species." These are organisms that, despite their small size, function as lynchpins for, or barometers of, the entire system's stability. Cuba, despite its size and isolation, is a keystone nation in Latin America, having disproportionately dominated Washington's policy toward the region for decades. n6 As a result of its continuing tensions with Havana, America's reputation [*192] in the region has suffered, as has its ability to deal with other countries. n7 For fifty years, Latin American governments that hoped to endear themselves to the U.S. had to pass the Cuba "litmus test." But now the tables have turned, and the Obama Administration, if it wants to repair America's image in the region, will have to pass a Cuba litmus test of its own. n8 In short, America must once again be admired if we are going to expect other countries to follow our example. To that end, warming relations with Cuba would have a reverberating effect throughout Latin America, and would go a long way toward creating goodwill. [/INST] <h4>Anti-Americanism is growing in Latin America – extending an olive branch to Cuba is necessary to re-establish our regional soft power </h4><p><strong>Perez</strong> JD Yale Law School <strong>2010</strong> David “America's Cuba Policy: The Way Forward: A Policy Recommendation for the U.S. State Department” Harvard Latino Law Review lexis </p><p><u><strong>Anti-Americanism has become the political chant de jour for leaders seeking long-term as well as short-term gains in Latin American elections.</u></strong> <u><strong>In Venezuela, the anti-American rhetoric spewed by</u></strong> Hugo <u><strong>Chavez masks his otherwise autocratic tendencies, while countries like Bolivia and Ecuador tilt further away from Washington,</u></strong> both rhetorically and substantively. The former expelled the U.S. Ambassador in October 2008, and the latter has refused to renew Washington's lease on an airbase traditionally used for counter-narcotics missions. <u><strong>The systemic neglect for eight years during the Bush Administration meant that political capital was never seriously spent dealing with issues affecting the region</u></strong>. Because of this, President Bush was unable to get much headway with his proposal to reform immigration, and his free trade agreement with Colombia encountered significant opposition in Congress. <u><strong>Recent examples of U.S. unilateralism, disregard for international law and norms, and a growing financial crisis, have all been seized by a new generation of populist Latin American leaders who stoke anti-American sentiment.</p><p>The region,</u></strong> however, <u><strong>is absolutely critical to our national interest and security. Over thirty percent of our oil comes from Latin America - more than the U.S. imports from the Middle East</u></strong>. Additionally, over half of the foreign-born population in the United States is Latin American, meaning that a significant portion of American society is intrinsically tied to the region. n1 These immigrants, as well as their sons and daughters, have already begun to take their place amongst America's social, cultural, and political elite.</p><p>Just <u><strong>south of America's borders, a deepening polarization is spreading throughout the entire region. In the last few years ideological allies in Bolivia, Ecuador, and Venezuela have written and approved new constitutions that have consolidated the power of the executive, while extending - or in Venezuela's case eliminating - presidential term limits</u></strong>. In Venezuela the polarization has been drawn along economic lines, whereby Chavez's base of support continues to be poor Venezuelans. In Bolivia the polarization has been drawn along racial lines: the preamble to the new Bolivian constitution, approved in January 2009, makes reference to the "disastrous colonial times," a moment in history that Bolivians of Andean-descent particularly lament. Those regions in Bolivia with the most people of European or mixed descent have consistently voted for increased provincial autonomy and against the constitutional changes proposed by President Morales. Perhaps due to its sweeping changes, the new Constitution was rejected by four of Bolivia's nine provinces. n2 Like Bolivia, Latin America is still searching for its identity.</p><p> [*191] <u><strong>Traditionally the U.S. has projected its influence by using varying combinations of hard and soft power. It has been a long time since the U</u></strong>nited <u><strong>S</u></strong>tates <u><strong>last sponsored or supported military action in Latin America, and</u></strong> although highly context-dependent, it is very likely that <u><strong>Latin American citizens and their governments would view any overt display of American hard power in the region negatively.</u></strong> n3 One can only imagine the fodder an American military excursion into Latin America would provide for a leader like Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, or Evo Morales of Bolivia. <u><strong>Soft power,</u></strong> on the other hand, <u><strong>can win over people and governments without resorting to coercion,</u></strong> but is limited by other factors.</p><p><u><strong>The key to soft power is not simply a strong military,</u></strong> though having one helps, <u><strong>but</u></strong> rather <u><strong>an enduring sense of legitimacy that can then be projected across the globe to advance particular policies. The key to this legitimacy is a good image and a reputation as a responsible actor on the global and regional stage. A good reputation and image can go a long way toward generating goodwill, which ultimately will help the U.S. when it tries to sell unpopular ideas and reforms in the region.</u></strong> n4</p><p>In order <u><strong>to effectively employ soft power in Latin America, the U.S. must repair its image by going on a diplomatic offensive and reminding, not just Latin America's leaders, but also the Latin American people, of the important relationship between the U.S. and Latin America</u></strong>. <u><strong>Many of the problems facing Latin America today cannot be addressed in the absence of U.S. leadership and cooperation.</u></strong> <u><strong>Working with other nations to address these challenges is the best way to shore up legitimacy, earn respect, and repair America's image.</u></strong> Although this proposal focuses heavily on Cuba, every country in Latin America is a potential friend. <u><strong>Washington will have to not only strengthen its existing relationships in the region, but also win over new allies, who look to us for "ideas and solutions, not lectures." n5</p><p></u></strong>When analyzing ecosystems, environmental scientists seek out "keystone species." These are organisms that, despite their small size, function as lynchpins for, or barometers of, the entire system's stability<u><strong>.</u></strong> <u><strong>Cuba,</u></strong> despite its size and isolation<u><strong>, is a keystone nation in Latin America,</u></strong> <u><strong>having disproportionately dominated Washington's policy toward the region for decades.</u></strong> n6 <u><strong>As a result of its continuing tensions with Havana, America's reputation</u></strong> [*192] <u><strong>in the region has suffered, as has its ability to deal with other countries.</u></strong> n7 For fifty years, <u><strong>Latin American governments that hoped to endear themselves to the U.S. had to pass the Cuba "litmus test." But now the tables have turned, and the Obama Administration, if it wants to repair America's image in the region, will have to pass a Cuba litmus test of its own.</u></strong> n8 In short, <u><strong>America must once again be admired if we are going to expect other countries to follow our example.</u></strong> To that end, <u><strong>warming relations with Cuba would have a reverberating effect throughout Latin America, and would go a long way toward creating goodwill.</p></u></strong> </s>

Increasing trade ties with Cuba crowds out China’s influence

Noting that Washington has attempted to maintain Latin America as a continent of disparate states in the US sphere of influence for nearly two centuries, Watson suggests that economic initiatives such as the Free Trade Area of the Americas and the Central America Free Trade Agreement constitute ongoing efforts to shore up US economic and political influence in the region the US president’s capacity to cooperate with China on regional and global issues will be limited by factors such as the expansion of China’s civilian and military ties with Cuba; sensitivity in Congress about China’s record on religious freedoms, human rights, and trade unions; the Taiwan issue; and intensifying nationalism in both the United States and China in response to the global financial crisis

Chinese and Latin American leaders are sensitive to the reactions that their deepening relationships may provoke from the United States. In Chapter 6, Cynthia A. Watson of the National War College in Washington, D.C., offers an assessment of the Obama administration’s goals in Latin America in the context of China’s growing influence and the domestic factors that will influence the president’s agenda. Noting that Washington has attempted to maintain Latin America as a continent of disparate states in the US sphere of influence for nearly two centuries, Watson suggests that economic initiatives such as the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) and the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) constitute ongoing efforts to shore up US economic and political influence in the region. Skeptical of this agenda, Brazil, Venezuela, and China harbor a shared desire to steer the international economic system away from US dominance, though Brazil’s emphasis on technical and economic exchange as a means for doing so is clearly more appealing to China than Venezuela’s outright antagonism toward Washington. Watson argues that the US president’s capacity to cooperate with China on regional and global issues will be limited by factors such as the predominance of the Middle East in US foreign policy; the expansion of China’s civilian and military ties with Venezuela and Cuba; sensitivity in Congress about China’s record on religious freedoms, human rights, and trade unions; the Taiwan issue; and intensifying nationalism in both the United States and China in response to the global financial crisis.

<h4><strong>Increasing trade ties with Cuba crowds out China’s influence</h4><p>Hearn and León-Manríquez 11</p><p></strong>(Adrian H. and José Luis, Excerpt, “China Engages Latin America: Tracing the Trajectory,” 2011, https://www.rienner.com/uploads/4e0cdfe81dd79.pdf) /wyo-mm) </p><p>Chinese and Latin American leaders are sensitive to the reactions that their deepening relationships may provoke from the United States. In Chapter 6, Cynthia A. Watson of the National War College in Washington, D.C., offers an assessment of the Obama administration’s goals in Latin America in the context of China’s growing influence and the domestic factors that will influence the president’s agenda. <u><strong>Noting that Washington has attempted to maintain Latin America as a continent of disparate states in the US sphere of influence for nearly two centuries, Watson suggests that economic initiatives such as the Free Trade Area of the Americas</u></strong> (FTAA) <u><strong>and the Central America Free Trade Agreement</u></strong> (CAFTA) <u><strong>constitute ongoing efforts to shore up US economic and political influence in the region</u></strong>. Skeptical of this agenda, Brazil, Venezuela, and China harbor a shared desire to steer the international economic system away from US dominance, though Brazil’s emphasis on technical and economic exchange as a means for doing so is clearly more appealing to China than Venezuela’s outright antagonism toward Washington. Watson argues that <u><strong>the US president’s capacity to cooperate with China on regional and global issues will be limited by factors such as</u></strong> the predominance of the Middle East in US foreign policy; <u><strong>the expansion of China’s civilian and military ties with</u></strong> Venezuela and <u><strong>Cuba; sensitivity in Congress about China’s record on religious freedoms, human rights, and trade unions; the Taiwan issue; and intensifying nationalism in both the United States and China in response to the global financial crisis</u></strong>.</p>

Hearn and León-Manríquez 11 (Adrian H. and José Luis, Excerpt, “China Engages Latin America: Tracing the Trajectory,” 2011, https://www.rienner.com/uploads/4e0cdfe81dd79.pdf) /wyo-mm)

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Hearn and León-Manríquez 11 (Adrian H. and José Luis, Excerpt, “China Engages Latin America: Tracing the Trajectory,” 2011, https://www.rienner.com/uploads/4e0cdfe81dd79.pdf) /wyo-mm) fulltext: Chinese and Latin American leaders are sensitive to the reactions that their deepening relationships may provoke from the United States. In Chapter 6, Cynthia A. Watson of the National War College in Washington, D.C., offers an assessment of the Obama administration’s goals in Latin America in the context of China’s growing influence and the domestic factors that will influence the president’s agenda. Noting that Washington has attempted to maintain Latin America as a continent of disparate states in the US sphere of influence for nearly two centuries, Watson suggests that economic initiatives such as the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) and the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) constitute ongoing efforts to shore up US economic and political influence in the region. Skeptical of this agenda, Brazil, Venezuela, and China harbor a shared desire to steer the international economic system away from US dominance, though Brazil’s emphasis on technical and economic exchange as a means for doing so is clearly more appealing to China than Venezuela’s outright antagonism toward Washington. Watson argues that the US president’s capacity to cooperate with China on regional and global issues will be limited by factors such as the predominance of the Middle East in US foreign policy; the expansion of China’s civilian and military ties with Venezuela and Cuba; sensitivity in Congress about China’s record on religious freedoms, human rights, and trade unions; the Taiwan issue; and intensifying nationalism in both the United States and China in response to the global financial crisis. [/INST] <h4><strong>Increasing trade ties with Cuba crowds out China’s influence</h4><p>Hearn and León-Manríquez 11</p><p></strong>(Adrian H. and José Luis, Excerpt, “China Engages Latin America: Tracing the Trajectory,” 2011, https://www.rienner.com/uploads/4e0cdfe81dd79.pdf) /wyo-mm) </p><p>Chinese and Latin American leaders are sensitive to the reactions that their deepening relationships may provoke from the United States. In Chapter 6, Cynthia A. Watson of the National War College in Washington, D.C., offers an assessment of the Obama administration’s goals in Latin America in the context of China’s growing influence and the domestic factors that will influence the president’s agenda. <u><strong>Noting that Washington has attempted to maintain Latin America as a continent of disparate states in the US sphere of influence for nearly two centuries, Watson suggests that economic initiatives such as the Free Trade Area of the Americas</u></strong> (FTAA) <u><strong>and the Central America Free Trade Agreement</u></strong> (CAFTA) <u><strong>constitute ongoing efforts to shore up US economic and political influence in the region</u></strong>. Skeptical of this agenda, Brazil, Venezuela, and China harbor a shared desire to steer the international economic system away from US dominance, though Brazil’s emphasis on technical and economic exchange as a means for doing so is clearly more appealing to China than Venezuela’s outright antagonism toward Washington. Watson argues that <u><strong>the US president’s capacity to cooperate with China on regional and global issues will be limited by factors such as</u></strong> the predominance of the Middle East in US foreign policy; <u><strong>the expansion of China’s civilian and military ties with</u></strong> Venezuela and <u><strong>Cuba; sensitivity in Congress about China’s record on religious freedoms, human rights, and trade unions; the Taiwan issue; and intensifying nationalism in both the United States and China in response to the global financial crisis</u></strong>.</p> </s>

U.S. Venezuelan trade is key to the economy- recession proves

http://venezuela-us.org/live/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/2-15-2013-US-Venezuela-Trade.pdf, accessed 6/15/13,WYO/JF The commercial relationship between the U.S. and Venezuela is strong and continues to grow Venezuela has been a reliable and valuable trade partner throughout the years was once again the U.S.’s third largest trading partner in Latin America and 14th largest in the world Trade in goods reached over $56.3 billion last year, the fourth consecutive year of trade growth. As Venezuela’s economy has grown, so has its demand for U.S. products. Also for the fourth year in a row, U.S. exports to Venezuela increased. In 2012, the U.S. exported $17.6 billion in goods to Venezuela These goods were in industries as diverse as agriculture, machinery, manufacturing, computer electronics and others. Trade between the two countries has helped maintain and create thousands of jobs, giving both economies a needed boost during the past several years of global recession.

“U.S. - VEnEzUEla tRadE in 2012” http://venezuela-us.org/live/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/2-15-2013-US-Venezuela-Trade.pdf, accessed 6/15/13,WYO/JF The commercial relationship between the U.S. ¶ and Venezuela is strong and continues to grow. ¶ Venezuela has been a reliable and valuable trade ¶ partner throughout the years, and in 2012, it was ¶ once again the U.S.’s third largest trading partner ¶ in Latin America and 14th largest in the world, ¶ in addition to being its fourth largest supplier of ¶ oil. Trade in goods reached over $56.3 billion last ¶ year, the fourth consecutive year of trade growth.¶ As Venezuela’s economy has grown, so has its ¶ demand for U.S. products. Also for the fourth year ¶ in a row, U.S. exports to Venezuela increased. ¶ In 2012, the U.S. exported $17.6 billion in goods ¶ to Venezuela, a 43% increase over 2011 and a ¶ historical high. Fifteen states exported over $100 ¶ million in goods to Venezuela last year, led by ¶ Texas, Florida and Louisiana, which exported ¶ $6.9, $5.1 and $1.2 billion respectively. These ¶ goods were in industries as diverse as agriculture, ¶ machinery, manufacturing, computer electronics ¶ and others. Trade between the two countries ¶ has helped maintain and create thousands of ¶ jobs, giving both economies a needed boost ¶ during the past several years of global recession.

<h4><strong>U.S. Venezuelan trade is key to the economy- recession proves</h4><p>Embassy of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, 13</p><p></strong>“U.S. - VEnEzUEla tRadE in 2012” <u>http://venezuela-us.org/live/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/2-15-2013-US-Venezuela-Trade.pdf<strong>, accessed 6/15/13,WYO/JF</p><p>The commercial relationship between the U.S. </u></strong>¶<u><strong> and Venezuela is strong and continues to grow</u></strong>. ¶ <u><strong>Venezuela has been a reliable and valuable trade </u></strong>¶<u><strong> partner throughout the years</u></strong>, and in 2012, it <u><strong>was </u></strong>¶<u><strong> once again the U.S.’s third largest trading partner </u></strong>¶<u><strong> in Latin America and 14th largest in the world</u></strong>, ¶ in addition to being its fourth largest supplier of ¶ oil. <u><strong>Trade in goods reached over $56.3 billion last </u></strong>¶<u><strong> year, the fourth consecutive year of trade growth.</u></strong>¶<u><strong> As Venezuela’s economy has grown, so has its </u></strong>¶<u><strong> demand for U.S. products.</u></strong> <u><strong>Also for the fourth year </u></strong>¶<u><strong> in a row, U.S. exports to Venezuela increased. </u></strong>¶<u><strong> In 2012, the U.S. exported $17.6 billion in goods </u></strong>¶<u><strong> to Venezuela</u></strong>, a 43% increase over 2011 and a ¶ historical high. Fifteen states exported over $100 ¶ million in goods to Venezuela last year, led by ¶ Texas, Florida and Louisiana, which exported ¶ $6.9, $5.1 and $1.2 billion respectively. <u><strong>These </u></strong>¶<u><strong> goods were in industries as diverse as agriculture, </u></strong>¶<u><strong> machinery, manufacturing, computer electronics </u></strong>¶<u><strong> and others. Trade between the two countries </u></strong>¶<u><strong> has helped maintain and create thousands of </u></strong>¶<u><strong> jobs, giving both economies a needed boost </u></strong>¶<u><strong> during the past several years of global recession.</p></u></strong>

Embassy of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, 13

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Embassy of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, 13 fulltext: “U.S. - VEnEzUEla tRadE in 2012” http://venezuela-us.org/live/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/2-15-2013-US-Venezuela-Trade.pdf, accessed 6/15/13,WYO/JF The commercial relationship between the U.S. ¶ and Venezuela is strong and continues to grow. ¶ Venezuela has been a reliable and valuable trade ¶ partner throughout the years, and in 2012, it was ¶ once again the U.S.’s third largest trading partner ¶ in Latin America and 14th largest in the world, ¶ in addition to being its fourth largest supplier of ¶ oil. Trade in goods reached over $56.3 billion last ¶ year, the fourth consecutive year of trade growth.¶ As Venezuela’s economy has grown, so has its ¶ demand for U.S. products. Also for the fourth year ¶ in a row, U.S. exports to Venezuela increased. ¶ In 2012, the U.S. exported $17.6 billion in goods ¶ to Venezuela, a 43% increase over 2011 and a ¶ historical high. Fifteen states exported over $100 ¶ million in goods to Venezuela last year, led by ¶ Texas, Florida and Louisiana, which exported ¶ $6.9, $5.1 and $1.2 billion respectively. These ¶ goods were in industries as diverse as agriculture, ¶ machinery, manufacturing, computer electronics ¶ and others. Trade between the two countries ¶ has helped maintain and create thousands of ¶ jobs, giving both economies a needed boost ¶ during the past several years of global recession. [/INST] <h4><strong>U.S. Venezuelan trade is key to the economy- recession proves</h4><p>Embassy of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, 13</p><p></strong>“U.S. - VEnEzUEla tRadE in 2012” <u>http://venezuela-us.org/live/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/2-15-2013-US-Venezuela-Trade.pdf<strong>, accessed 6/15/13,WYO/JF</p><p>The commercial relationship between the U.S. </u></strong>¶<u><strong> and Venezuela is strong and continues to grow</u></strong>. ¶ <u><strong>Venezuela has been a reliable and valuable trade </u></strong>¶<u><strong> partner throughout the years</u></strong>, and in 2012, it <u><strong>was </u></strong>¶<u><strong> once again the U.S.’s third largest trading partner </u></strong>¶<u><strong> in Latin America and 14th largest in the world</u></strong>, ¶ in addition to being its fourth largest supplier of ¶ oil. <u><strong>Trade in goods reached over $56.3 billion last </u></strong>¶<u><strong> year, the fourth consecutive year of trade growth.</u></strong>¶<u><strong> As Venezuela’s economy has grown, so has its </u></strong>¶<u><strong> demand for U.S. products.</u></strong> <u><strong>Also for the fourth year </u></strong>¶<u><strong> in a row, U.S. exports to Venezuela increased. </u></strong>¶<u><strong> In 2012, the U.S. exported $17.6 billion in goods </u></strong>¶<u><strong> to Venezuela</u></strong>, a 43% increase over 2011 and a ¶ historical high. Fifteen states exported over $100 ¶ million in goods to Venezuela last year, led by ¶ Texas, Florida and Louisiana, which exported ¶ $6.9, $5.1 and $1.2 billion respectively. <u><strong>These </u></strong>¶<u><strong> goods were in industries as diverse as agriculture, </u></strong>¶<u><strong> machinery, manufacturing, computer electronics </u></strong>¶<u><strong> and others. Trade between the two countries </u></strong>¶<u><strong> has helped maintain and create thousands of </u></strong>¶<u><strong> jobs, giving both economies a needed boost </u></strong>¶<u><strong> during the past several years of global recession.</p></u></strong> </s>

Lift embargo collapses health care system

Washington lifts its embargo, Cuba can expect a mass exodus of health-care workers and then the creation of a domestic health system with two tiers, one private and one public. The system's lower, public tier would be at risk of complete collapse ernments should "limit out-migration of scientific brainpower from the country." The only U.S. policy currently in place, however, encourages Cuban physicians to immigrate to the United States The Castro government, meanwhile, is in a seemingly untenable position The government would have to pay higher salaries to teachers, doctors, nurses, and technicians; strengthen the country's deteriorating infrastructure; and improve working conditions for common workers. To bolster its health-care infrastructure and create incentives for Cuban doctors to stay in the system, Cuba will have to find external support from donors . The onus is on the Castro government to demonstrate how the regime could adapt to the easing or lifting of the U.S. embargo. Cuban leaders already know that their health triumphs would be at risk

[Laurie, LAURIE GARRETT is Senior Fellow for Global Health at the Council on Foreign Relations, Castrocare in crisis: will lifting the embargo make things worse?, Foreign Affairs. 89.4 (July-August 2010): p61, Accessed online via academic onefile] /Wyo-MB According to Steven Ullmann of the University of Miami's Cuba Transition Project, if Washington lifts its embargo, Cuba can expect a mass exodus of health-care workers and then the creation of a domestic health system with two tiers, one private and one public. The system's lower, public tier would be at risk of complete collapse. Ullmann therefore suggests "fostering this [public] system through partnerships and enhanced compensation of personnel." He also argues that officials in both governments should "limit out-migration of scientific brainpower from the country." Properly handled, the transition could leave Cuba with a mixed health-care economy--part public, part locally owned and private, and part outsourced and private--that could compensate Cuban physicians, nurses, and other health-care workers enough to keep them in the country and working at least part time in the public sector.¶ The only U.S. policy currently in place, however, encourages Cuban physicians to immigrate to the United States. In 2006, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security created a special parole program under which health-care workers who defect from Cuba are granted legal residence in the United States while they prepare for U.S. medical licensing examinations. An estimated 2,000 physicians have taken advantage of the program. Although few have managed to gain accreditation as U.S. doctors, largely due to their poor English-language skills and the stark differences between Cuban and U.S. medical training, many now work as nurses in Florida hospitals.¶ The Castro government, meanwhile, is in a seemingly untenable position. The two greatest achievements of the Cuban Revolution--100 percent literacy and quality universal health care--depend on huge streams of government spending. If Washington does eventually start to normalize relations, plugging just a few holes in the embargo wall would require vast additional spending by the Cuban government. The government would have to pay higher salaries to teachers, doctors, nurses, and technicians; strengthen the country's deteriorating infrastructure; and improve working conditions for common workers. To bolster its health-care infrastructure and create incentives for Cuban doctors to stay in the system, Cuba will have to find external support from donors, such as the United Nations and the U.S. Agency for International Development. But few sources will support Havana with funding as long as the regime restricts the travel of its citizens. In the long run, Cuba will need to develop a taxable economic base to generate government revenues--which would mean inviting foreign investment and generating serious employment opportunities. The onus is on the Castro government to demonstrate how the regime could adapt to the easing or lifting of the U.S. embargo. Certainly, Cuban leaders already know that their health triumphs would be at risk.

<h4><strong>Lift embargo collapses health care system</h4><p>Garett, 2010</p><p></strong>[Laurie, LAURIE GARRETT is Senior Fellow for Global Health at the Council on Foreign Relations, Castrocare in crisis: will lifting the embargo make things worse?, Foreign Affairs. 89.4 (July-August 2010): p61, Accessed online via academic onefile] /Wyo-MB</p><p>According to Steven Ullmann of the University of Miami's Cuba Transition Project, if <u><strong>Washington lifts its embargo, Cuba can expect a mass exodus of health-care workers and then the creation of a domestic health system with two tiers, one private and one public. The system's lower, public tier would be at risk of complete collapse</u></strong>. Ullmann therefore suggests "fostering this [public] system through partnerships and enhanced compensation of personnel." He also argues that officials in both gov<u><strong>ernments should "limit out-migration of scientific brainpower from the country."</u></strong> Properly handled, the transition could leave Cuba with a mixed health-care economy--part public, part locally owned and private, and part outsourced and private--that could compensate Cuban physicians, nurses, and other health-care workers enough to keep them in the country and working at least part time in the public sector.¶ <u><strong>The only U.S. policy currently in place, however, encourages Cuban physicians to immigrate to the United States</u></strong>. In 2006, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security created a special parole program under which health-care workers who defect from Cuba are granted legal residence in the United States while they prepare for U.S. medical licensing examinations. An estimated 2,000 physicians have taken advantage of the program. Although few have managed to gain accreditation as U.S. doctors, largely due to their poor English-language skills and the stark differences between Cuban and U.S. medical training, many now work as nurses in Florida hospitals.¶ <u><strong>The Castro government, meanwhile, is in a seemingly untenable position</u></strong>. The two greatest achievements of the Cuban Revolution--100 percent literacy and quality universal health care--depend on huge streams of government spending. If Washington does eventually start to normalize relations, plugging just a few holes in the embargo wall would require vast additional spending by the Cuban government. <u><strong>The government would have to pay higher salaries to teachers, doctors, nurses, and technicians; strengthen the country's deteriorating infrastructure; and improve working conditions for common workers. To bolster its health-care infrastructure and create incentives for Cuban doctors to stay in the system, Cuba will have to find external support from donors</u></strong>, such as the United Nations and the U.S. Agency for International Development. But few sources will support Havana with funding as long as the regime restricts the travel of its citizens. In the long run, Cuba will need to develop a taxable economic base to generate government revenues--which would mean inviting foreign investment and generating serious employment opportunities<u><strong>. The onus is on the Castro government to demonstrate how the regime could adapt to the easing or lifting of the U.S. embargo. </u></strong>Certainly, <u><strong>Cuban leaders already know that their health triumphs would be at risk</u></strong>.</p>

Garett, 2010

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Garett, 2010 fulltext: [Laurie, LAURIE GARRETT is Senior Fellow for Global Health at the Council on Foreign Relations, Castrocare in crisis: will lifting the embargo make things worse?, Foreign Affairs. 89.4 (July-August 2010): p61, Accessed online via academic onefile] /Wyo-MB According to Steven Ullmann of the University of Miami's Cuba Transition Project, if Washington lifts its embargo, Cuba can expect a mass exodus of health-care workers and then the creation of a domestic health system with two tiers, one private and one public. The system's lower, public tier would be at risk of complete collapse. Ullmann therefore suggests "fostering this [public] system through partnerships and enhanced compensation of personnel." He also argues that officials in both governments should "limit out-migration of scientific brainpower from the country." Properly handled, the transition could leave Cuba with a mixed health-care economy--part public, part locally owned and private, and part outsourced and private--that could compensate Cuban physicians, nurses, and other health-care workers enough to keep them in the country and working at least part time in the public sector.¶ The only U.S. policy currently in place, however, encourages Cuban physicians to immigrate to the United States. In 2006, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security created a special parole program under which health-care workers who defect from Cuba are granted legal residence in the United States while they prepare for U.S. medical licensing examinations. An estimated 2,000 physicians have taken advantage of the program. Although few have managed to gain accreditation as U.S. doctors, largely due to their poor English-language skills and the stark differences between Cuban and U.S. medical training, many now work as nurses in Florida hospitals.¶ The Castro government, meanwhile, is in a seemingly untenable position. The two greatest achievements of the Cuban Revolution--100 percent literacy and quality universal health care--depend on huge streams of government spending. If Washington does eventually start to normalize relations, plugging just a few holes in the embargo wall would require vast additional spending by the Cuban government. The government would have to pay higher salaries to teachers, doctors, nurses, and technicians; strengthen the country's deteriorating infrastructure; and improve working conditions for common workers. To bolster its health-care infrastructure and create incentives for Cuban doctors to stay in the system, Cuba will have to find external support from donors, such as the United Nations and the U.S. Agency for International Development. But few sources will support Havana with funding as long as the regime restricts the travel of its citizens. In the long run, Cuba will need to develop a taxable economic base to generate government revenues--which would mean inviting foreign investment and generating serious employment opportunities. The onus is on the Castro government to demonstrate how the regime could adapt to the easing or lifting of the U.S. embargo. Certainly, Cuban leaders already know that their health triumphs would be at risk. [/INST] <h4><strong>Lift embargo collapses health care system</h4><p>Garett, 2010</p><p></strong>[Laurie, LAURIE GARRETT is Senior Fellow for Global Health at the Council on Foreign Relations, Castrocare in crisis: will lifting the embargo make things worse?, Foreign Affairs. 89.4 (July-August 2010): p61, Accessed online via academic onefile] /Wyo-MB</p><p>According to Steven Ullmann of the University of Miami's Cuba Transition Project, if <u><strong>Washington lifts its embargo, Cuba can expect a mass exodus of health-care workers and then the creation of a domestic health system with two tiers, one private and one public. The system's lower, public tier would be at risk of complete collapse</u></strong>. Ullmann therefore suggests "fostering this [public] system through partnerships and enhanced compensation of personnel." He also argues that officials in both gov<u><strong>ernments should "limit out-migration of scientific brainpower from the country."</u></strong> Properly handled, the transition could leave Cuba with a mixed health-care economy--part public, part locally owned and private, and part outsourced and private--that could compensate Cuban physicians, nurses, and other health-care workers enough to keep them in the country and working at least part time in the public sector.¶ <u><strong>The only U.S. policy currently in place, however, encourages Cuban physicians to immigrate to the United States</u></strong>. In 2006, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security created a special parole program under which health-care workers who defect from Cuba are granted legal residence in the United States while they prepare for U.S. medical licensing examinations. An estimated 2,000 physicians have taken advantage of the program. Although few have managed to gain accreditation as U.S. doctors, largely due to their poor English-language skills and the stark differences between Cuban and U.S. medical training, many now work as nurses in Florida hospitals.¶ <u><strong>The Castro government, meanwhile, is in a seemingly untenable position</u></strong>. The two greatest achievements of the Cuban Revolution--100 percent literacy and quality universal health care--depend on huge streams of government spending. If Washington does eventually start to normalize relations, plugging just a few holes in the embargo wall would require vast additional spending by the Cuban government. <u><strong>The government would have to pay higher salaries to teachers, doctors, nurses, and technicians; strengthen the country's deteriorating infrastructure; and improve working conditions for common workers. To bolster its health-care infrastructure and create incentives for Cuban doctors to stay in the system, Cuba will have to find external support from donors</u></strong>, such as the United Nations and the U.S. Agency for International Development. But few sources will support Havana with funding as long as the regime restricts the travel of its citizens. In the long run, Cuba will need to develop a taxable economic base to generate government revenues--which would mean inviting foreign investment and generating serious employment opportunities<u><strong>. The onus is on the Castro government to demonstrate how the regime could adapt to the easing or lifting of the U.S. embargo. </u></strong>Certainly, <u><strong>Cuban leaders already know that their health triumphs would be at risk</u></strong>.</p> </s>

The plan leads to broader cooperation and influence in the region and globally

the Obama Administration ignores Latin America at its own peril. Latin America's importance to the U S is growing by the day, and cannot be overstated. While the issue of U.S.-Cuba relations is obviously of smaller import than many other issues currently affecting the world addressing it would also involve correspondingly less effort than those issues, but could potentially lead to a disproportionately high return by making regional cooperation more likely. n20 In order to confront any of the major world issues facing the U S Washington must find a way to cooperate with its neighbors, who generally view U.S. policy toward Cuba as the most glaring symbol of its historic inability to constructively engage the region. to the extent that a healthy U.S.-Cuban relationship would mean a healthier U.S.-Latin America relationship, the former should be pursued with an unprecedented vigor, one that has been absent for the last fifty years. addressing these concerns might also prevent more serious problems in the future. There is no doubt that America's diminished image in Latin America means that it will face additional difficulty when trying to accomplish its regional goals. To address the issues confronting the U S vis-a-vis Latin America (i.e., drugs, the environment, trade, labor and human rights), Washington must restore its heavily damaged image and regain its place as the region's trendsetter and leader. Resolving America's "Cuba problem" would inject new energy and credibility into America's image

[*195] Third, the Obama Administration ignores Latin America at its own peril. Latin America's importance to the United States is growing by the day, and cannot be overstated. While the issue of U.S.-Cuba relations is obviously of smaller import than many other issues currently affecting the world (i.e., the ailing economy, climate change, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction), addressing it would also involve correspondingly less effort than those issues, but could potentially lead to a disproportionately high return by making regional cooperation more likely. n20 In order to confront any of the major world issues facing the United States, Washington must find a way to cooperate with its neighbors, who generally view U.S. policy toward Cuba as the most glaring symbol of its historic inability to constructively engage the region. These three reasons combine for a perfect storm: to the extent that a healthy U.S.-Cuban relationship would mean a healthier U.S.-Latin America relationship, the former should be pursued with an unprecedented vigor, one that has been absent for the last fifty years. Aside from the strategic importance of this issue, addressing these concerns might also prevent more serious problems in the future. Although the chances of a post-Castro Cuba becoming a failed state are slim, the threat is nevertheless real. If the state were to collapse, the island could plunge into civil war, face a humanitarian crisis, become a major drug trafficking center, experience a massive migration to Florida, or endure a combination of each. However, a new and comprehensive policy toward Cuba can help prevent these nightmare scenarios from materializing. There is no doubt that America's diminished image in Latin America means that it will face additional difficulty when trying to accomplish its regional goals. n21 To address the issues confronting the United States vis-a-vis Latin America (i.e., drugs, the environment, trade, labor and human rights), Washington must restore its heavily damaged image and regain its place as the region's trendsetter and leader. Resolving America's "Cuba problem" is a low-cost/high-reward strategy that would inject new energy and credibility into America's image. The Eight Recommendations found in this proposal are suggestions that the Obama Administration should consider as it moves to reengage Latin America. Part of America's greatness is its ability to inspire practical solutions in people. Any new U.S.-Cuban policy should embrace not only America's uncanny ability to reinvent itself, but also the pragmatism that has made America so great to begin with.

<h4>The plan leads to broader cooperation and influence in the region and globally </h4><p><strong>Perez</strong> JD Yale Law School <strong>2010</strong> David “America's Cuba Policy: The Way Forward: A Policy Recommendation for the U.S. State Department” Harvard Latino Law Review lexis </p><p>[*195] Third, <u><strong>the Obama Administration ignores Latin America at its own peril. Latin America's importance to the U</u></strong>nited <u><strong>S</u></strong>tates <u><strong>is growing by the day, and cannot be overstated. While the issue of U.S.-Cuba relations is obviously of smaller import than many other issues currently affecting the world</u></strong> (i.e., the ailing economy, climate change, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction), <u><strong>addressing it would also involve correspondingly less effort than those issues, but could potentially lead to a disproportionately high return by making regional cooperation more likely.</u></strong> <u><strong>n20 In order to confront any of the major world issues facing the U</u></strong>nited <u><strong>S</u></strong>tates, <u><strong>Washington must find a way to cooperate with its neighbors, who generally view U.S. policy toward Cuba as the most glaring symbol of its historic inability to constructively engage the region.</u></strong> These three reasons combine for a perfect storm: <u><strong>to the extent that a healthy U.S.-Cuban relationship would mean a healthier U.S.-Latin America relationship, the former should be pursued with an unprecedented vigor, one that has been absent for the last fifty years.</p><p></u></strong>Aside from the strategic importance of this issue, <u><strong>addressing these concerns might also prevent more serious problems in the future.</u></strong> Although the chances of a post-Castro Cuba becoming a failed state are slim, the threat is nevertheless real. If the state were to collapse, the island could plunge into civil war, face a humanitarian crisis, become a major drug trafficking center, experience a massive migration to Florida, or endure a combination of each. However, a new and comprehensive policy toward Cuba can help prevent these nightmare scenarios from materializing.</p><p><u><strong>There is no doubt that America's diminished image in Latin America means that it will face additional difficulty when trying to accomplish its regional goals.</u></strong> n21 <u><strong>To address the issues confronting the U</u></strong>nited <u><strong>S</u></strong>tates <u><strong>vis-a-vis Latin America (i.e., drugs, the environment, trade, labor and human rights), Washington must restore its heavily damaged image and regain its place as the region's trendsetter and leader. Resolving America's "Cuba problem"</u></strong> is a low-cost/high-reward strategy that <u><strong>would inject new energy and credibility into America's image</u></strong>. The Eight Recommendations found in this proposal are suggestions that the Obama Administration should consider as it moves to reengage Latin America. Part of America's greatness is its ability to inspire practical solutions in people. Any new U.S.-Cuban policy should embrace not only America's uncanny ability to reinvent itself, but also the pragmatism that has made America so great to begin with.</p>

Perez JD Yale Law School 2010 David “America's Cuba Policy: The Way Forward: A Policy Recommendation for the U.S. State Department” Harvard Latino Law Review lexis

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Perez JD Yale Law School 2010 David “America's Cuba Policy: The Way Forward: A Policy Recommendation for the U.S. State Department” Harvard Latino Law Review lexis fulltext: [*195] Third, the Obama Administration ignores Latin America at its own peril. Latin America's importance to the United States is growing by the day, and cannot be overstated. While the issue of U.S.-Cuba relations is obviously of smaller import than many other issues currently affecting the world (i.e., the ailing economy, climate change, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction), addressing it would also involve correspondingly less effort than those issues, but could potentially lead to a disproportionately high return by making regional cooperation more likely. n20 In order to confront any of the major world issues facing the United States, Washington must find a way to cooperate with its neighbors, who generally view U.S. policy toward Cuba as the most glaring symbol of its historic inability to constructively engage the region. These three reasons combine for a perfect storm: to the extent that a healthy U.S.-Cuban relationship would mean a healthier U.S.-Latin America relationship, the former should be pursued with an unprecedented vigor, one that has been absent for the last fifty years. Aside from the strategic importance of this issue, addressing these concerns might also prevent more serious problems in the future. Although the chances of a post-Castro Cuba becoming a failed state are slim, the threat is nevertheless real. If the state were to collapse, the island could plunge into civil war, face a humanitarian crisis, become a major drug trafficking center, experience a massive migration to Florida, or endure a combination of each. However, a new and comprehensive policy toward Cuba can help prevent these nightmare scenarios from materializing. There is no doubt that America's diminished image in Latin America means that it will face additional difficulty when trying to accomplish its regional goals. n21 To address the issues confronting the United States vis-a-vis Latin America (i.e., drugs, the environment, trade, labor and human rights), Washington must restore its heavily damaged image and regain its place as the region's trendsetter and leader. Resolving America's "Cuba problem" is a low-cost/high-reward strategy that would inject new energy and credibility into America's image. The Eight Recommendations found in this proposal are suggestions that the Obama Administration should consider as it moves to reengage Latin America. Part of America's greatness is its ability to inspire practical solutions in people. Any new U.S.-Cuban policy should embrace not only America's uncanny ability to reinvent itself, but also the pragmatism that has made America so great to begin with. [/INST] <h4>The plan leads to broader cooperation and influence in the region and globally </h4><p><strong>Perez</strong> JD Yale Law School <strong>2010</strong> David “America's Cuba Policy: The Way Forward: A Policy Recommendation for the U.S. State Department” Harvard Latino Law Review lexis </p><p>[*195] Third, <u><strong>the Obama Administration ignores Latin America at its own peril. Latin America's importance to the U</u></strong>nited <u><strong>S</u></strong>tates <u><strong>is growing by the day, and cannot be overstated. While the issue of U.S.-Cuba relations is obviously of smaller import than many other issues currently affecting the world</u></strong> (i.e., the ailing economy, climate change, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction), <u><strong>addressing it would also involve correspondingly less effort than those issues, but could potentially lead to a disproportionately high return by making regional cooperation more likely.</u></strong> <u><strong>n20 In order to confront any of the major world issues facing the U</u></strong>nited <u><strong>S</u></strong>tates, <u><strong>Washington must find a way to cooperate with its neighbors, who generally view U.S. policy toward Cuba as the most glaring symbol of its historic inability to constructively engage the region.</u></strong> These three reasons combine for a perfect storm: <u><strong>to the extent that a healthy U.S.-Cuban relationship would mean a healthier U.S.-Latin America relationship, the former should be pursued with an unprecedented vigor, one that has been absent for the last fifty years.</p><p></u></strong>Aside from the strategic importance of this issue, <u><strong>addressing these concerns might also prevent more serious problems in the future.</u></strong> Although the chances of a post-Castro Cuba becoming a failed state are slim, the threat is nevertheless real. If the state were to collapse, the island could plunge into civil war, face a humanitarian crisis, become a major drug trafficking center, experience a massive migration to Florida, or endure a combination of each. However, a new and comprehensive policy toward Cuba can help prevent these nightmare scenarios from materializing.</p><p><u><strong>There is no doubt that America's diminished image in Latin America means that it will face additional difficulty when trying to accomplish its regional goals.</u></strong> n21 <u><strong>To address the issues confronting the U</u></strong>nited <u><strong>S</u></strong>tates <u><strong>vis-a-vis Latin America (i.e., drugs, the environment, trade, labor and human rights), Washington must restore its heavily damaged image and regain its place as the region's trendsetter and leader. Resolving America's "Cuba problem"</u></strong> is a low-cost/high-reward strategy that <u><strong>would inject new energy and credibility into America's image</u></strong>. The Eight Recommendations found in this proposal are suggestions that the Obama Administration should consider as it moves to reengage Latin America. Part of America's greatness is its ability to inspire practical solutions in people. Any new U.S.-Cuban policy should embrace not only America's uncanny ability to reinvent itself, but also the pragmatism that has made America so great to begin with.</p> </s>

Trade to LA is key to climate change, proliferation, and democracy

http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD2012PolicyReportFINAL.pdf Every country in the Americas would benefit from expanded economic relations, with improved access to each other’s markets the United States’ $16-trillion economy is a vital market and source capital and technology for Latin America For its part, Latin America’s rising economies will inevitably become more and more crucial to the United States’ economic future The United States and many nations of Latin America would gain a great deal by more cooperation on such global matters as climate change, nuclear non-proliferation, and democracy

“Remaking the Relationship¶ the United States and Latin America” http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD2012PolicyReportFINAL.pdf, accessed 6/11/13,WYO/JF Every country in the Americas would benefit from strengthened and ¶ expanded economic relations, with improved access to each other’s markets, investment capital, and energy resources . Even with its current economic problems, the United States’ $16-trillion economy is a vital market ¶ and source of capital (including remittances) and technology for Latin ¶ America, and it could contribute more to the region’s economic performance . For its part, Latin America’s rising economies will inevitably become ¶ more and more crucial to the United States’ economic future .¶ The United States and many nations of Latin America and the Caribbean ¶ would also gain a great deal by more cooperation on such global matters ¶ as climate change, nuclear non-proliferation, and democracy and human ¶ rights . With a rapidly expanding US Hispanic population of more than 50 ¶ million, the cultural and demographic integration of the United States and ¶ Latin America is proceeding at an accelerating pace, setting a firmer basis ¶ for hemispheric partnership.

<h4><strong>Trade to LA is key to climate change, proliferation, and democracy</h4><p>Sol M . Linowitz Forum, 12</p><p></strong>Inter-American Dialogue 2012</p><p>“Remaking the Relationship¶ the United States and Latin America” <u>http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD2012PolicyReportFINAL.pdf</u>, accessed 6/11/13,WYO/JF</p><p><u><strong>Every country in the Americas would benefit from </u></strong>strengthened and ¶ <u><strong>expanded economic relations, with improved access to each other’s markets</u></strong>, investment capital, and energy resources . Even with its current economic problems, <u><strong>the United States’ $16-trillion economy is a vital market </u></strong>¶<u><strong> and source</u></strong> of <u><strong>capital</u></strong> (including remittances) <u><strong>and technology for Latin </u></strong>¶<u><strong> America</u></strong>, and it could contribute more to the region’s economic performance . <u><strong>For its part, Latin America’s rising economies will inevitably become </u></strong>¶<u><strong> more and more crucial to the United States’ economic future</u></strong> .¶ <u><strong>The United States and many nations of Latin America</u></strong> and the Caribbean ¶ <u><strong>would</u></strong> also <u><strong>gain a great deal by more cooperation on such global matters </u></strong>¶<u><strong> as climate change, nuclear non-proliferation, and democracy</u></strong> and human ¶ rights . With a rapidly expanding US Hispanic population of more than 50 ¶ million, the cultural and demographic integration of the United States and ¶ Latin America is proceeding at an accelerating pace, setting a firmer basis ¶ for hemispheric partnership. </p>

Sol M . Linowitz Forum, 12 Inter-American Dialogue 2012

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Sol M . Linowitz Forum, 12 Inter-American Dialogue 2012 fulltext: “Remaking the Relationship¶ the United States and Latin America” http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD2012PolicyReportFINAL.pdf, accessed 6/11/13,WYO/JF Every country in the Americas would benefit from strengthened and ¶ expanded economic relations, with improved access to each other’s markets, investment capital, and energy resources . Even with its current economic problems, the United States’ $16-trillion economy is a vital market ¶ and source of capital (including remittances) and technology for Latin ¶ America, and it could contribute more to the region’s economic performance . For its part, Latin America’s rising economies will inevitably become ¶ more and more crucial to the United States’ economic future .¶ The United States and many nations of Latin America and the Caribbean ¶ would also gain a great deal by more cooperation on such global matters ¶ as climate change, nuclear non-proliferation, and democracy and human ¶ rights . With a rapidly expanding US Hispanic population of more than 50 ¶ million, the cultural and demographic integration of the United States and ¶ Latin America is proceeding at an accelerating pace, setting a firmer basis ¶ for hemispheric partnership. [/INST] <h4><strong>Trade to LA is key to climate change, proliferation, and democracy</h4><p>Sol M . Linowitz Forum, 12</p><p></strong>Inter-American Dialogue 2012</p><p>“Remaking the Relationship¶ the United States and Latin America” <u>http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD2012PolicyReportFINAL.pdf</u>, accessed 6/11/13,WYO/JF</p><p><u><strong>Every country in the Americas would benefit from </u></strong>strengthened and ¶ <u><strong>expanded economic relations, with improved access to each other’s markets</u></strong>, investment capital, and energy resources . Even with its current economic problems, <u><strong>the United States’ $16-trillion economy is a vital market </u></strong>¶<u><strong> and source</u></strong> of <u><strong>capital</u></strong> (including remittances) <u><strong>and technology for Latin </u></strong>¶<u><strong> America</u></strong>, and it could contribute more to the region’s economic performance . <u><strong>For its part, Latin America’s rising economies will inevitably become </u></strong>¶<u><strong> more and more crucial to the United States’ economic future</u></strong> .¶ <u><strong>The United States and many nations of Latin America</u></strong> and the Caribbean ¶ <u><strong>would</u></strong> also <u><strong>gain a great deal by more cooperation on such global matters </u></strong>¶<u><strong> as climate change, nuclear non-proliferation, and democracy</u></strong> and human ¶ rights . With a rapidly expanding US Hispanic population of more than 50 ¶ million, the cultural and demographic integration of the United States and ¶ Latin America is proceeding at an accelerating pace, setting a firmer basis ¶ for hemispheric partnership. </p> </s>

Cuban health care is key to solve disease

s. 89.4 (July-August 2010): p61, Accessed online via academic onefile] /Wyo-MB Cuba's five decades of public achievement in the health-care sector have resulted in a unique cradle-to-grave community-based approach to preventing illness, disease, and death improving the health of its people , Cuba has exported health care to poor nations the world over Cuba offers an inspiring, standard-setting vision of government responsibility for the health of its people. It would be a shame if the normalization of relations between the United States and Cuba killed that vision.

[Laurie, LAURIE GARRETT is Senior Fellow for Global Health at the Council on Foreign Relations, Castrocare in crisis: will lifting the embargo make things worse?, Foreign Affairs. 89.4 (July-August 2010): p61, Accessed online via academic onefile] /Wyo-MB Cuba's five decades of public achievement in the health-care sector have resulted in a unique cradle-to-grave community-based approach to preventing illness, disease, and death. No other socialist society has ever equaled Cuba in improving the health of its people. Moreover, Cuba has exported health care to poor nations the world over. In its purest form, Cuba offers an inspiring, standard-setting vision of government responsibility for the health of its people. It would be a shame if the normalization of relations between the United States and Cuba killed that vision.

<h4>Cuban health care is key to<strong> solve disease</h4><p>Garett, 2010</p><p></strong>[Laurie, LAURIE GARRETT is Senior Fellow for Global Health at the Council on Foreign Relations, Castrocare in crisis: will lifting the embargo make things worse?, Foreign Affair<u><strong>s. 89.4 (July-August 2010): p61, Accessed online via academic onefile] /Wyo-MB</p><p>Cuba's five decades of public achievement in the health-care sector have resulted in a unique cradle-to-grave community-based approach to preventing illness, disease, and death</u></strong>. No other socialist society has ever equaled Cuba in <u><strong>improving the health of its people</u></strong>. Moreover<u><strong>, Cuba has exported health care to poor nations the world over</u></strong>. In its purest form, <u><strong>Cuba offers an inspiring, standard-setting vision of government responsibility for the health of its people. It would be a shame if the normalization of relations between the United States and Cuba killed that vision.</p></u></strong>

Garett, 2010

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Garett, 2010 fulltext: [Laurie, LAURIE GARRETT is Senior Fellow for Global Health at the Council on Foreign Relations, Castrocare in crisis: will lifting the embargo make things worse?, Foreign Affairs. 89.4 (July-August 2010): p61, Accessed online via academic onefile] /Wyo-MB Cuba's five decades of public achievement in the health-care sector have resulted in a unique cradle-to-grave community-based approach to preventing illness, disease, and death. No other socialist society has ever equaled Cuba in improving the health of its people. Moreover, Cuba has exported health care to poor nations the world over. In its purest form, Cuba offers an inspiring, standard-setting vision of government responsibility for the health of its people. It would be a shame if the normalization of relations between the United States and Cuba killed that vision. [/INST] <h4>Cuban health care is key to<strong> solve disease</h4><p>Garett, 2010</p><p></strong>[Laurie, LAURIE GARRETT is Senior Fellow for Global Health at the Council on Foreign Relations, Castrocare in crisis: will lifting the embargo make things worse?, Foreign Affair<u><strong>s. 89.4 (July-August 2010): p61, Accessed online via academic onefile] /Wyo-MB</p><p>Cuba's five decades of public achievement in the health-care sector have resulted in a unique cradle-to-grave community-based approach to preventing illness, disease, and death</u></strong>. No other socialist society has ever equaled Cuba in <u><strong>improving the health of its people</u></strong>. Moreover<u><strong>, Cuba has exported health care to poor nations the world over</u></strong>. In its purest form, <u><strong>Cuba offers an inspiring, standard-setting vision of government responsibility for the health of its people. It would be a shame if the normalization of relations between the United States and Cuba killed that vision.</p></u></strong> </s>

Chinese influence key to Cuba modeling-

As Chinese leaders see it, their country could be a model for the developing world Castro and several other Latin American officials have expressed their admiration for China's economic model

(LI, EAI Background Brief, “China’s Growing Influence in Latin America: Challenges and Opportunities,” October 30, 2008, http://www.eai.nus.edu.sg/BB411.pdf) /wyo-mm 5.6 As Chinese leaders see it, their country could be both a partner and a model for the developing world – a model of state-directed market economy without liberal democracy. Indeed, Fidel Castro and several other Latin American officials have expressed their admiration for China's economic model.

<h4><strong>Chinese influence key to Cuba modeling- </h4><p>He 08</p><p></strong>(LI, EAI Background Brief, “China’s Growing Influence in Latin America: Challenges and Opportunities,” October 30, 2008, http://www.eai.nus.edu.sg/BB411.pdf) /wyo-mm</p><p>5.6 <u><strong>As Chinese leaders see it, their country could be</u></strong> both <u><strong>a</u></strong> partner and a <u><strong>model for the developing world</u></strong> – a model of state-directed market economy without liberal democracy. Indeed, Fidel <u><strong>Castro and several other Latin American officials have expressed their admiration for China's economic model</u></strong>. </p>

He 08

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: He 08 fulltext: (LI, EAI Background Brief, “China’s Growing Influence in Latin America: Challenges and Opportunities,” October 30, 2008, http://www.eai.nus.edu.sg/BB411.pdf) /wyo-mm 5.6 As Chinese leaders see it, their country could be both a partner and a model for the developing world – a model of state-directed market economy without liberal democracy. Indeed, Fidel Castro and several other Latin American officials have expressed their admiration for China's economic model. [/INST] <h4><strong>Chinese influence key to Cuba modeling- </h4><p>He 08</p><p></strong>(LI, EAI Background Brief, “China’s Growing Influence in Latin America: Challenges and Opportunities,” October 30, 2008, http://www.eai.nus.edu.sg/BB411.pdf) /wyo-mm</p><p>5.6 <u><strong>As Chinese leaders see it, their country could be</u></strong> both <u><strong>a</u></strong> partner and a <u><strong>model for the developing world</u></strong> – a model of state-directed market economy without liberal democracy. Indeed, Fidel <u><strong>Castro and several other Latin American officials have expressed their admiration for China's economic model</u></strong>. </p> </s>

Engagement solves Anti-Americanism and is key to leadership on human rights and democracy promotion and is key to a new bilateral relationship

The advisory group of the Brookings Institution project U.S. Policy toward a Cuba in Transition came to the unanimous conclusion that President Barack Obama should commit to a long-term process of critical and constructive engagement at all levels only through engagement can the president put into place a strategic vision that would permit the United States to protect its interests and advance the desire we share with the hemisphere to help the Cuban people become agents for peaceful change from within the island. A decision by the president to engage the Cuban government would not reflect acceptance of its human rights abuses or approval of its conduct. Instead, it would prove essential to the implementation of a new policy that would permit us to work with the region, enhance our influence with the Cuban government, and seek to help Cuba’s citizens expand the political space they need to influence their future Engagement should serve to enhance personal contacts between Cuban and U.S. citizens and permanent residents, diminish Cuba’s attraction as a rallying point for anti-American sentiment, and burnish our standing in the region and the wider international community. If we engage, the Cuban government will no longer be able to use the U.S. threat as a credible excuse for human rights abuses and restrictions on free speech, assembly, travel, and economic opportunity. This in turn would encourage the international community to hold the Cuban government to the same standards of democracy, rights, and freedoms that it expects from other governments around the world. The key to a new dynamic in our relationship is to embark on a course of a series of strategic actions that aims to establish a bilateral relationship and put the United States on the playing field— to counter our hitherto self-imposed role of critical observer. Our priority should be to serve U.S. interests and values in the confidence that if we do so wisely and effectively, Cubans in the long run will gain as well

The advisory group of the Brookings Institution project U.S. Policy toward a Cuba in Transition came to the unanimous conclusion that President Barack Obama should commit to a long-term process of critical and constructive engagement at all levels, including with the Cuban government. We believe that only through engagement can the president put into place a strategic vision that would permit the United States to protect its interests and advance the desire we share with the hemisphere to help the Cuban people become agents for peaceful change from within the island. A decision by the president to engage the Cuban government would not reflect acceptance of its human rights abuses or approval of its conduct. Instead, it would prove a realistic evaluation and recognition of the extent to which the Cuban government controls Cuba— essential to the implementation of a new policy that would permit us to work with the region, enhance our influence with the Cuban government, and seek to help Cuba’s citizens expand the political space they need to influence their future. Engagement should serve to enhance personal contacts between Cuban and U.S. citizens and permanent residents, diminish Cuba’s attraction as a rallying point for anti-American sentiment, and burnish our standing in the region and the wider international community. If we engage, the Cuban government will no longer be able to use the U.S. threat as a credible excuse for human rights abuses and restrictions on free speech, assembly, travel, and economic opportunity. This in turn would encourage the international community to hold the Cuban government to the same standards of democracy, rights, and freedoms that it expects from other governments around the world. The Cuban hierarchy will not undertake openings or respond to pressure from the international community or the United States if it considers that doing so would jeopardize its continued existence. The key to a new dynamic in our relationship is to embark on a course of a series of strategic actions that aims to establish a bilateral relationship and put the United States on the playing field— to counter our hitherto self-imposed role of critical observer. Our priority should be to serve U.S. interests and values in the confidence that if we do so wisely and effectively, Cubans in the long run will gain as well.

<h4><strong>Engagement solves Anti-Americanism and is key to leadership on human rights and democracy promotion and is key to a new bilateral relationship</h4><p>Huddleston and Pascual, 2010</p><p></strong>[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 </p><p><u><strong>The advisory group of the Brookings Institution project U.S. Policy toward a Cuba in Transition came to the unanimous conclusion that President Barack Obama should commit to a long-term process of critical and constructive engagement at all levels</u></strong>, including with the Cuban government. We believe that <u><strong>only through engagement can the president put into place a strategic vision that would permit the United States to protect its interests and advance the desire we share with the hemisphere to help the Cuban people become agents for peaceful change from within the island. A decision by the president to engage the Cuban government would not reflect acceptance of its human rights abuses or approval of its conduct. Instead, it would prove</u></strong> a realistic evaluation and recognition of the extent to which the Cuban government controls Cuba— <u><strong>essential to the implementation of a new policy that would permit us to work with the region, enhance our influence with the Cuban government, and seek to help Cuba’s citizens expand the political space they need to influence their future</u></strong>. <u><strong>Engagement should serve to enhance personal contacts between Cuban and U.S. citizens and permanent residents, diminish Cuba’s attraction as a rallying point for anti-American sentiment, and burnish our standing in the region and the wider international community. If we engage, the Cuban government will no longer be able to use the U.S. threat as a credible excuse for human rights abuses and restrictions on free speech, assembly, travel, and economic opportunity. This in turn would encourage the international community to hold the Cuban government to the same standards of democracy, rights, and freedoms that it expects from other governments around the world.</u></strong> The Cuban hierarchy will not undertake openings or respond to pressure from the international community or the United States if it considers that doing so would jeopardize its continued existence. <u><strong>The key to a new dynamic in our relationship is to embark on a course of a series of strategic actions that aims to establish a bilateral relationship and put the United States on the playing field— to counter our hitherto self-imposed role of critical observer. Our priority should be to serve U.S. interests and values in the confidence that if we do so wisely and effectively, Cubans in the long run will gain as well</u></strong>.</p>

Huddleston 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

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Huddleston 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 fulltext: The advisory group of the Brookings Institution project U.S. Policy toward a Cuba in Transition came to the unanimous conclusion that President Barack Obama should commit to a long-term process of critical and constructive engagement at all levels, including with the Cuban government. We believe that only through engagement can the president put into place a strategic vision that would permit the United States to protect its interests and advance the desire we share with the hemisphere to help the Cuban people become agents for peaceful change from within the island. A decision by the president to engage the Cuban government would not reflect acceptance of its human rights abuses or approval of its conduct. Instead, it would prove a realistic evaluation and recognition of the extent to which the Cuban government controls Cuba— essential to the implementation of a new policy that would permit us to work with the region, enhance our influence with the Cuban government, and seek to help Cuba’s citizens expand the political space they need to influence their future. Engagement should serve to enhance personal contacts between Cuban and U.S. citizens and permanent residents, diminish Cuba’s attraction as a rallying point for anti-American sentiment, and burnish our standing in the region and the wider international community. If we engage, the Cuban government will no longer be able to use the U.S. threat as a credible excuse for human rights abuses and restrictions on free speech, assembly, travel, and economic opportunity. This in turn would encourage the international community to hold the Cuban government to the same standards of democracy, rights, and freedoms that it expects from other governments around the world. The Cuban hierarchy will not undertake openings or respond to pressure from the international community or the United States if it considers that doing so would jeopardize its continued existence. The key to a new dynamic in our relationship is to embark on a course of a series of strategic actions that aims to establish a bilateral relationship and put the United States on the playing field— to counter our hitherto self-imposed role of critical observer. Our priority should be to serve U.S. interests and values in the confidence that if we do so wisely and effectively, Cubans in the long run will gain as well. [/INST] <h4><strong>Engagement solves Anti-Americanism and is key to leadership on human rights and democracy promotion and is key to a new bilateral relationship</h4><p>Huddleston and Pascual, 2010</p><p></strong>[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 </p><p><u><strong>The advisory group of the Brookings Institution project U.S. Policy toward a Cuba in Transition came to the unanimous conclusion that President Barack Obama should commit to a long-term process of critical and constructive engagement at all levels</u></strong>, including with the Cuban government. We believe that <u><strong>only through engagement can the president put into place a strategic vision that would permit the United States to protect its interests and advance the desire we share with the hemisphere to help the Cuban people become agents for peaceful change from within the island. A decision by the president to engage the Cuban government would not reflect acceptance of its human rights abuses or approval of its conduct. Instead, it would prove</u></strong> a realistic evaluation and recognition of the extent to which the Cuban government controls Cuba— <u><strong>essential to the implementation of a new policy that would permit us to work with the region, enhance our influence with the Cuban government, and seek to help Cuba’s citizens expand the political space they need to influence their future</u></strong>. <u><strong>Engagement should serve to enhance personal contacts between Cuban and U.S. citizens and permanent residents, diminish Cuba’s attraction as a rallying point for anti-American sentiment, and burnish our standing in the region and the wider international community. If we engage, the Cuban government will no longer be able to use the U.S. threat as a credible excuse for human rights abuses and restrictions on free speech, assembly, travel, and economic opportunity. This in turn would encourage the international community to hold the Cuban government to the same standards of democracy, rights, and freedoms that it expects from other governments around the world.</u></strong> The Cuban hierarchy will not undertake openings or respond to pressure from the international community or the United States if it considers that doing so would jeopardize its continued existence. <u><strong>The key to a new dynamic in our relationship is to embark on a course of a series of strategic actions that aims to establish a bilateral relationship and put the United States on the playing field— to counter our hitherto self-imposed role of critical observer. Our priority should be to serve U.S. interests and values in the confidence that if we do so wisely and effectively, Cubans in the long run will gain as well</u></strong>.</p> </s>

Economic decline causes war

Crisis can also strengthen the hand of religious extremists, populist radicals, or authoritarian traditionalists the companies and banks based in these societies are often less established and more vulnerable to the consequences of a financial crisis than more established firms in wealthier societies. developing countries tend to suffer greater economic and political damage when crisis strikes financial crises often reinforce rather than challenge the global distribution of power and wealth. None of which means that we can just sit back and enjoy the recession. If financial crises have been a normal part of life so has war The list of wars is almost as long as the list of financial crises. Bad economic times can breed wars. the Depression poisoned German public opinion and helped bring Hitler to power. If the current crisis turns into a depression, what rough beasts might be born? if we can't get the world economy back on track, we may still have to fight.

Crisis strengthen extremists The list of wars is as long as the list of financial crises. Bad economic times breed wars Depression help bring Hitler to power. If the crisis turns into depression we may have to fight.

So far, such half-hearted experiments not only have failed to work; they have left the societies that have tried them in a progressively worse position, farther behind the front-runners as time goes by. Argentina has lost ground to Chile; Russian development has fallen farther behind that of the Baltic states and Central Europe. Frequently, the crisis has weakened the power of the merchants, industrialists, financiers, and professionals who want to develop a liberal capitalist society integrated into the world. Crisis can also strengthen the hand of religious extremists, populist radicals, or authoritarian traditionalists who are determined to resist liberal capitalist society for a variety of reasons. Meanwhile, the companies and banks based in these societies are often less established and more vulnerable to the consequences of a financial crisis than more established firms in wealthier societies. As a result, developing countries and countries where capitalism has relatively recent and shallow roots tend to suffer greater economic and political damage when crisis strikes--as, inevitably, it does. And, consequently, financial crises often reinforce rather than challenge the global distribution of power and wealth. This may be happening yet again. None of which means that we can just sit back and enjoy the recession. History may suggest that financial crises actually help capitalist great powers maintain their leads--but it has other, less reassuring messages as well. If financial crises have been a normal part of life during the 300-year rise of the liberal capitalist system under the Anglophone powers, so has war. The wars of the League of Augsburg and the Spanish Succession; the Seven Years War; the American Revolution; the Napoleonic Wars; the two World Wars; the cold war: The list of wars is almost as long as the list of financial crises. Bad economic times can breed wars. Europe was a pretty peaceful place in 1928, but the Depression poisoned German public opinion and helped bring Adolf Hitler to power. If the current crisis turns into a depression, what rough beasts might start slouching toward Moscow, Karachi, Beijing, or New Delhi to be born? The United States may not, yet, decline, but, if we can't get the world economy back on track, we may still have to fight.

<h4>Economic decline causes war</h4><p><strong>Mead 9</strong> — Henry Kissinger Senior Fellow at the CFR, Professor at Yale (Walter Russel<u><strong>, "What Doesn't Kill You Makes You Stronger," The New Republic)</p><p></u></strong>So far, such half-hearted experiments not only have failed to work; they have left the societies that have tried them in a progressively worse position, farther behind the front-runners as time goes by. Argentina has lost ground to Chile; Russian development has fallen farther behind that of the Baltic states and Central Europe. Frequently, the crisis has weakened the power of the merchants, industrialists, financiers, and professionals who want to develop a liberal capitalist society integrated into the world. <u><strong><mark>Crisis</mark> can also <mark>strengthen</mark> the hand of religious <mark>extremists</mark>, populist radicals, or authoritarian traditionalists </u></strong>who are determined to resist liberal capitalist society for a variety of reasons. Meanwhile, <u><strong>the companies and banks based in these societies are often less established and more vulnerable to the consequences of a financial crisis than more established firms in wealthier societies. </u></strong>As a result, <u><strong>developing countries</u></strong> and countries where capitalism has relatively recent and shallow roots<u> <strong>tend to suffer greater economic and political damage when crisis strikes</u></strong>--as, inevitably, it does. And, consequently, <u><strong>financial crises often reinforce rather than challenge the global distribution of power and wealth.</u></strong> This may be happening yet again. <u><strong>None of which means that we can just sit back and enjoy the recession.</u></strong> History may suggest that financial crises actually help capitalist great powers maintain their leads--but it has other, less reassuring messages as well. <u><strong>If financial crises have been a normal part of life</u></strong> during the 300-year rise of the liberal capitalist system under the Anglophone powers, <u><strong>so has war</u></strong>. The wars of the League of Augsburg and the Spanish Succession; the Seven Years War; the American Revolution; the Napoleonic Wars; the two World Wars; the cold war: <u><strong><mark>The list of wars is</mark> almost <mark>as long as the list of financial crises. Bad economic times</mark> can <mark>breed wars</mark>.</strong> </u>Europe was a pretty peaceful place in 1928, but <u><strong>the <mark>Depression</mark> poisoned German public opinion and <mark>help</mark>ed <mark>bring</strong></mark> </u>Adolf<u> <strong><mark>Hitler to power. If the</mark> current <mark>crisis turns into</mark> a <mark>depression</mark>, what rough beasts might</strong> </u>start slouching toward Moscow, Karachi, Beijing, or New Delhi to<u> <strong>be born</strong>?</u> The United States may not, yet, decline, but, <u><strong>if we can't get the world economy back on track, <mark>we may</mark> still <mark>have to fight.</p></u></strong></mark>

Mead 9 — Henry Kissinger Senior Fellow at the CFR, Professor at Yale (Walter Russel, "What Doesn't Kill You Makes You Stronger," The New Republic)

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Mead 9 — Henry Kissinger Senior Fellow at the CFR, Professor at Yale (Walter Russel, "What Doesn't Kill You Makes You Stronger," The New Republic) fulltext: So far, such half-hearted experiments not only have failed to work; they have left the societies that have tried them in a progressively worse position, farther behind the front-runners as time goes by. Argentina has lost ground to Chile; Russian development has fallen farther behind that of the Baltic states and Central Europe. Frequently, the crisis has weakened the power of the merchants, industrialists, financiers, and professionals who want to develop a liberal capitalist society integrated into the world. Crisis can also strengthen the hand of religious extremists, populist radicals, or authoritarian traditionalists who are determined to resist liberal capitalist society for a variety of reasons. Meanwhile, the companies and banks based in these societies are often less established and more vulnerable to the consequences of a financial crisis than more established firms in wealthier societies. As a result, developing countries and countries where capitalism has relatively recent and shallow roots tend to suffer greater economic and political damage when crisis strikes--as, inevitably, it does. And, consequently, financial crises often reinforce rather than challenge the global distribution of power and wealth. This may be happening yet again. None of which means that we can just sit back and enjoy the recession. History may suggest that financial crises actually help capitalist great powers maintain their leads--but it has other, less reassuring messages as well. If financial crises have been a normal part of life during the 300-year rise of the liberal capitalist system under the Anglophone powers, so has war. The wars of the League of Augsburg and the Spanish Succession; the Seven Years War; the American Revolution; the Napoleonic Wars; the two World Wars; the cold war: The list of wars is almost as long as the list of financial crises. Bad economic times can breed wars. Europe was a pretty peaceful place in 1928, but the Depression poisoned German public opinion and helped bring Adolf Hitler to power. If the current crisis turns into a depression, what rough beasts might start slouching toward Moscow, Karachi, Beijing, or New Delhi to be born? The United States may not, yet, decline, but, if we can't get the world economy back on track, we may still have to fight. [/INST] <h4>Economic decline causes war</h4><p><strong>Mead 9</strong> — Henry Kissinger Senior Fellow at the CFR, Professor at Yale (Walter Russel<u><strong>, "What Doesn't Kill You Makes You Stronger," The New Republic)</p><p></u></strong>So far, such half-hearted experiments not only have failed to work; they have left the societies that have tried them in a progressively worse position, farther behind the front-runners as time goes by. Argentina has lost ground to Chile; Russian development has fallen farther behind that of the Baltic states and Central Europe. Frequently, the crisis has weakened the power of the merchants, industrialists, financiers, and professionals who want to develop a liberal capitalist society integrated into the world. <u><strong><mark>Crisis</mark> can also <mark>strengthen</mark> the hand of religious <mark>extremists</mark>, populist radicals, or authoritarian traditionalists </u></strong>who are determined to resist liberal capitalist society for a variety of reasons. Meanwhile, <u><strong>the companies and banks based in these societies are often less established and more vulnerable to the consequences of a financial crisis than more established firms in wealthier societies. </u></strong>As a result, <u><strong>developing countries</u></strong> and countries where capitalism has relatively recent and shallow roots<u> <strong>tend to suffer greater economic and political damage when crisis strikes</u></strong>--as, inevitably, it does. And, consequently, <u><strong>financial crises often reinforce rather than challenge the global distribution of power and wealth.</u></strong> This may be happening yet again. <u><strong>None of which means that we can just sit back and enjoy the recession.</u></strong> History may suggest that financial crises actually help capitalist great powers maintain their leads--but it has other, less reassuring messages as well. <u><strong>If financial crises have been a normal part of life</u></strong> during the 300-year rise of the liberal capitalist system under the Anglophone powers, <u><strong>so has war</u></strong>. The wars of the League of Augsburg and the Spanish Succession; the Seven Years War; the American Revolution; the Napoleonic Wars; the two World Wars; the cold war: <u><strong><mark>The list of wars is</mark> almost <mark>as long as the list of financial crises. Bad economic times</mark> can <mark>breed wars</mark>.</strong> </u>Europe was a pretty peaceful place in 1928, but <u><strong>the <mark>Depression</mark> poisoned German public opinion and <mark>help</mark>ed <mark>bring</strong></mark> </u>Adolf<u> <strong><mark>Hitler to power. If the</mark> current <mark>crisis turns into</mark> a <mark>depression</mark>, what rough beasts might</strong> </u>start slouching toward Moscow, Karachi, Beijing, or New Delhi to<u> <strong>be born</strong>?</u> The United States may not, yet, decline, but, <u><strong>if we can't get the world economy back on track, <mark>we may</mark> still <mark>have to fight.</p></u></strong></mark> </s>

Disease causes extinction

It is key to our survival that the human body has developed a biochemical immune system whose sophistication and effectiveness exceed anything we could design or as yet even fully understand But evolution is a sword that cuts both ways New diseases emerge, while old diseases mutate and adapt Throughout history, there have been epidemics during which human immunity has broken down on an epic scale As we enter the twenty-first century, changing conditions have enhanced the potential for widespread contagion The rapid growth rate of the total world population, the unprecedented freedom of movement across international borders, and scientific advances are all cause for worry that the problem might be greater in the future than it has ever been in the past The threat of infectious pathogens is not just an issue of public health, but a fundamental security problem for the species as a whole.

It is a considerable comfort and undoubtedly a key to our survival that, so far, the main lines of defense against this threat have not depended on explicit policies or organized efforts. In the long course of evolution, the human body has developed physical barriers and a biochemical immune system whose sophistication and effectiveness exceed anything we could design or as yet even fully understand. But evolution is a sword that cuts both ways: New diseases emerge, while old diseases mutate and adapt. Throughout history, there have been epidemics during which human immunity has broken down on an epic scale. An infectious agent believed to have been the plague bacterium killed an estimated 20 million people over a four-year period in the fourteenth century, including nearly one-quarter of Western Europe's population at the time. Since its recognized appearance in 1981, some 20 variations of the HIVvirus have infected an estimated 29.4 million worldwide, with 1.5 million people currently dying of aids each year. Malaria, tuberculosis, and cholera-once thought to be under control-are now making a comeback. As we enter the twenty-first century, changing conditions have enhanced the potential for widespread contagion. The rapid growth rate of the total world population, the unprecedented freedom of movement across international borders, and scientific advances that expand the capability for the deliberate manipulation of pathogens are all cause for worry that the problem might be greater in the future than it has ever been in the past. The threat of infectious pathogens is not just an issue of public health, but a fundamental security problem for the species as a whole.

<h4>Disease causes extinction</h4><p>John D. <u><strong>Steinbruner</u></strong>, Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution, “Biological Weapons: A Plague Upon All Houses,” FOREIGN POLICY n. 109, Winter 1997/19<u><strong>98</u></strong>, pp. 85-96, ASP.</p><p><u><strong>It is</u></strong> a considerable comfort and undoubtedly a <u><strong>key to our survival that</u></strong>, so far, the main lines of defense against this threat have not depended on explicit policies or organized efforts. In the long course of evolution, <u><strong>the human body has developed</u></strong> physical barriers and <u><strong>a biochemical immune system whose sophistication and effectiveness exceed anything we could design or as yet even fully understand</u></strong>. <u><strong>But evolution is a sword that cuts both ways</u></strong>: <u><strong>New diseases emerge, while old diseases mutate and adapt</u></strong>. <u><strong>Throughout history, there have been epidemics during which human immunity has broken down on an epic scale</u></strong>. An infectious agent believed to have been the plague bacterium killed an estimated 20 million people over a four-year period in the fourteenth century, including nearly one-quarter of Western Europe's population at the time. Since its recognized appearance in 1981, some 20 variations of the HIVvirus have infected an estimated 29.4 million worldwide, with 1.5 million people currently dying of aids each year. Malaria, tuberculosis, and cholera-once thought to be under control-are now making a comeback. <u><strong>As we enter the twenty-first century, changing conditions have enhanced the potential for widespread contagion</u></strong>. <u><strong>The rapid growth rate of the total world population, the unprecedented freedom of movement across international borders, and scientific advances</u></strong> that expand the capability for the deliberate manipulation of pathogens <u><strong>are all cause for worry that the problem might be greater in the future than it has ever been in the past</u></strong>. <u><strong>The threat of infectious pathogens is not just an issue of public health, but a fundamental security problem for the species as a whole.</p></u></strong>

John D. Steinbruner, Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution, “Biological Weapons: A Plague Upon All Houses,” FOREIGN POLICY n. 109, Winter 1997/1998, pp. 85-96, ASP.

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: John D. Steinbruner, Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution, “Biological Weapons: A Plague Upon All Houses,” FOREIGN POLICY n. 109, Winter 1997/1998, pp. 85-96, ASP. fulltext: It is a considerable comfort and undoubtedly a key to our survival that, so far, the main lines of defense against this threat have not depended on explicit policies or organized efforts. In the long course of evolution, the human body has developed physical barriers and a biochemical immune system whose sophistication and effectiveness exceed anything we could design or as yet even fully understand. But evolution is a sword that cuts both ways: New diseases emerge, while old diseases mutate and adapt. Throughout history, there have been epidemics during which human immunity has broken down on an epic scale. An infectious agent believed to have been the plague bacterium killed an estimated 20 million people over a four-year period in the fourteenth century, including nearly one-quarter of Western Europe's population at the time. Since its recognized appearance in 1981, some 20 variations of the HIVvirus have infected an estimated 29.4 million worldwide, with 1.5 million people currently dying of aids each year. Malaria, tuberculosis, and cholera-once thought to be under control-are now making a comeback. As we enter the twenty-first century, changing conditions have enhanced the potential for widespread contagion. The rapid growth rate of the total world population, the unprecedented freedom of movement across international borders, and scientific advances that expand the capability for the deliberate manipulation of pathogens are all cause for worry that the problem might be greater in the future than it has ever been in the past. The threat of infectious pathogens is not just an issue of public health, but a fundamental security problem for the species as a whole. [/INST] <h4>Disease causes extinction</h4><p>John D. <u><strong>Steinbruner</u></strong>, Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution, “Biological Weapons: A Plague Upon All Houses,” FOREIGN POLICY n. 109, Winter 1997/19<u><strong>98</u></strong>, pp. 85-96, ASP.</p><p><u><strong>It is</u></strong> a considerable comfort and undoubtedly a <u><strong>key to our survival that</u></strong>, so far, the main lines of defense against this threat have not depended on explicit policies or organized efforts. In the long course of evolution, <u><strong>the human body has developed</u></strong> physical barriers and <u><strong>a biochemical immune system whose sophistication and effectiveness exceed anything we could design or as yet even fully understand</u></strong>. <u><strong>But evolution is a sword that cuts both ways</u></strong>: <u><strong>New diseases emerge, while old diseases mutate and adapt</u></strong>. <u><strong>Throughout history, there have been epidemics during which human immunity has broken down on an epic scale</u></strong>. An infectious agent believed to have been the plague bacterium killed an estimated 20 million people over a four-year period in the fourteenth century, including nearly one-quarter of Western Europe's population at the time. Since its recognized appearance in 1981, some 20 variations of the HIVvirus have infected an estimated 29.4 million worldwide, with 1.5 million people currently dying of aids each year. Malaria, tuberculosis, and cholera-once thought to be under control-are now making a comeback. <u><strong>As we enter the twenty-first century, changing conditions have enhanced the potential for widespread contagion</u></strong>. <u><strong>The rapid growth rate of the total world population, the unprecedented freedom of movement across international borders, and scientific advances</u></strong> that expand the capability for the deliberate manipulation of pathogens <u><strong>are all cause for worry that the problem might be greater in the future than it has ever been in the past</u></strong>. <u><strong>The threat of infectious pathogens is not just an issue of public health, but a fundamental security problem for the species as a whole.</p></u></strong> </s>

Modeling solves neolib-

China’s economic development model represents an attractive alternative to the Washington Consensus largely because Beijing respects the sovereignty of Latin American nations without meddling in their affairs and not dictating their policies, as in the famous structural adjustment of neoliberalism The PRC’s external diplomatic model can be “seductive” to many in Latin America because it stresses “collaboration” not domination, and “persuasion” instead of coercion unlike the U S China has no history of invading and colonizing other countries beyond its immediate border

(LI, EAI Background Brief, “China’s Growing Influence in Latin America: Challenges and Opportunities,” October 30, 2008, http://www.eai.nus.edu.sg/BB411.pdf) /wyo-mm China’s economic development model, the Beijing Consensus, challenges Western notions of political liberalization or market reforms as indispensable to long-term, sustained development. The Beijing Consensus represents an attractive alternative to the Washington Consensus largely because Beijing respects the sovereignty of Latin American nations without meddling in their affairs and certainly not dictating their policies, as in the famous structural adjustment of neoliberalism. 5.5 The PRC’s external diplomatic model can be “seductive” to many in Latin America because it stresses “multi-polarism” instead of unipolarism, “multilateralism” instead of unilateralism, “noninterference” instead of interventionism, “soft power” instead of hard, “pragmatism” instead of ideologization, “collaboration” not domination, and “persuasion” instead of coercion. “These policies coincide with certain Latin American traditions and aspirations and have become more captivating by virtue of recent developments in U.S. foreign policy.”17 In addition, unlike the United States and Europe, China has no history of invading and colonizing other countries beyond its immediate border, in what is today called Greater China.18

<h4><strong>Modeling solves neolib-</h4><p>He 08</p><p></strong>(LI, EAI Background Brief, “China’s Growing Influence in Latin America: Challenges and Opportunities,” October 30, 2008, http://www.eai.nus.edu.sg/BB411.pdf) /wyo-mm</p><p><u><strong>China’s economic development model</u></strong>, the Beijing Consensus, challenges Western notions of political liberalization or market reforms as indispensable to long-term, sustained development. The Beijing Consensus <u><strong>represents an attractive alternative to the Washington Consensus largely because Beijing respects the sovereignty of Latin American nations without meddling in their affairs and</u></strong> certainly <u><strong>not dictating their policies, as in the famous structural adjustment of neoliberalism</u></strong>. 5.5 <u><strong>The PRC’s external diplomatic model can be “seductive” to many in Latin America because it stresses</u></strong> “multi-polarism” instead of unipolarism, “multilateralism” instead of unilateralism, “noninterference” instead of interventionism, “soft power” instead of hard, “pragmatism” instead of ideologization, <u><strong>“collaboration” not domination, and “persuasion” instead of coercion</u></strong>. “These policies coincide with certain Latin American traditions and aspirations and have become more captivating by virtue of recent developments in U.S. foreign policy.”17 In addition, <u><strong>unlike the U</u></strong>nited <u><strong>S</u></strong>tates and Europe, <u><strong>China has no history of invading and colonizing other countries beyond its immediate border</u></strong>, in what is today called Greater China.18</p>

He 08

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: He 08 fulltext: (LI, EAI Background Brief, “China’s Growing Influence in Latin America: Challenges and Opportunities,” October 30, 2008, http://www.eai.nus.edu.sg/BB411.pdf) /wyo-mm China’s economic development model, the Beijing Consensus, challenges Western notions of political liberalization or market reforms as indispensable to long-term, sustained development. The Beijing Consensus represents an attractive alternative to the Washington Consensus largely because Beijing respects the sovereignty of Latin American nations without meddling in their affairs and certainly not dictating their policies, as in the famous structural adjustment of neoliberalism. 5.5 The PRC’s external diplomatic model can be “seductive” to many in Latin America because it stresses “multi-polarism” instead of unipolarism, “multilateralism” instead of unilateralism, “noninterference” instead of interventionism, “soft power” instead of hard, “pragmatism” instead of ideologization, “collaboration” not domination, and “persuasion” instead of coercion. “These policies coincide with certain Latin American traditions and aspirations and have become more captivating by virtue of recent developments in U.S. foreign policy.”17 In addition, unlike the United States and Europe, China has no history of invading and colonizing other countries beyond its immediate border, in what is today called Greater China.18 [/INST] <h4><strong>Modeling solves neolib-</h4><p>He 08</p><p></strong>(LI, EAI Background Brief, “China’s Growing Influence in Latin America: Challenges and Opportunities,” October 30, 2008, http://www.eai.nus.edu.sg/BB411.pdf) /wyo-mm</p><p><u><strong>China’s economic development model</u></strong>, the Beijing Consensus, challenges Western notions of political liberalization or market reforms as indispensable to long-term, sustained development. The Beijing Consensus <u><strong>represents an attractive alternative to the Washington Consensus largely because Beijing respects the sovereignty of Latin American nations without meddling in their affairs and</u></strong> certainly <u><strong>not dictating their policies, as in the famous structural adjustment of neoliberalism</u></strong>. 5.5 <u><strong>The PRC’s external diplomatic model can be “seductive” to many in Latin America because it stresses</u></strong> “multi-polarism” instead of unipolarism, “multilateralism” instead of unilateralism, “noninterference” instead of interventionism, “soft power” instead of hard, “pragmatism” instead of ideologization, <u><strong>“collaboration” not domination, and “persuasion” instead of coercion</u></strong>. “These policies coincide with certain Latin American traditions and aspirations and have become more captivating by virtue of recent developments in U.S. foreign policy.”17 In addition, <u><strong>unlike the U</u></strong>nited <u><strong>S</u></strong>tates and Europe, <u><strong>China has no history of invading and colonizing other countries beyond its immediate border</u></strong>, in what is today called Greater China.18</p> </s>

Engagement with Cuba is key to United States diplomatic leadership

reorienting its approach to Cuba by working with other hemispheric actors and the Cuban government will be essential to creating wider and more meaningful capacity to leverage change in Cuba. A strategy that develops a common perspective with our partners will be most likely to encourage Cuba’s leaders to undertake measures that will allow Cuba to begin an evolution toward democracy, respect for human rights, and transparent and equitable development. In pursuing such a shift in strategy, the United States also wins diplomatically, both by eliminating a policy of isolation that has been perhaps the most acrimonious issue is U.S. relations with the rest of the hemisphere and by depriving Cuba of the argument that its failures are due to U.S. policies rather than to its own shortcomings

For the United States, reorienting its approach to Cuba by working with other hemispheric actors and the Cuban government will be essential to creating wider and more meaningful capacity to leverage change in Cuba. A strategy that develops a common perspective with our partners will be most likely to encourage Cuba’s leaders to undertake measures that will allow Cuba to begin an evolution toward democracy, respect for human rights, and transparent and equitable development. In pursuing such a shift in strategy, the United States also wins diplomatically, both by eliminating a policy of isolation that has been perhaps the most acrimonious issue is U.S. relations with the rest of the hemisphere and by depriving Cuba of the argument that its failures are due to U.S. policies rather than to its own shortcomings.

<h4><strong>Engagement with Cuba is key to United States diplomatic leadership</h4><p>Huddleston and Pascual, 2010</p><p></strong>[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 </p><p>For the United States, <u><strong>reorienting its approach to Cuba by working with other hemispheric actors and the Cuban government will be essential to creating wider and more meaningful capacity to leverage change in Cuba.</u></strong> <u><strong>A strategy that develops a common perspective with our partners will be most likely to encourage Cuba’s leaders to undertake measures that will allow Cuba to begin an evolution toward democracy, respect for human rights, and transparent and equitable development. In pursuing such a shift in strategy, the United States also wins diplomatically, both by eliminating a policy of isolation that has been perhaps the most acrimonious issue is U.S. relations with the rest of the hemisphere and by depriving Cuba of the argument that its failures are due to U.S. policies rather than to its own shortcomings</u></strong>.</p>

Huddleston 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

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Huddleston 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 fulltext: For the United States, reorienting its approach to Cuba by working with other hemispheric actors and the Cuban government will be essential to creating wider and more meaningful capacity to leverage change in Cuba. A strategy that develops a common perspective with our partners will be most likely to encourage Cuba’s leaders to undertake measures that will allow Cuba to begin an evolution toward democracy, respect for human rights, and transparent and equitable development. In pursuing such a shift in strategy, the United States also wins diplomatically, both by eliminating a policy of isolation that has been perhaps the most acrimonious issue is U.S. relations with the rest of the hemisphere and by depriving Cuba of the argument that its failures are due to U.S. policies rather than to its own shortcomings. [/INST] <h4><strong>Engagement with Cuba is key to United States diplomatic leadership</h4><p>Huddleston and Pascual, 2010</p><p></strong>[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 </p><p>For the United States, <u><strong>reorienting its approach to Cuba by working with other hemispheric actors and the Cuban government will be essential to creating wider and more meaningful capacity to leverage change in Cuba.</u></strong> <u><strong>A strategy that develops a common perspective with our partners will be most likely to encourage Cuba’s leaders to undertake measures that will allow Cuba to begin an evolution toward democracy, respect for human rights, and transparent and equitable development. In pursuing such a shift in strategy, the United States also wins diplomatically, both by eliminating a policy of isolation that has been perhaps the most acrimonious issue is U.S. relations with the rest of the hemisphere and by depriving Cuba of the argument that its failures are due to U.S. policies rather than to its own shortcomings</u></strong>.</p> </s>

Proliferation causes nuclear war, terrorism and global instability

the spread of nuclear weapons poses a grave threat to international peace The more states that possess nuclear weapons, the more likely we are to suffer devastating consequences including: nuclear war, nuclear terrorism, global and regional instability weakened alliances, and the further proliferation of nuclear weapons it would be an even greater sin to underestimate them and, as a result, not take the steps necessary to combat the spread of the world’s most dangerous weapons

6/5/13,WYO/JF the spread of nuclear weapons poses a grave threat to international peace . The more states that possess nuclear weapons, the more likely we are to suffer nuclear war, nuclear terrorism, global instability weakened alliances, and the further proliferation it would be a sin to underestimate them and, as a result, not take the steps necessary to combat the spread of the world’s most dangerous weapons.

[Matthew, assistant professor in the Department of Government at Georgetown University and a research affiliate with The Project on Managing the Atom at Harvard University, he served as a strategist on the policy planning staff in the Office of the Secretary of Defense where he received the Office of the Secretary of Defense’s Award for Outstanding Achievement. He is a term member of the Council on Foreign Relations and has held academic fellowships from the National Science Foundation, the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University, the Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford University, and the Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation at the University of California, “The History of Proliferation Optimism: Does It Have A Future?” http://www.npolicy.org/article.php?aid=1182&rtid=2], accessed 6/5/13,WYO/JF In this essay, I argue that the spread of nuclear weapons poses a grave threat to international peace and to U.S. national security.  Scholars can grab attention by making counterintuitive arguments about nuclear weapons being less threatening than power holders believe them to be, but their provocative claims cannot wish away the very real dangers posed by the spread of nuclear weapons. The more states that possess nuclear weapons, the more likely we are to suffer a number of devastating consequences including: nuclear war, nuclear terrorism, global and regional instability, constrained U.S. freedom of action, weakened alliances, and the further proliferation of nuclear weapons.  While it is important not to exaggerate these threats, it would be an even greater sin to underestimate them and, as a result, not take the steps necessary to combat the spread of the world’s most dangerous weapons.

<h4><strong>Proliferation causes nuclear war, terrorism and global instability</h4><p>Kroenig 12</p><p></strong>[Matthew, assistant professor in the Department of Government at Georgetown University and a research affiliate with The Project on Managing the Atom at Harvard University, he served as a strategist on the policy planning staff in the Office of the Secretary of Defense where he received the Office of the Secretary of Defense’s Award for Outstanding Achievement. He is a term member of the Council on Foreign Relations and has held academic fellowships from the National Science Foundation, the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University, the Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford University, and the Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation at the University of California, “The History of Proliferation Optimism: Does It Have A Future?” http://www.npolicy.org/article.php?aid=1182&rtid=2], accessed<mark> 6/5/13,WYO/JF</p><p></mark>In this essay, I argue that <u><strong><mark>the spread of nuclear weapons poses a grave threat to international peace</u></strong></mark> and to U.S. national security.  Scholars can grab attention by making counterintuitive arguments about nuclear weapons being less threatening than power holders believe them to be, but their provocative claims cannot wish away the very real dangers posed by the spread of nuclear weapons<mark>. <u><strong>The more states that possess nuclear weapons, the more likely we are to suffer</u></strong> </mark>a number of <u><strong>devastating consequences including: <mark>nuclear war, nuclear terrorism, global </mark>and regional <mark>instability</u></strong></mark>, constrained U.S. freedom of action, <u><strong><mark>weakened alliances, and the further proliferation </mark>of nuclear weapons</u></strong>.  While it is important not to exaggerate these threats, <u><strong><mark>it would be a</mark>n even greater <mark>sin to underestimate them and, as a result, not take the steps necessary to combat the spread of the world’s most dangerous weapons</u></strong>.</p></mark>

Kroenig 12

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Kroenig 12 fulltext: [Matthew, assistant professor in the Department of Government at Georgetown University and a research affiliate with The Project on Managing the Atom at Harvard University, he served as a strategist on the policy planning staff in the Office of the Secretary of Defense where he received the Office of the Secretary of Defense’s Award for Outstanding Achievement. He is a term member of the Council on Foreign Relations and has held academic fellowships from the National Science Foundation, the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University, the Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford University, and the Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation at the University of California, “The History of Proliferation Optimism: Does It Have A Future?” http://www.npolicy.org/article.php?aid=1182&rtid=2], accessed 6/5/13,WYO/JF In this essay, I argue that the spread of nuclear weapons poses a grave threat to international peace and to U.S. national security.  Scholars can grab attention by making counterintuitive arguments about nuclear weapons being less threatening than power holders believe them to be, but their provocative claims cannot wish away the very real dangers posed by the spread of nuclear weapons. The more states that possess nuclear weapons, the more likely we are to suffer a number of devastating consequences including: nuclear war, nuclear terrorism, global and regional instability, constrained U.S. freedom of action, weakened alliances, and the further proliferation of nuclear weapons.  While it is important not to exaggerate these threats, it would be an even greater sin to underestimate them and, as a result, not take the steps necessary to combat the spread of the world’s most dangerous weapons. [/INST] <h4><strong>Proliferation causes nuclear war, terrorism and global instability</h4><p>Kroenig 12</p><p></strong>[Matthew, assistant professor in the Department of Government at Georgetown University and a research affiliate with The Project on Managing the Atom at Harvard University, he served as a strategist on the policy planning staff in the Office of the Secretary of Defense where he received the Office of the Secretary of Defense’s Award for Outstanding Achievement. He is a term member of the Council on Foreign Relations and has held academic fellowships from the National Science Foundation, the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University, the Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford University, and the Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation at the University of California, “The History of Proliferation Optimism: Does It Have A Future?” http://www.npolicy.org/article.php?aid=1182&rtid=2], accessed<mark> 6/5/13,WYO/JF</p><p></mark>In this essay, I argue that <u><strong><mark>the spread of nuclear weapons poses a grave threat to international peace</u></strong></mark> and to U.S. national security.  Scholars can grab attention by making counterintuitive arguments about nuclear weapons being less threatening than power holders believe them to be, but their provocative claims cannot wish away the very real dangers posed by the spread of nuclear weapons<mark>. <u><strong>The more states that possess nuclear weapons, the more likely we are to suffer</u></strong> </mark>a number of <u><strong>devastating consequences including: <mark>nuclear war, nuclear terrorism, global </mark>and regional <mark>instability</u></strong></mark>, constrained U.S. freedom of action, <u><strong><mark>weakened alliances, and the further proliferation </mark>of nuclear weapons</u></strong>.  While it is important not to exaggerate these threats, <u><strong><mark>it would be a</mark>n even greater <mark>sin to underestimate them and, as a result, not take the steps necessary to combat the spread of the world’s most dangerous weapons</u></strong>.</p></mark> </s>

Cuban health care good now – trends and focus on preventative care

Despite the embargo, Cuba has produced better health outcomes than most Latin American countries, and they are comparable to those of most developed countries Cuba has the highest average life expectancy and density of physicians per capita and the lowest infant and child mortality rates among 33 Latin American and Caribbean countries health care costs alone may not fully explain Cuba's successes (27), which may relate more to their emphasis on disease prevention and primary health care, which have been cultivated during the U.S. trade embargo. Cuba has one of the most proactive primary health care systems in the world. By educating about disease prevention and health promotion, the Cubans rely less on medical supplies to maintain a healthy population.

However, impacts of sanctions on Cuba's financial systems, medical supplies, and aggregate health measures appear to be attenuated by their successes in other aspects of health care. Despite the embargo, Cuba has produced better health outcomes than most Latin American countries, and they are comparable to those of most developed countries. Cuba has the highest average life expectancy (78.6 years) and density of physicians per capita (59 physicians per 10,000 people), and the lowest infant (5.0/1000 live births) and child (7.0/1000 live births) mortality rates among 33 Latin American and Caribbean countries (11, 26). In 2006, the Cuban government spent about $355 per capita on health, 7.1% of total Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (11, 26). The annual cost of health care for an American was $6714, 15.3% of total U.S. GDP. Cuba also spent less on health than most European countries. But low health care costs alone may not fully explain Cuba's successes (27), which may relate more to their emphasis on disease prevention and primary health care, which have been cultivated during the U.S. trade embargo. Cuba has one of the most proactive primary health care systems in the world. By educating their population about disease prevention and health promotion, the Cubans rely less on medical supplies to maintain a healthy population. The converse is the United States, which relies heavily on medical supplies and technologies to maintain a healthy population, but at a very high cost.

<h4>Cuban health care good now – trends and focus on preventative care </h4><p><strong>Drain</strong> School of Medicine, Stanford University <strong>& Barry</strong> Member of the Social Sciences Research Council Cuban Working Group of the American Council of Learned Societies <strong>2010</strong> Paul & Michele “Fifty Years of U.S. Embargo: Cuba's Health Outcomes and Lessons” Science Magazine April http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5978/572.full</p><p>However, impacts of sanctions on Cuba's financial systems, medical supplies, and aggregate health measures appear to be attenuated by their successes in other aspects of health care. <u><strong>Despite the embargo, Cuba has produced better health outcomes than most Latin American countries, and they are comparable to those of most developed countries</u></strong>. <u><strong>Cuba has the highest average life expectancy</u></strong> (78.6 years) <u><strong>and density of physicians per capita</u></strong> (59 physicians per 10,000 people), <u><strong>and the lowest infant</u></strong> (5.0/1000 live births) <u><strong>and child</u></strong> (7.0/1000 live births) <u><strong>mortality rates among 33 Latin American and Caribbean countries</u></strong> (11, 26).</p><p>In 2006, the Cuban government spent about $355 per capita on health, 7.1% of total Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (11, 26). The annual cost of health care for an American was $6714, 15.3% of total U.S. GDP. Cuba also spent less on health than most European countries. But low <u><strong>health care costs alone may not fully explain Cuba's successes (27), which may relate more to their emphasis on disease prevention and primary health care, which have been cultivated during the U.S. trade embargo.</p><p>Cuba has one of the most proactive primary health care systems in the world. By educating</u></strong> their population <u><strong>about disease prevention and health promotion, the Cubans rely less on medical supplies to maintain a healthy population.</u></strong> The converse is the United States, which relies heavily on medical supplies and technologies to maintain a healthy population, but at a very high cost.</p>

Drain School of Medicine, Stanford University & Barry Member of the Social Sciences Research Council Cuban Working Group of the American Council of Learned Societies 2010 Paul & Michele “Fifty Years of U.S. Embargo: Cuba's Health Outcomes and Lessons” Science Magazine April http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5978/572.full

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Drain School of Medicine, Stanford University & Barry Member of the Social Sciences Research Council Cuban Working Group of the American Council of Learned Societies 2010 Paul & Michele “Fifty Years of U.S. Embargo: Cuba's Health Outcomes and Lessons” Science Magazine April http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5978/572.full fulltext: However, impacts of sanctions on Cuba's financial systems, medical supplies, and aggregate health measures appear to be attenuated by their successes in other aspects of health care. Despite the embargo, Cuba has produced better health outcomes than most Latin American countries, and they are comparable to those of most developed countries. Cuba has the highest average life expectancy (78.6 years) and density of physicians per capita (59 physicians per 10,000 people), and the lowest infant (5.0/1000 live births) and child (7.0/1000 live births) mortality rates among 33 Latin American and Caribbean countries (11, 26). In 2006, the Cuban government spent about $355 per capita on health, 7.1% of total Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (11, 26). The annual cost of health care for an American was $6714, 15.3% of total U.S. GDP. Cuba also spent less on health than most European countries. But low health care costs alone may not fully explain Cuba's successes (27), which may relate more to their emphasis on disease prevention and primary health care, which have been cultivated during the U.S. trade embargo. Cuba has one of the most proactive primary health care systems in the world. By educating their population about disease prevention and health promotion, the Cubans rely less on medical supplies to maintain a healthy population. The converse is the United States, which relies heavily on medical supplies and technologies to maintain a healthy population, but at a very high cost. [/INST] <h4>Cuban health care good now – trends and focus on preventative care </h4><p><strong>Drain</strong> School of Medicine, Stanford University <strong>& Barry</strong> Member of the Social Sciences Research Council Cuban Working Group of the American Council of Learned Societies <strong>2010</strong> Paul & Michele “Fifty Years of U.S. Embargo: Cuba's Health Outcomes and Lessons” Science Magazine April http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5978/572.full</p><p>However, impacts of sanctions on Cuba's financial systems, medical supplies, and aggregate health measures appear to be attenuated by their successes in other aspects of health care. <u><strong>Despite the embargo, Cuba has produced better health outcomes than most Latin American countries, and they are comparable to those of most developed countries</u></strong>. <u><strong>Cuba has the highest average life expectancy</u></strong> (78.6 years) <u><strong>and density of physicians per capita</u></strong> (59 physicians per 10,000 people), <u><strong>and the lowest infant</u></strong> (5.0/1000 live births) <u><strong>and child</u></strong> (7.0/1000 live births) <u><strong>mortality rates among 33 Latin American and Caribbean countries</u></strong> (11, 26).</p><p>In 2006, the Cuban government spent about $355 per capita on health, 7.1% of total Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (11, 26). The annual cost of health care for an American was $6714, 15.3% of total U.S. GDP. Cuba also spent less on health than most European countries. But low <u><strong>health care costs alone may not fully explain Cuba's successes (27), which may relate more to their emphasis on disease prevention and primary health care, which have been cultivated during the U.S. trade embargo.</p><p>Cuba has one of the most proactive primary health care systems in the world. By educating</u></strong> their population <u><strong>about disease prevention and health promotion, the Cubans rely less on medical supplies to maintain a healthy population.</u></strong> The converse is the United States, which relies heavily on medical supplies and technologies to maintain a healthy population, but at a very high cost.</p> </s>

Yes- already modeling economic activities

Cuba has been speeding up its pace of economic reform since the Caribbean island nation might learn something from China's experience in an effort to achieve development, reform and stability. It is believed that Cuba might be "a China in the Caribbean

(Jiang, China.org, “Another strong year for China-Latin America relations,” December 24, 2012, http://www.china.org.cn/opinion/2012-12/24/content_27497280.htm) /wyo-mm While continuing to adhere to socialism and resisting market-oriented reform, Cuba under Raul Castro's leadership has been speeding up its pace of economic reform since Fidel Castro's withdrawal from the political stage. The significance of Castro's trip to China is that the Caribbean island nation might learn something from China's experience in an effort to achieve development, reform and stability. It is believed that Cuba, the only socialist country in the Western Hemisphere, might be "a China in the Caribbean".

<h4><strong>Yes- already modeling economic activities</h4><p>Shixue 12</p><p></strong>(Jiang, China.org, “Another strong year for China-Latin America relations,” December 24, 2012, http://www.china.org.cn/opinion/2012-12/24/content_27497280.htm) /wyo-mm</p><p>While continuing to adhere to socialism and resisting market-oriented reform, <u><strong>Cuba</u></strong> under Raul Castro's leadership <u><strong>has been speeding up its pace of economic reform since</u></strong> Fidel Castro's withdrawal from the political stage. The significance of Castro's trip to China is that <u><strong>the Caribbean island nation might learn something from China's experience in an effort to achieve development, reform and stability. It is believed that Cuba</u></strong>, the only socialist country in the Western Hemisphere, <u><strong>might be "a China in the Caribbean</u></strong>".</p>

Shixue 12

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Shixue 12 fulltext: (Jiang, China.org, “Another strong year for China-Latin America relations,” December 24, 2012, http://www.china.org.cn/opinion/2012-12/24/content_27497280.htm) /wyo-mm While continuing to adhere to socialism and resisting market-oriented reform, Cuba under Raul Castro's leadership has been speeding up its pace of economic reform since Fidel Castro's withdrawal from the political stage. The significance of Castro's trip to China is that the Caribbean island nation might learn something from China's experience in an effort to achieve development, reform and stability. It is believed that Cuba, the only socialist country in the Western Hemisphere, might be "a China in the Caribbean". [/INST] <h4><strong>Yes- already modeling economic activities</h4><p>Shixue 12</p><p></strong>(Jiang, China.org, “Another strong year for China-Latin America relations,” December 24, 2012, http://www.china.org.cn/opinion/2012-12/24/content_27497280.htm) /wyo-mm</p><p>While continuing to adhere to socialism and resisting market-oriented reform, <u><strong>Cuba</u></strong> under Raul Castro's leadership <u><strong>has been speeding up its pace of economic reform since</u></strong> Fidel Castro's withdrawal from the political stage. The significance of Castro's trip to China is that <u><strong>the Caribbean island nation might learn something from China's experience in an effort to achieve development, reform and stability. It is believed that Cuba</u></strong>, the only socialist country in the Western Hemisphere, <u><strong>might be "a China in the Caribbean</u></strong>".</p> </s>

Maintaining the embargo is the hight of US hypocrisy—we should abandon this policy for engagement to align the United States stance toward cuba with the rest of the world

] /Wyo-MB The US economic embargo of Cuba, which is opposed by just about every nation on earth, is more than an outdated Cold War relic. It is the very height of hypocrisy the real hypocrites are the US leaders and lawmakers who have brought enormous death and suffering to a nation that has not posed any threat whatsoever to the United States in half a century. On the contrary, the US has been waging a relentless campaign of terrorism and economic strangulation against Cuba ever since John F. Kennedy declared his intention to “unleash the terrors of the earth” upon Cuba more than 50 years ago. There was the ill-fated Bay of Pigs invasion, support for Miami-based Cuban exile terrorists who killed hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent civilians, possible chemical and biological attacks against Cuban agriculture, and Operation Mongoose– a CIA plan under which dozens of failed assassination attempts against Fidel Castro were undertaken. There was even a plan to carry out airplane hijackings and terror bombings in American cities and blame them on Cuba in order to provoke a war And what retaliation did Cuba take against all this US provocation? Absolutely none nearly every nation on earth has repeatedly voted to condemn the US embargo and call for its immediate lifting. The UN recently voted 188-3 to condemn the absurd embargo. .¶ As for claims that Cuba is run by a monstrously brutal communist dictatorship, well, let’s just say that the US supports far worse regimes around the world. Saudi Arabia, Equatorial Guinea, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Iraq and Bahrain are all far worse human rights violators than Cuba. Israel, which receives $3 billion in annual US military aid, is the only nation on earth which simultaneously practices occupation, apartheid, colonization and ethnic cleansing. Meanwhile, things are slowly but inexorably changing in Havana There are less than 100 political prisoners There have been no executions in many years. Economic reforms abound. And for the first time in generations, Cubans are free to travel abroad without obtaining exit visa the Castro regime’s days are almost certainly numbered and the US is supremely hypocritical in selectively singling out Cuba for collective punishment when Washington does business with far worse dictators– US leaders really ought to be careful when pointing the finger at Cuba. After all, no other nation on the face of the earth has killed more innocent civilians in more countries outside its own borders since the end of WWII than the United States. No other nation even comes close. If you surveyed all the world’s people on which country, Cuba or the United States, is more worthy of censure, I’d bet the house that at least 90 percent of humanity would choose the latter.¶ The absurdly hypocritical embargo against the peaceful people of Cuba must end. It should have ended decades ago. The US has proven it can bury the hatchet and embrace nations that have actually done great damage to it Cuba has repeatedly expressed and demonstrated its willingness to open a new chapter in the US-Cuban relationship. Only Washington, , stands in the way of open, peaceful relations. Only Washington can restore sanity. The time for action is now.

[Brett, founder and editor of MoralLowGround.com, is an author and social justice advocate based in San Francisco, California, US Cuba Embargo is Height of Hypocrisy, 4-17-13, http://morallowground.com/2013/04/17/us-cuba-embargo-is-height-of-hypocrisy/] /Wyo-MB The US economic embargo of Cuba, which is opposed by just about every nation on earth, is more than an outdated Cold War relic. It is the very height of hypocrisy.¶ The embargo has been in the news lately after the entertainment world’s leading power couple, Jay-Z and Beyoncé, visited Cuba earlier this month. Although their trip was approved by the US government as an educational, person-to-person exchange, some conservative lawmakers howled holy hell over what they perceived as an expression of support for the Castro dictatorship. Cuban-American Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) called the couple “hypocritical.” Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, also a Cuban-American, invoked the “suffering of the Cuban people” under communist dictatorship in blasting their trip to the island. This, the same Ros-Lehtinen who unabashedly supports some of the hemisphere’s most notorious and murderous terrorists, men who have inflicted much death and suffering upon the Cuban people.¶ To any educated observer it is immediately obvious that the real hypocrites are not Jay-Z and Beyoncé, but rather the US leaders and lawmakers who have brought enormous death and suffering to a nation that has not posed any threat whatsoever to the United States in half a century. On the contrary, the US has been waging a relentless campaign of terrorism and economic strangulation against Cuba ever since John F. Kennedy declared his intention to “unleash the terrors of the earth” upon Cuba more than 50 years ago. There was the ill-fated Bay of Pigs invasion, support for Miami-based Cuban exile terrorists who killed hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent civilians, possible chemical and biological attacks against Cuban agriculture, and Operation Mongoose– a CIA plan under which dozens of failed assassination attempts against Fidel Castro were undertaken. There was even a plan to carry out airplane hijackings and terror bombings in American cities and blame them on Cuba in order to provoke a war. Fortunately, the false-flag operation known as Operation Northwoods never came to fruition.¶ And what retaliation did Cuba take against all this US provocation? Absolutely none. Perhaps that’s part of the reason why nearly every nation on earth has repeatedly voted to condemn the US embargo and call for its immediate lifting. The UN recently voted 188-3 to condemn the absurd embargo. The United States, Israel and the tiny, US-dependent island nation of Palau (population 20,000) were the only countries which voted against the measure.¶ As for claims that Cuba is run by a monstrously brutal communist dictatorship, well, let’s just say that the US supports far worse regimes around the world. Saudi Arabia, Equatorial Guinea, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Iraq and Bahrain are all far worse human rights violators than Cuba. Israel, which receives $3 billion in annual US military aid, is the only nation on earth which simultaneously practices occupation, apartheid, colonization and ethnic cleansing. Meanwhile, things are slowly but inexorably changing in Havana. There are less than 100 political prisoners in Cuba. There have been no executions in many years. Economic reforms abound. And for the first time in generations, Cubans are free to travel abroad without obtaining exit visas.¶ Yes, the Castro regime is the only totalitarian government left in the Americas. But the regime’s days are almost certainly numbered and the US is supremely hypocritical in selectively singling out Cuba for collective punishment when Washington does business with far worse dictators– even communists. As Jay-Z rapped in his recently-released “Open Letter”: “I’m in Cuba, I love Cubans/This communist talk is so confusing/When it’s from China, the very mic I’m using.” US leaders really ought to be careful when pointing the finger at Cuba. After all, no other nation on the face of the earth has killed more innocent civilians in more countries outside its own borders since the end of WWII than the United States. No other nation even comes close. US atrocities make worldwide headlines on almost a daily basis– witness yesterday’s release of a bipartisan task force study of American torture. If you surveyed all the world’s people on which country, Cuba or the United States, is more worthy of censure, I’d bet the house that at least 90 percent of humanity would choose the latter.¶ The absurdly hypocritical embargo against the peaceful people of Cuba must end. It should have ended decades ago. The US has proven it can bury the hatchet and embrace nations that have actually done great damage to it (see Germany and Japan). Cuba has repeatedly expressed and demonstrated its willingness to open a new chapter in the US-Cuban relationship. Only Washington, influenced by a tiny yet powerfully connected clique of Cuban-Americans, stands in the way of open, peaceful relations. Only Washington can restore sanity. The time for action is now.

<h4><strong>Maintaining the embargo is the hight of US hypocrisy—we should abandon this policy for engagement to align the United States stance toward cuba with the rest of the world</h4><p>Wilkins, 2013</p><p></strong>[Brett, founder and editor of MoralLowGround.com, is an author and social justice advocate based in San Francisco, California, US Cuba Embargo is Height of Hypocrisy, 4-17-13, http://morallowground.com/2013/04/17/us-cuba-embargo-is-height-of-hypocrisy/<u><strong>] /Wyo-MB</p><p>The US economic embargo of Cuba, which is opposed by just about every nation on earth, is more than an outdated Cold War relic. It is the very height of hypocrisy</u></strong>.¶ The embargo has been in the news lately after the entertainment world’s leading power couple, Jay-Z and Beyoncé, visited Cuba earlier this month. Although their trip was approved by the US government as an educational, person-to-person exchange, some conservative lawmakers howled holy hell over what they perceived as an expression of support for the Castro dictatorship. Cuban-American Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) called the couple “hypocritical.” Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, also a Cuban-American, invoked the “suffering of the Cuban people” under communist dictatorship in blasting their trip to the island. This, the same Ros-Lehtinen who unabashedly supports some of the hemisphere’s most notorious and murderous terrorists, men who have inflicted much death and suffering upon the Cuban people.¶ To any educated observer it is immediately obvious that <u><strong>the real hypocrites</u></strong> <u><strong>are</u></strong> not Jay-Z and Beyoncé, but rather <u><strong>the US leaders and lawmakers who have brought enormous death and suffering to a nation that has not posed any threat whatsoever to the United States in half a century. On the contrary, the US has been waging a relentless campaign of terrorism and economic strangulation against Cuba ever since John F. Kennedy declared his intention to “unleash the terrors of the earth” upon Cuba more than 50 years ago. There was the ill-fated Bay of Pigs invasion, support for Miami-based Cuban exile terrorists who killed hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent civilians, possible chemical and biological attacks against Cuban agriculture, and Operation Mongoose– a CIA plan under which dozens of failed assassination attempts against Fidel Castro were undertaken. There was even a plan to carry out airplane hijackings and terror bombings in American cities and blame them on Cuba in order to provoke a war</u></strong>. Fortunately, the false-flag operation known as Operation Northwoods never came to fruition.¶ <u><strong>And what retaliation did Cuba take against all this US provocation? Absolutely none</u></strong>. Perhaps that’s part of the reason why <u><strong>nearly every nation on earth has repeatedly voted to condemn the US embargo and call for its immediate lifting. The UN recently voted 188-3 to condemn the absurd embargo. </u></strong>The United States, Israel and the tiny, US-dependent island nation of Palau (population 20,000) were the only countries which voted against the measure<u><strong>.¶ As for claims that Cuba is run by a monstrously brutal communist dictatorship, well, let’s just say that the US supports far worse regimes around the world. Saudi Arabia, Equatorial Guinea, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Iraq and Bahrain are all far worse human rights violators than Cuba. Israel, which receives $3 billion in annual US military aid, is the only nation on earth which simultaneously practices occupation, apartheid, colonization and ethnic cleansing. Meanwhile, things are slowly but inexorably changing in Havana</u></strong>. <u><strong>There are less than 100 political prisoners</u></strong> in Cuba. <u><strong>There have been no executions in many years. Economic reforms abound. And for the first time in generations, Cubans are free to travel abroad without obtaining exit visa</u></strong>s.¶ Yes, <u><strong>the Castro</u></strong> regime is the only totalitarian government left in the Americas. But the <u><strong>regime’s days are almost certainly numbered and the US is supremely hypocritical in selectively singling out Cuba for collective punishment when Washington does business with far worse dictators–</u></strong> even communists. As Jay-Z rapped in his recently-released “Open Letter”: “I’m in Cuba, I love Cubans/This communist talk is so confusing/When it’s from China, the very mic I’m using.” <u><strong>US leaders really ought to be careful when pointing the finger at Cuba. After all, no other nation on the face of the earth has killed more innocent civilians in more countries outside its own borders since the end of WWII than the United States. No other nation even comes close.</u></strong> US atrocities make worldwide headlines on almost a daily basis– witness yesterday’s release of a bipartisan task force study of American torture. <u><strong>If you surveyed all the world’s people on which country, Cuba or the United States, is more worthy of censure, I’d bet the house that at least 90 percent of humanity would choose the latter.¶ The absurdly hypocritical embargo against the peaceful people of Cuba must end. It should have ended decades ago. The US has proven it can bury the hatchet and embrace nations that have actually done great damage to it</u></strong> (see Germany and Japan). <u><strong>Cuba has repeatedly expressed and demonstrated its willingness to open a new chapter in the US-Cuban relationship. Only Washington,</u></strong> influenced by a tiny yet powerfully connected clique of Cuban-Americans<u><strong>, stands in the way of open, peaceful relations. Only Washington can restore sanity. The time for action is now.</p></u></strong>

Wilkins, 2013

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Wilkins, 2013 fulltext: [Brett, founder and editor of MoralLowGround.com, is an author and social justice advocate based in San Francisco, California, US Cuba Embargo is Height of Hypocrisy, 4-17-13, http://morallowground.com/2013/04/17/us-cuba-embargo-is-height-of-hypocrisy/] /Wyo-MB The US economic embargo of Cuba, which is opposed by just about every nation on earth, is more than an outdated Cold War relic. It is the very height of hypocrisy.¶ The embargo has been in the news lately after the entertainment world’s leading power couple, Jay-Z and Beyoncé, visited Cuba earlier this month. Although their trip was approved by the US government as an educational, person-to-person exchange, some conservative lawmakers howled holy hell over what they perceived as an expression of support for the Castro dictatorship. Cuban-American Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) called the couple “hypocritical.” Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, also a Cuban-American, invoked the “suffering of the Cuban people” under communist dictatorship in blasting their trip to the island. This, the same Ros-Lehtinen who unabashedly supports some of the hemisphere’s most notorious and murderous terrorists, men who have inflicted much death and suffering upon the Cuban people.¶ To any educated observer it is immediately obvious that the real hypocrites are not Jay-Z and Beyoncé, but rather the US leaders and lawmakers who have brought enormous death and suffering to a nation that has not posed any threat whatsoever to the United States in half a century. On the contrary, the US has been waging a relentless campaign of terrorism and economic strangulation against Cuba ever since John F. Kennedy declared his intention to “unleash the terrors of the earth” upon Cuba more than 50 years ago. There was the ill-fated Bay of Pigs invasion, support for Miami-based Cuban exile terrorists who killed hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent civilians, possible chemical and biological attacks against Cuban agriculture, and Operation Mongoose– a CIA plan under which dozens of failed assassination attempts against Fidel Castro were undertaken. There was even a plan to carry out airplane hijackings and terror bombings in American cities and blame them on Cuba in order to provoke a war. Fortunately, the false-flag operation known as Operation Northwoods never came to fruition.¶ And what retaliation did Cuba take against all this US provocation? Absolutely none. Perhaps that’s part of the reason why nearly every nation on earth has repeatedly voted to condemn the US embargo and call for its immediate lifting. The UN recently voted 188-3 to condemn the absurd embargo. The United States, Israel and the tiny, US-dependent island nation of Palau (population 20,000) were the only countries which voted against the measure.¶ As for claims that Cuba is run by a monstrously brutal communist dictatorship, well, let’s just say that the US supports far worse regimes around the world. Saudi Arabia, Equatorial Guinea, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Iraq and Bahrain are all far worse human rights violators than Cuba. Israel, which receives $3 billion in annual US military aid, is the only nation on earth which simultaneously practices occupation, apartheid, colonization and ethnic cleansing. Meanwhile, things are slowly but inexorably changing in Havana. There are less than 100 political prisoners in Cuba. There have been no executions in many years. Economic reforms abound. And for the first time in generations, Cubans are free to travel abroad without obtaining exit visas.¶ Yes, the Castro regime is the only totalitarian government left in the Americas. But the regime’s days are almost certainly numbered and the US is supremely hypocritical in selectively singling out Cuba for collective punishment when Washington does business with far worse dictators– even communists. As Jay-Z rapped in his recently-released “Open Letter”: “I’m in Cuba, I love Cubans/This communist talk is so confusing/When it’s from China, the very mic I’m using.” US leaders really ought to be careful when pointing the finger at Cuba. After all, no other nation on the face of the earth has killed more innocent civilians in more countries outside its own borders since the end of WWII than the United States. No other nation even comes close. US atrocities make worldwide headlines on almost a daily basis– witness yesterday’s release of a bipartisan task force study of American torture. If you surveyed all the world’s people on which country, Cuba or the United States, is more worthy of censure, I’d bet the house that at least 90 percent of humanity would choose the latter.¶ The absurdly hypocritical embargo against the peaceful people of Cuba must end. It should have ended decades ago. The US has proven it can bury the hatchet and embrace nations that have actually done great damage to it (see Germany and Japan). Cuba has repeatedly expressed and demonstrated its willingness to open a new chapter in the US-Cuban relationship. Only Washington, influenced by a tiny yet powerfully connected clique of Cuban-Americans, stands in the way of open, peaceful relations. Only Washington can restore sanity. The time for action is now. [/INST] <h4><strong>Maintaining the embargo is the hight of US hypocrisy—we should abandon this policy for engagement to align the United States stance toward cuba with the rest of the world</h4><p>Wilkins, 2013</p><p></strong>[Brett, founder and editor of MoralLowGround.com, is an author and social justice advocate based in San Francisco, California, US Cuba Embargo is Height of Hypocrisy, 4-17-13, http://morallowground.com/2013/04/17/us-cuba-embargo-is-height-of-hypocrisy/<u><strong>] /Wyo-MB</p><p>The US economic embargo of Cuba, which is opposed by just about every nation on earth, is more than an outdated Cold War relic. It is the very height of hypocrisy</u></strong>.¶ The embargo has been in the news lately after the entertainment world’s leading power couple, Jay-Z and Beyoncé, visited Cuba earlier this month. Although their trip was approved by the US government as an educational, person-to-person exchange, some conservative lawmakers howled holy hell over what they perceived as an expression of support for the Castro dictatorship. Cuban-American Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) called the couple “hypocritical.” Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, also a Cuban-American, invoked the “suffering of the Cuban people” under communist dictatorship in blasting their trip to the island. This, the same Ros-Lehtinen who unabashedly supports some of the hemisphere’s most notorious and murderous terrorists, men who have inflicted much death and suffering upon the Cuban people.¶ To any educated observer it is immediately obvious that <u><strong>the real hypocrites</u></strong> <u><strong>are</u></strong> not Jay-Z and Beyoncé, but rather <u><strong>the US leaders and lawmakers who have brought enormous death and suffering to a nation that has not posed any threat whatsoever to the United States in half a century. On the contrary, the US has been waging a relentless campaign of terrorism and economic strangulation against Cuba ever since John F. Kennedy declared his intention to “unleash the terrors of the earth” upon Cuba more than 50 years ago. There was the ill-fated Bay of Pigs invasion, support for Miami-based Cuban exile terrorists who killed hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent civilians, possible chemical and biological attacks against Cuban agriculture, and Operation Mongoose– a CIA plan under which dozens of failed assassination attempts against Fidel Castro were undertaken. There was even a plan to carry out airplane hijackings and terror bombings in American cities and blame them on Cuba in order to provoke a war</u></strong>. Fortunately, the false-flag operation known as Operation Northwoods never came to fruition.¶ <u><strong>And what retaliation did Cuba take against all this US provocation? Absolutely none</u></strong>. Perhaps that’s part of the reason why <u><strong>nearly every nation on earth has repeatedly voted to condemn the US embargo and call for its immediate lifting. The UN recently voted 188-3 to condemn the absurd embargo. </u></strong>The United States, Israel and the tiny, US-dependent island nation of Palau (population 20,000) were the only countries which voted against the measure<u><strong>.¶ As for claims that Cuba is run by a monstrously brutal communist dictatorship, well, let’s just say that the US supports far worse regimes around the world. Saudi Arabia, Equatorial Guinea, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Iraq and Bahrain are all far worse human rights violators than Cuba. Israel, which receives $3 billion in annual US military aid, is the only nation on earth which simultaneously practices occupation, apartheid, colonization and ethnic cleansing. Meanwhile, things are slowly but inexorably changing in Havana</u></strong>. <u><strong>There are less than 100 political prisoners</u></strong> in Cuba. <u><strong>There have been no executions in many years. Economic reforms abound. And for the first time in generations, Cubans are free to travel abroad without obtaining exit visa</u></strong>s.¶ Yes, <u><strong>the Castro</u></strong> regime is the only totalitarian government left in the Americas. But the <u><strong>regime’s days are almost certainly numbered and the US is supremely hypocritical in selectively singling out Cuba for collective punishment when Washington does business with far worse dictators–</u></strong> even communists. As Jay-Z rapped in his recently-released “Open Letter”: “I’m in Cuba, I love Cubans/This communist talk is so confusing/When it’s from China, the very mic I’m using.” <u><strong>US leaders really ought to be careful when pointing the finger at Cuba. After all, no other nation on the face of the earth has killed more innocent civilians in more countries outside its own borders since the end of WWII than the United States. No other nation even comes close.</u></strong> US atrocities make worldwide headlines on almost a daily basis– witness yesterday’s release of a bipartisan task force study of American torture. <u><strong>If you surveyed all the world’s people on which country, Cuba or the United States, is more worthy of censure, I’d bet the house that at least 90 percent of humanity would choose the latter.¶ The absurdly hypocritical embargo against the peaceful people of Cuba must end. It should have ended decades ago. The US has proven it can bury the hatchet and embrace nations that have actually done great damage to it</u></strong> (see Germany and Japan). <u><strong>Cuba has repeatedly expressed and demonstrated its willingness to open a new chapter in the US-Cuban relationship. Only Washington,</u></strong> influenced by a tiny yet powerfully connected clique of Cuban-Americans<u><strong>, stands in the way of open, peaceful relations. Only Washington can restore sanity. The time for action is now.</p></u></strong> </s>

US trade with Cuba makes Cuba dependent on US- China key to reverse this dependence

Though China’s relations with Latin America have important political and security aspects, the most prominent dimension is economic Latin American countries have increasingly imposed tariff and non-tariff barriers against Chinese exporters many in the region view the engagement with China as a welcome opportunity to promote economic growth and diversification – and to reduce their dependence on the U S

(LI, EAI Background Brief, “China’s Growing Influence in Latin America: Challenges and Opportunities,” October 30, 2008, http://www.eai.nus.edu.sg/BB411.pdf) /wyo-mm 1.5 Though China’s relations with Latin America have important political and security aspects, at present the most prominent dimension is economic.5 To protect domestic manufacturing industries, Latin American countries have increasingly imposed tariff and non-tariff barriers against Chinese exporters. In spite of increasing trade frictions, many in the region view the engagement with China as a welcome opportunity to promote economic growth and diversification – and to reduce their dependence on the United States.

<h4><strong>US trade with Cuba makes Cuba dependent on US- China key to reverse this dependence</h4><p>He 08</p><p></strong>(LI, EAI Background Brief, “China’s Growing Influence in Latin America: Challenges and Opportunities,” October 30, 2008, http://www.eai.nus.edu.sg/BB411.pdf) /wyo-mm</p><p>1.5 <u><strong>Though China’s relations with Latin America have important political and security aspects,</u></strong> at present <u><strong>the most prominent dimension is economic</u></strong>.5 To protect domestic manufacturing industries, <u><strong>Latin American countries have increasingly imposed tariff and non-tariff barriers against Chinese exporters</u></strong>. In spite of increasing trade frictions, <u><strong>many in the region view the engagement with China as a welcome opportunity to promote economic growth and diversification – and to reduce their dependence on the U</u></strong>nited <u><strong>S</u></strong>tates.</p>

He 08

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: He 08 fulltext: (LI, EAI Background Brief, “China’s Growing Influence in Latin America: Challenges and Opportunities,” October 30, 2008, http://www.eai.nus.edu.sg/BB411.pdf) /wyo-mm 1.5 Though China’s relations with Latin America have important political and security aspects, at present the most prominent dimension is economic.5 To protect domestic manufacturing industries, Latin American countries have increasingly imposed tariff and non-tariff barriers against Chinese exporters. In spite of increasing trade frictions, many in the region view the engagement with China as a welcome opportunity to promote economic growth and diversification – and to reduce their dependence on the United States. [/INST] <h4><strong>US trade with Cuba makes Cuba dependent on US- China key to reverse this dependence</h4><p>He 08</p><p></strong>(LI, EAI Background Brief, “China’s Growing Influence in Latin America: Challenges and Opportunities,” October 30, 2008, http://www.eai.nus.edu.sg/BB411.pdf) /wyo-mm</p><p>1.5 <u><strong>Though China’s relations with Latin America have important political and security aspects,</u></strong> at present <u><strong>the most prominent dimension is economic</u></strong>.5 To protect domestic manufacturing industries, <u><strong>Latin American countries have increasingly imposed tariff and non-tariff barriers against Chinese exporters</u></strong>. In spite of increasing trade frictions, <u><strong>many in the region view the engagement with China as a welcome opportunity to promote economic growth and diversification – and to reduce their dependence on the U</u></strong>nited <u><strong>S</u></strong>tates.</p> </s>

Democracy key to prevent extinction

in the coming years and decades nationalist aggression could easily spread powerful international crime syndicates have made common cause with authoritarian regimes Nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons continue to proliferate The very source of life on Earth, the global ecosystem, appears increasingly endangered these 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

WBW 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.

<h4><strong>Democracy key to prevent extinction</h4><p>Diamond 95</p><p>Diamond 1995</strong> (Larry; senior fellow Hoover Institute) <u>Promoting Democracy in the 1990s</u> p. 6 http://wwics.si.edu/subsites/ccpdc/pubs/di/1.htm</p><p> WBW</p><p>This hardly exhausts the lists of threats to our security and well-being <u><strong>in the coming years and decades</u></strong>. In the former Yugoslavia <u><strong>nationalist aggression</u></strong> tears at the stability of Europe and <u><strong>could easily spread</u></strong>. The flow of illegal drugs intensifies through increasingly <u><strong>powerful international crime syndicates</u></strong> that <u><strong>have made common cause with authoritarian regimes</u></strong> and have utterly corrupted the institutions of tenuous, democratic ones. <u><strong>Nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons continue to proliferate</u></strong>. <u><strong>The very source of life on Earth, the global ecosystem, appears increasingly endangered</u></strong>. Most of <u><strong>these</u></strong> new and unconventional <u><strong>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</u></strong>. </p>

Diamond 95 Diamond 1995 (Larry; senior fellow Hoover Institute) Promoting Democracy in the 1990s p. 6 http://wwics.si.edu/subsites/ccpdc/pubs/di/1.htm

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Diamond 95 Diamond 1995 (Larry; senior fellow Hoover Institute) Promoting Democracy in the 1990s p. 6 http://wwics.si.edu/subsites/ccpdc/pubs/di/1.htm fulltext: WBW 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. [/INST] <h4><strong>Democracy key to prevent extinction</h4><p>Diamond 95</p><p>Diamond 1995</strong> (Larry; senior fellow Hoover Institute) <u>Promoting Democracy in the 1990s</u> p. 6 http://wwics.si.edu/subsites/ccpdc/pubs/di/1.htm</p><p> WBW</p><p>This hardly exhausts the lists of threats to our security and well-being <u><strong>in the coming years and decades</u></strong>. In the former Yugoslavia <u><strong>nationalist aggression</u></strong> tears at the stability of Europe and <u><strong>could easily spread</u></strong>. The flow of illegal drugs intensifies through increasingly <u><strong>powerful international crime syndicates</u></strong> that <u><strong>have made common cause with authoritarian regimes</u></strong> and have utterly corrupted the institutions of tenuous, democratic ones. <u><strong>Nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons continue to proliferate</u></strong>. <u><strong>The very source of life on Earth, the global ecosystem, appears increasingly endangered</u></strong>. Most of <u><strong>these</u></strong> new and unconventional <u><strong>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</u></strong>. </p> </s>

Cuban health care doing good – lots of doctors and focus on prevention

the Cuban health care system seems unreal. There are too many doctors. Everybody has a family physician. Everything is free, It is tightly organized, and the first priority is prevention. Although Cuba has limited economic resources, its health care system has solved some problems that ours has not yet managed to address.1,2 Family physicians are responsible for delivering primary care and preventive services to their panel of patients All care delivery is organized at the local level, and the patients and their caregivers generally live in the same community. the system is surprisingly information-rich copic nd focused on population health.

Internet access is virtually nonexistent. And the Cuban health care system also seems unreal. There are too many doctors. Everybody has a family physician. Everything is free, totally free — and not after prior approval or some copay. The whole system seems turned upside down. It is tightly organized, and the first priority is prevention. Although Cuba has limited economic resources, its health care system has solved some problems that ours has not yet managed to address.1,2 Family physicians, along with their nurses and other health workers, are responsible for delivering primary care and preventive services to their panel of patients — about 1000 patients per physician in urban areas. All care delivery is organized at the local level, and the patients and their caregivers generally live in the same community. The medical records in cardboard folders are simple and handwritten, not unlike those we used in the United States 50 years ago. But the system is surprisingly information-rich copic nd focused on population health.

<h4>Cuban health care doing good – lots of doctors and focus on prevention </h4><p><strong>Campion</strong> M.D. <strong>& Morrissey</strong> Ph.D. <strong>2013</strong> Edward & Stephen “A Different Model — Medical Care in Cuba” New England Journal of Medicine http://www.sld.cu/galerias/pdf/sitios/santiagodecuba/nejmp1215226_1.pdf</p><p>Internet access is virtually nonexistent. And <u><strong>the Cuban health care system</u></strong> also <u><strong>seems unreal. There are too many doctors. Everybody has a family physician. Everything is free,</u></strong> totally free — and not after prior approval or some copay. The whole system seems turned upside down. <u><strong>It is tightly organized, and the first priority is prevention.</u></strong> <u><strong>Although Cuba has limited economic resources, its health care system has solved some problems that ours has not yet managed to address.1,2</p><p>Family physicians</u></strong>, along with their nurses and other health workers, <u><strong>are responsible for delivering primary care and preventive services to their panel of patients</u></strong> — about 1000 patients per physician in urban areas. <u><strong>All care delivery is organized at the local level, and the patients and their caregivers generally live in the same community.</u></strong> The medical records in cardboard folders are simple and handwritten, not unlike those we used in the United States 50 years ago. But <u><strong>the system is surprisingly information-rich copic nd focused on population health.</p></u></strong>

Campion M.D. & Morrissey Ph.D. 2013 Edward & Stephen “A Different Model — Medical Care in Cuba” New England Journal of Medicine http://www.sld.cu/galerias/pdf/sitios/santiagodecuba/nejmp1215226_1.pdf

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Campion M.D. & Morrissey Ph.D. 2013 Edward & Stephen “A Different Model — Medical Care in Cuba” New England Journal of Medicine http://www.sld.cu/galerias/pdf/sitios/santiagodecuba/nejmp1215226_1.pdf fulltext: Internet access is virtually nonexistent. And the Cuban health care system also seems unreal. There are too many doctors. Everybody has a family physician. Everything is free, totally free — and not after prior approval or some copay. The whole system seems turned upside down. It is tightly organized, and the first priority is prevention. Although Cuba has limited economic resources, its health care system has solved some problems that ours has not yet managed to address.1,2 Family physicians, along with their nurses and other health workers, are responsible for delivering primary care and preventive services to their panel of patients — about 1000 patients per physician in urban areas. All care delivery is organized at the local level, and the patients and their caregivers generally live in the same community. The medical records in cardboard folders are simple and handwritten, not unlike those we used in the United States 50 years ago. But the system is surprisingly information-rich copic nd focused on population health. [/INST] <h4>Cuban health care doing good – lots of doctors and focus on prevention </h4><p><strong>Campion</strong> M.D. <strong>& Morrissey</strong> Ph.D. <strong>2013</strong> Edward & Stephen “A Different Model — Medical Care in Cuba” New England Journal of Medicine http://www.sld.cu/galerias/pdf/sitios/santiagodecuba/nejmp1215226_1.pdf</p><p>Internet access is virtually nonexistent. And <u><strong>the Cuban health care system</u></strong> also <u><strong>seems unreal. There are too many doctors. Everybody has a family physician. Everything is free,</u></strong> totally free — and not after prior approval or some copay. The whole system seems turned upside down. <u><strong>It is tightly organized, and the first priority is prevention.</u></strong> <u><strong>Although Cuba has limited economic resources, its health care system has solved some problems that ours has not yet managed to address.1,2</p><p>Family physicians</u></strong>, along with their nurses and other health workers, <u><strong>are responsible for delivering primary care and preventive services to their panel of patients</u></strong> — about 1000 patients per physician in urban areas. <u><strong>All care delivery is organized at the local level, and the patients and their caregivers generally live in the same community.</u></strong> The medical records in cardboard folders are simple and handwritten, not unlike those we used in the United States 50 years ago. But <u><strong>the system is surprisingly information-rich copic nd focused on population health.</p></u></strong> </s>

Relations with Cuba solve a host of impacts—environment, disease, and organized crime

. The United States, Cuba, and others in the hemisphere have a common interest in working together on issues that impact the hemisphere such as humanitarian emergencies, improving the environment, preventing disease, and dealing with organized crime. The link between organized crime and drugs has become pernicious in the hemisphere, affecting every country on the supply or demand side of the chain or on transit routes; weaknesses at any point in the chain can provide a safe haven for criminals. cooperation on such issues is a practical necessity for all countries; practical and professional cooperation in these areas can then set the foundations for tougher discussions on politics.

Finally, it is striking that debates on policy within the United States and at times with other governments have been more acrimonious than exchanges among professionals, including the military, when they have had the opportunity to engage directly. The United States, Cuba, and others in the hemisphere have a common interest in working together on issues that impact the hemisphere such as humanitarian emergencies, improving the environment, preventing disease, and dealing with organized crime. The link between organized crime and drugs has become pernicious in the hemisphere, affecting every country on the supply or demand side of the chain or on transit routes; weaknesses at any point in the chain can provide a safe haven for criminals. Depoliticizing cooperation on such issues is a practical necessity for all countries; practical and professional cooperation in these areas can then set the foundations for tougher discussions on politics.

<h4><strong>Relations with Cuba solve a host of impacts—environment, disease, and organized crime</h4><p>Huddleston and Pascual, 2010</p><p></strong>[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 </p><p>Finally, it is striking that debates on policy within the United States and at times with other governments have been more acrimonious than exchanges among professionals, including the military, when they have had the opportunity to engage directly<u><strong>. The United States, Cuba, and others in the hemisphere have a common interest in working together on issues that impact the hemisphere such as humanitarian emergencies, improving the environment, preventing disease, and dealing with organized crime. The link between organized crime and drugs has become pernicious in the hemisphere, affecting every country on the supply or demand side of the chain or on transit routes; weaknesses at any point in the chain can provide a safe haven for criminals. </u></strong>Depoliticizing <u><strong>cooperation on such issues is a practical necessity for all countries; practical and professional cooperation in these areas can then set the foundations for tougher discussions on politics.</p></u></strong>

Huddleston 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

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Huddleston 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 fulltext: Finally, it is striking that debates on policy within the United States and at times with other governments have been more acrimonious than exchanges among professionals, including the military, when they have had the opportunity to engage directly. The United States, Cuba, and others in the hemisphere have a common interest in working together on issues that impact the hemisphere such as humanitarian emergencies, improving the environment, preventing disease, and dealing with organized crime. The link between organized crime and drugs has become pernicious in the hemisphere, affecting every country on the supply or demand side of the chain or on transit routes; weaknesses at any point in the chain can provide a safe haven for criminals. Depoliticizing cooperation on such issues is a practical necessity for all countries; practical and professional cooperation in these areas can then set the foundations for tougher discussions on politics. [/INST] <h4><strong>Relations with Cuba solve a host of impacts—environment, disease, and organized crime</h4><p>Huddleston and Pascual, 2010</p><p></strong>[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 </p><p>Finally, it is striking that debates on policy within the United States and at times with other governments have been more acrimonious than exchanges among professionals, including the military, when they have had the opportunity to engage directly<u><strong>. The United States, Cuba, and others in the hemisphere have a common interest in working together on issues that impact the hemisphere such as humanitarian emergencies, improving the environment, preventing disease, and dealing with organized crime. The link between organized crime and drugs has become pernicious in the hemisphere, affecting every country on the supply or demand side of the chain or on transit routes; weaknesses at any point in the chain can provide a safe haven for criminals. </u></strong>Depoliticizing <u><strong>cooperation on such issues is a practical necessity for all countries; practical and professional cooperation in these areas can then set the foundations for tougher discussions on politics.</p></u></strong> </s>

Economic crisis looms- U.S. is key to the global economy

The U.S. may have avoided the fiscal cliff but analysts say the last minute agreement was only a temporary fix. another financial crisis is looming - one with potentially severe implications for the world's largest economy The U.S. government has already reached the congressionaly imposed borrowing limit of $16.4 trillion The government would be unable to pay the interest on its debts -- creating massive turmoil in world markets A downgrade from 'Triple A' to 'Double A' by itself doesn't usually have that much of an effect. It's basically saying instead of your bonds being really good, it's very good.

(Mark, Voice of America News “US Economy Faces Another Cliff” http://www.voanews.com/content/us-economy-fiscal-cliff/1586206.html, accessed 2/15/13,WYO/JF The U.S. may have avoided the fiscal cliff, but analysts say the last minute Congressional agreement at the start of the year to raise taxes on wealthy Americans and avoid massive spending cuts was only a temporary fix. Now, even as President Barack Obama begins his second term, another financial crisis is looming - one with potentially severe implications for the world's largest economy. The U.S. government has already reached the congressionaly imposed borrowing limit of $16.4 trillion and could run out of money by mid-February. New York trader Benedict Willis says the coming debate over raising the debt ceiling could be even more acrimonious. "Now we'll go from the talk of fiscal cliff, I'm sure we'll start talking about the St. Valentine's Day massacre because that's really the deadline we'll be looking at as far as the deficit reduction and the debt ceiling talks are concerned," Willis said. Republican House Speaker John Boehner is demanding major spending cuts in exchange for any agreement to raise the debt limit. But President Barack Obama calls that - irresponsible. "If congressional Republicans refuse to pay America's bills on time, Social Security checks and veteran's benefits will be delayed. We might not be able to pay our troops or honor our contracts with small business owners," Obama said. The government would be unable to pay the interest on its debts -- creating massive turmoil in world markets. But analysts say the damage is already done. "If you're a business and you are about to hire 100 new employees but are not sure what is going to happen with the debt ceiling, you're going to wait until the situation has passed. So as Congress is bickering, it's really kind of like pulling back the reins on the horse and not letting the horse run," said financial adviser Frank Reilly. The last budget battle in 2011 resulted in the first credit downgrade of U.S. debt. Although investors continued to buy U.S. bonds, Marc Goldwein at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget says another downgrade could damage U.S. credibility. "A downgrade from 'Triple A' to 'Double A' by itself doesn't usually have that much of an effect. It's basically saying instead of your bonds being really good, it's very good. That's basically how they qualify it. The danger is - what about the next downgrade, and the next one?," Goldwein said. House Speaker John Boehner admits the consequences of not increasing the debt limit are real, but he says - so too are the consequences of allowing the country's spending to go unchecked.

<h4><strong>Economic crisis looms- U.S. is key to the global economy</h4><p>Arcega 13</p><p></strong>(Mark, Voice of America News “US Economy Faces Another Cliff” http://www.voanews.com/content/us-economy-fiscal-cliff/1586206.html, accessed 2/15/13,WYO/JF</p><p><u><strong>The U.S. may have avoided the fiscal cliff</u></strong>, <u><strong>but analysts say the last minute</u></strong> Congressional <u><strong>agreement</u></strong> at the start of the year to raise taxes on wealthy Americans and avoid massive spending cuts <u><strong>was only a temporary fix.</u></strong> Now, even as President Barack Obama begins his second term, <u><strong>another financial crisis is looming - one with potentially severe implications for the world's largest economy</u></strong>. <u><strong>The U.S. government has already reached the congressionaly imposed borrowing limit of $16.4 trillion</u></strong> and could run out of money by mid-February. New York trader Benedict Willis says the coming debate over raising the debt ceiling could be even more acrimonious. "Now we'll go from the talk of fiscal cliff, I'm sure we'll start talking about the St. Valentine's Day massacre because that's really the deadline we'll be looking at as far as the deficit reduction and the debt ceiling talks are concerned," Willis said. Republican House Speaker John Boehner is demanding major spending cuts in exchange for any agreement to raise the debt limit. But President Barack Obama calls that - irresponsible. "If congressional Republicans refuse to pay America's bills on time, Social Security checks and veteran's benefits will be delayed. We might not be able to pay our troops or honor our contracts with small business owners," Obama said. <u><strong>The government would be unable to pay the interest on its debts -- creating massive turmoil in world markets</u></strong>. But analysts say the damage is already done. "If you're a business and you are about to hire 100 new employees but are not sure what is going to happen with the debt ceiling, you're going to wait until the situation has passed. So as Congress is bickering, it's really kind of like pulling back the reins on the horse and not letting the horse run," said financial adviser Frank Reilly. The last budget battle in 2011 resulted in the first credit downgrade of U.S. debt. Although investors continued to buy U.S. bonds, Marc Goldwein at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget says another downgrade could damage U.S. credibility. "<u><strong>A downgrade from 'Triple A' to 'Double A' by itself doesn't usually have that much of an effect. It's basically saying instead of your bonds being really good, it's very good. </u></strong>That's basically how they qualify it. The danger is - what about the next downgrade, and the next one?," Goldwein said. House Speaker John Boehner admits the consequences of not increasing the debt limit are real, but he says - so too are the consequences of allowing the country's spending to go unchecked.</p>

Arcega 13

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Arcega 13 fulltext: (Mark, Voice of America News “US Economy Faces Another Cliff” http://www.voanews.com/content/us-economy-fiscal-cliff/1586206.html, accessed 2/15/13,WYO/JF The U.S. may have avoided the fiscal cliff, but analysts say the last minute Congressional agreement at the start of the year to raise taxes on wealthy Americans and avoid massive spending cuts was only a temporary fix. Now, even as President Barack Obama begins his second term, another financial crisis is looming - one with potentially severe implications for the world's largest economy. The U.S. government has already reached the congressionaly imposed borrowing limit of $16.4 trillion and could run out of money by mid-February. New York trader Benedict Willis says the coming debate over raising the debt ceiling could be even more acrimonious. "Now we'll go from the talk of fiscal cliff, I'm sure we'll start talking about the St. Valentine's Day massacre because that's really the deadline we'll be looking at as far as the deficit reduction and the debt ceiling talks are concerned," Willis said. Republican House Speaker John Boehner is demanding major spending cuts in exchange for any agreement to raise the debt limit. But President Barack Obama calls that - irresponsible. "If congressional Republicans refuse to pay America's bills on time, Social Security checks and veteran's benefits will be delayed. We might not be able to pay our troops or honor our contracts with small business owners," Obama said. The government would be unable to pay the interest on its debts -- creating massive turmoil in world markets. But analysts say the damage is already done. "If you're a business and you are about to hire 100 new employees but are not sure what is going to happen with the debt ceiling, you're going to wait until the situation has passed. So as Congress is bickering, it's really kind of like pulling back the reins on the horse and not letting the horse run," said financial adviser Frank Reilly. The last budget battle in 2011 resulted in the first credit downgrade of U.S. debt. Although investors continued to buy U.S. bonds, Marc Goldwein at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget says another downgrade could damage U.S. credibility. "A downgrade from 'Triple A' to 'Double A' by itself doesn't usually have that much of an effect. It's basically saying instead of your bonds being really good, it's very good. That's basically how they qualify it. The danger is - what about the next downgrade, and the next one?," Goldwein said. House Speaker John Boehner admits the consequences of not increasing the debt limit are real, but he says - so too are the consequences of allowing the country's spending to go unchecked. [/INST] <h4><strong>Economic crisis looms- U.S. is key to the global economy</h4><p>Arcega 13</p><p></strong>(Mark, Voice of America News “US Economy Faces Another Cliff” http://www.voanews.com/content/us-economy-fiscal-cliff/1586206.html, accessed 2/15/13,WYO/JF</p><p><u><strong>The U.S. may have avoided the fiscal cliff</u></strong>, <u><strong>but analysts say the last minute</u></strong> Congressional <u><strong>agreement</u></strong> at the start of the year to raise taxes on wealthy Americans and avoid massive spending cuts <u><strong>was only a temporary fix.</u></strong> Now, even as President Barack Obama begins his second term, <u><strong>another financial crisis is looming - one with potentially severe implications for the world's largest economy</u></strong>. <u><strong>The U.S. government has already reached the congressionaly imposed borrowing limit of $16.4 trillion</u></strong> and could run out of money by mid-February. New York trader Benedict Willis says the coming debate over raising the debt ceiling could be even more acrimonious. "Now we'll go from the talk of fiscal cliff, I'm sure we'll start talking about the St. Valentine's Day massacre because that's really the deadline we'll be looking at as far as the deficit reduction and the debt ceiling talks are concerned," Willis said. Republican House Speaker John Boehner is demanding major spending cuts in exchange for any agreement to raise the debt limit. But President Barack Obama calls that - irresponsible. "If congressional Republicans refuse to pay America's bills on time, Social Security checks and veteran's benefits will be delayed. We might not be able to pay our troops or honor our contracts with small business owners," Obama said. <u><strong>The government would be unable to pay the interest on its debts -- creating massive turmoil in world markets</u></strong>. But analysts say the damage is already done. "If you're a business and you are about to hire 100 new employees but are not sure what is going to happen with the debt ceiling, you're going to wait until the situation has passed. So as Congress is bickering, it's really kind of like pulling back the reins on the horse and not letting the horse run," said financial adviser Frank Reilly. The last budget battle in 2011 resulted in the first credit downgrade of U.S. debt. Although investors continued to buy U.S. bonds, Marc Goldwein at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget says another downgrade could damage U.S. credibility. "<u><strong>A downgrade from 'Triple A' to 'Double A' by itself doesn't usually have that much of an effect. It's basically saying instead of your bonds being really good, it's very good. </u></strong>That's basically how they qualify it. The danger is - what about the next downgrade, and the next one?," Goldwein said. House Speaker John Boehner admits the consequences of not increasing the debt limit are real, but he says - so too are the consequences of allowing the country's spending to go unchecked.</p> </s>

Cuban health care strong – lots of positive trends

This highly structured, prevention-oriented system has produced positive results. Vaccination rates in Cuba are among the highest in the world. The life expectancy is virtually identical to that in the U S The infant mortality rate in Cuba has fallen lower than the U.S. rate, Cuba’s literacy rate is 99%, and health education is part of the mandatory school curriculum.

This highly structured, prevention-oriented system has produced positive results. Vaccination rates in Cuba are among the highest in the world. The life expectancy of 78 years from birth is virtually identical to that in the United States. The infant mortality rate in Cuba has fallen from more than 80 per 1000 live births in the 1950s to less than 5 per 1000 — lower than the U.S. rate, although the maternal mortality rate remains well above those in developed countries and is in the middle of the range for Caribbean countries.3,4 Without doubt, the improved health outcomes are largely the result of improvements in nutrition and education, which address the social determinants of health. Cuba’s literacy rate is 99%, and health education is part of the mandatory school curriculum. A recent national program to promote acceptance of men who have sex with men was designed in part to reduce rates of sexually transmitted disease and improve acceptance of and adherence to treatment. Cigarettes can no longer be obtained with monthly ration cards, and smoking rates have decreased, though local health teams say it remains difficult to get smokers to quit. Contraception is free and strongly encouraged. Abortion is legal but is seen as a failure of prevention.

<h4>Cuban health care strong – lots of positive trends </h4><p><strong>Campion</strong> M.D. <strong>& Morrissey</strong> Ph.D. <strong>2013</strong> Edward & Stephen “A Different Model — Medical Care in Cuba” New England Journal of Medicine http://www.sld.cu/galerias/pdf/sitios/santiagodecuba/nejmp1215226_1.pdf</p><p><u><strong>This highly structured, prevention-oriented system has produced positive results. Vaccination rates in Cuba are among the highest in the world. The life expectancy</u></strong> of 78 years from birth <u><strong>is virtually identical to that in the U</u></strong>nited <u><strong>S</u></strong>tates. <u><strong>The infant mortality rate in Cuba has fallen</u></strong> from more than 80 per 1000 live births in the 1950s to less than 5 per 1000 — <u><strong>lower than the U.S. rate,</u></strong> although the maternal mortality rate remains well above those in developed countries and is in the middle of the range for Caribbean countries.3,4 Without doubt, the improved health outcomes are largely the result of improvements in nutrition and education, which address the social determinants of health. <u><strong>Cuba’s literacy rate is 99%, and health education is part of the mandatory school curriculum.</u></strong> A recent national program to promote acceptance of men who have sex with men was designed in part to reduce rates of sexually transmitted disease and improve acceptance of and adherence to treatment. Cigarettes can no longer be obtained with monthly ration cards, and smoking rates have decreased, though local health teams say it remains difficult to get smokers to quit. Contraception is free and strongly encouraged. Abortion is legal but is seen as a failure of prevention.</p>

Campion M.D. & Morrissey Ph.D. 2013 Edward & Stephen “A Different Model — Medical Care in Cuba” New England Journal of Medicine http://www.sld.cu/galerias/pdf/sitios/santiagodecuba/nejmp1215226_1.pdf

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Campion M.D. & Morrissey Ph.D. 2013 Edward & Stephen “A Different Model — Medical Care in Cuba” New England Journal of Medicine http://www.sld.cu/galerias/pdf/sitios/santiagodecuba/nejmp1215226_1.pdf fulltext: This highly structured, prevention-oriented system has produced positive results. Vaccination rates in Cuba are among the highest in the world. The life expectancy of 78 years from birth is virtually identical to that in the United States. The infant mortality rate in Cuba has fallen from more than 80 per 1000 live births in the 1950s to less than 5 per 1000 — lower than the U.S. rate, although the maternal mortality rate remains well above those in developed countries and is in the middle of the range for Caribbean countries.3,4 Without doubt, the improved health outcomes are largely the result of improvements in nutrition and education, which address the social determinants of health. Cuba’s literacy rate is 99%, and health education is part of the mandatory school curriculum. A recent national program to promote acceptance of men who have sex with men was designed in part to reduce rates of sexually transmitted disease and improve acceptance of and adherence to treatment. Cigarettes can no longer be obtained with monthly ration cards, and smoking rates have decreased, though local health teams say it remains difficult to get smokers to quit. Contraception is free and strongly encouraged. Abortion is legal but is seen as a failure of prevention. [/INST] <h4>Cuban health care strong – lots of positive trends </h4><p><strong>Campion</strong> M.D. <strong>& Morrissey</strong> Ph.D. <strong>2013</strong> Edward & Stephen “A Different Model — Medical Care in Cuba” New England Journal of Medicine http://www.sld.cu/galerias/pdf/sitios/santiagodecuba/nejmp1215226_1.pdf</p><p><u><strong>This highly structured, prevention-oriented system has produced positive results. Vaccination rates in Cuba are among the highest in the world. The life expectancy</u></strong> of 78 years from birth <u><strong>is virtually identical to that in the U</u></strong>nited <u><strong>S</u></strong>tates. <u><strong>The infant mortality rate in Cuba has fallen</u></strong> from more than 80 per 1000 live births in the 1950s to less than 5 per 1000 — <u><strong>lower than the U.S. rate,</u></strong> although the maternal mortality rate remains well above those in developed countries and is in the middle of the range for Caribbean countries.3,4 Without doubt, the improved health outcomes are largely the result of improvements in nutrition and education, which address the social determinants of health. <u><strong>Cuba’s literacy rate is 99%, and health education is part of the mandatory school curriculum.</u></strong> A recent national program to promote acceptance of men who have sex with men was designed in part to reduce rates of sexually transmitted disease and improve acceptance of and adherence to treatment. Cigarettes can no longer be obtained with monthly ration cards, and smoking rates have decreased, though local health teams say it remains difficult to get smokers to quit. Contraception is free and strongly encouraged. Abortion is legal but is seen as a failure of prevention.</p> </s>

Chinese presence in Cuba key to lift millions out of poverty

Chinese leadership has been able to lift 300-500 million people out of poverty and create a middle class estimated at around 180-200 million people which gives the country significant social stability the leadership of this Asian country is able to introduce, policy rectifications that are needed

(Carlos Alzugaray,”Continuity and political change in Cuba,” 2009, http://www.normangirvan.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/alzugaray-continuity-and-poltical-change.pdf) /wyo-mm Applying these practical principles, the Chinese leadership has been able to lift 300-500 million people out of poverty and create a middle class estimated at around 180-200 million people in a relatively short time, which gives the country a significant social stability. Certainly these achievements have not been free of negative elements, but it must be recognised, firstly, that there is no such thing as a perfect society and, secondly, that the leaders of the Chinese Communist Party are the first to recognise these difficulties. Given that they observe the principle that everything must be revised again and again, as Raul Castro proposes, the leadership of this Asian country is able to introduce, at any moment, the policy rectifications that are needed.

<h4><strong>Chinese presence in Cuba key to lift millions out of poverty</h4><p>Treto 09</p><p></strong>(Carlos Alzugaray,”Continuity and political change in Cuba,” 2009, http://www.normangirvan.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/alzugaray-continuity-and-poltical-change.pdf) /wyo-mm </p><p>Applying these practical principles, the <u><strong>Chinese leadership has been able to lift 300-500 million people out of poverty and create a middle class estimated at around 180-200 million people</u></strong> in a relatively short time, <u><strong>which gives the country</u></strong> a <u><strong>significant social stability</u></strong>. Certainly these achievements have not been free of negative elements, but it must be recognised, firstly, that there is no such thing as a perfect society and, secondly, that the leaders of the Chinese Communist Party are the first to recognise these difficulties. Given that they observe the principle that everything must be revised again and again, as Raul Castro proposes, <u><strong>the leadership of this Asian country is able to introduce,</u></strong> at any moment, the <u><strong>policy rectifications that are needed</u></strong>.</p>

Treto 09

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Treto 09 fulltext: (Carlos Alzugaray,”Continuity and political change in Cuba,” 2009, http://www.normangirvan.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/alzugaray-continuity-and-poltical-change.pdf) /wyo-mm Applying these practical principles, the Chinese leadership has been able to lift 300-500 million people out of poverty and create a middle class estimated at around 180-200 million people in a relatively short time, which gives the country a significant social stability. Certainly these achievements have not been free of negative elements, but it must be recognised, firstly, that there is no such thing as a perfect society and, secondly, that the leaders of the Chinese Communist Party are the first to recognise these difficulties. Given that they observe the principle that everything must be revised again and again, as Raul Castro proposes, the leadership of this Asian country is able to introduce, at any moment, the policy rectifications that are needed. [/INST] <h4><strong>Chinese presence in Cuba key to lift millions out of poverty</h4><p>Treto 09</p><p></strong>(Carlos Alzugaray,”Continuity and political change in Cuba,” 2009, http://www.normangirvan.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/alzugaray-continuity-and-poltical-change.pdf) /wyo-mm </p><p>Applying these practical principles, the <u><strong>Chinese leadership has been able to lift 300-500 million people out of poverty and create a middle class estimated at around 180-200 million people</u></strong> in a relatively short time, <u><strong>which gives the country</u></strong> a <u><strong>significant social stability</u></strong>. Certainly these achievements have not been free of negative elements, but it must be recognised, firstly, that there is no such thing as a perfect society and, secondly, that the leaders of the Chinese Communist Party are the first to recognise these difficulties. Given that they observe the principle that everything must be revised again and again, as Raul Castro proposes, <u><strong>the leadership of this Asian country is able to introduce,</u></strong> at any moment, the <u><strong>policy rectifications that are needed</u></strong>.</p> </s>

Cuba is on the verge of deepwater oil drilling – making an a short-term environmental catastrophe a likelyhood

Cuba could be drilling for oil off its shores for the first time, as soon as next year. Spanish company Repsol plans to drill exploratory wells in waters 5,600 feet deep about 22 miles off Havana. companies say they at least want to be able to help. You know, just in case Cuba experiences an offshore oil incident similar to our Gulf disaster. As rookies, Cuba lacks submersible robots, drilling platforms and other forms of deepwater clean-up capacity. Should a spill occur there, marine scientists have been reported estimating that oil could reach Florida within 3 days, and possibly get swept into the Gulf Stream. Cuba needs a rapid response spill plan before any drilling commences.

Cuba could be drilling for oil off its shores for the first time, as soon as next year. Spanish company Repsol plans to drill exploratory wells in waters 5,600 feet deep about 22 miles off Havana. Not surprisingly, American companies—still awaiting the BP blowout-inspired ban on offshore drilling to lift on November 30—want in. But the 1960s trade embargo with the communist state won’t allow it. According to McClatchy Newspapers, any ship or rig comprised of more than 10 percent U.S. parts can’t operate in Cuba. (Repsol will use an Italian rig equipped with an American-made blowout preventer only.) In the face of the embargo and possibly in the hopes of easing it, companies say they at least want to be able to help. You know, just in case Cuba experiences an offshore oil incident similar to our Gulf disaster. As rookies, Cuba lacks submersible robots, drilling platforms and other forms of deepwater clean-up capacity. Even with the experience and this technology (and some golf balls?), the U.S. took about 5 months to plug BP’s well. And the area where Repsol will be drilling is about 60 miles from the Florida Keys. Should a spill occur there, marine scientists have been reported estimating that oil could reach Florida within 3 days, and possibly get swept into the Gulf Stream. The New York Times: The prospect of an accident is emboldening American drilling companies, backed by some critics of the embargo, to seek permission from the United States government to participate in Cuba’s nascent industry, even if only to protect against an accident. [....] Any opening could provide a convenient wedge for big American oil companies that have quietly lobbied Congress for years to allow them to bid for oil and natural gas deposits in waters off Cuba. Representatives of Exxon Mobil and Valero Energy attended an energy conference on Cuba in Mexico City in 2006, where they met Cuban oil officials. Cuba, like many Caribbean islands, currently relies heavily on oil imports from Venezuela. After April’s Gulf spill, the government office that enforces foreign economic sanctions said licenses for American companies to aid Cuba’s offshore efforts could be granted in emergency situations. To put it mildly, the sentiments surrounding this issue—offshore drilling, communism, environment, employment, economic sanctions, humanitarian efforts—run deep. But whatever the political implications, Cuba needs a rapid response spill plan before any drilling commences.

<h4>Cuba is on the verge of deepwater oil drilling – making an a short-term environmental catastrophe a likelyhood</h4><p><strong>Mahony 10<u> (Melisa, "An offshore Cuban oil crisis," Smartplanet, October 1, http://www.smartplanet.com/business/blog/intelligent-energy/a-offshore-cuban-oil-crisis/2944/)</p><p>Cuba could be drilling for oil off its shores for the first time, as soon as next year. Spanish company Repsol plans to drill exploratory wells in waters 5,600 feet deep about 22 miles off Havana. </u></strong>Not surprisingly, American companies—still awaiting the BP blowout-inspired ban on offshore drilling to lift on November 30—want in. But the 1960s trade embargo with the communist state won’t allow it. According to McClatchy Newspapers, any ship or rig comprised of more than 10 percent U.S. parts can’t operate in Cuba. (Repsol will use an Italian rig equipped with an American-made blowout preventer only.) In the face of the embargo and possibly in the hopes of easing it, <u><strong>companies say they at least want to be able to help. You know, just in case Cuba experiences an offshore oil incident similar to our Gulf disaster. As rookies, Cuba lacks submersible robots, drilling platforms and other forms of deepwater clean-up capacity. </u></strong>Even with the experience and this technology (and some golf balls?), the U.S. took about 5 months to plug BP’s well. And the area where Repsol will be drilling is about 60 miles from the Florida Keys. <u><strong>Should a spill occur there, marine scientists have been reported estimating that oil could reach Florida within 3 days, and possibly get swept into the Gulf Stream. </u></strong>The New York Times: The prospect of an accident is emboldening American drilling companies, backed by some critics of the embargo, to seek permission from the United States government to participate in Cuba’s nascent industry, even if only to protect against an accident. [....] Any opening could provide a convenient wedge for big American oil companies that have quietly lobbied Congress for years to allow them to bid for oil and natural gas deposits in waters off Cuba. Representatives of Exxon Mobil and Valero Energy attended an energy conference on Cuba in Mexico City in 2006, where they met Cuban oil officials. Cuba, like many Caribbean islands, currently relies heavily on oil imports from Venezuela. After April’s Gulf spill, the government office that enforces foreign economic sanctions said licenses for American companies to aid Cuba’s offshore efforts could be granted in emergency situations. To put it mildly, the sentiments surrounding this issue—offshore drilling, communism, environment, employment, economic sanctions, humanitarian efforts—run deep. But whatever the political implications, <u><strong>Cuba needs a rapid response spill plan before any drilling commences.</p></u></strong>

Mahony 10 (Melisa, "An offshore Cuban oil crisis," Smartplanet, October 1, http://www.smartplanet.com/business/blog/intelligent-energy/a-offshore-cuban-oil-crisis/2944/)

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Mahony 10 (Melisa, "An offshore Cuban oil crisis," Smartplanet, October 1, http://www.smartplanet.com/business/blog/intelligent-energy/a-offshore-cuban-oil-crisis/2944/) fulltext: Cuba could be drilling for oil off its shores for the first time, as soon as next year. Spanish company Repsol plans to drill exploratory wells in waters 5,600 feet deep about 22 miles off Havana. Not surprisingly, American companies—still awaiting the BP blowout-inspired ban on offshore drilling to lift on November 30—want in. But the 1960s trade embargo with the communist state won’t allow it. According to McClatchy Newspapers, any ship or rig comprised of more than 10 percent U.S. parts can’t operate in Cuba. (Repsol will use an Italian rig equipped with an American-made blowout preventer only.) In the face of the embargo and possibly in the hopes of easing it, companies say they at least want to be able to help. You know, just in case Cuba experiences an offshore oil incident similar to our Gulf disaster. As rookies, Cuba lacks submersible robots, drilling platforms and other forms of deepwater clean-up capacity. Even with the experience and this technology (and some golf balls?), the U.S. took about 5 months to plug BP’s well. And the area where Repsol will be drilling is about 60 miles from the Florida Keys. Should a spill occur there, marine scientists have been reported estimating that oil could reach Florida within 3 days, and possibly get swept into the Gulf Stream. The New York Times: The prospect of an accident is emboldening American drilling companies, backed by some critics of the embargo, to seek permission from the United States government to participate in Cuba’s nascent industry, even if only to protect against an accident. [....] Any opening could provide a convenient wedge for big American oil companies that have quietly lobbied Congress for years to allow them to bid for oil and natural gas deposits in waters off Cuba. Representatives of Exxon Mobil and Valero Energy attended an energy conference on Cuba in Mexico City in 2006, where they met Cuban oil officials. Cuba, like many Caribbean islands, currently relies heavily on oil imports from Venezuela. After April’s Gulf spill, the government office that enforces foreign economic sanctions said licenses for American companies to aid Cuba’s offshore efforts could be granted in emergency situations. To put it mildly, the sentiments surrounding this issue—offshore drilling, communism, environment, employment, economic sanctions, humanitarian efforts—run deep. But whatever the political implications, Cuba needs a rapid response spill plan before any drilling commences. [/INST] <h4>Cuba is on the verge of deepwater oil drilling – making an a short-term environmental catastrophe a likelyhood</h4><p><strong>Mahony 10<u> (Melisa, "An offshore Cuban oil crisis," Smartplanet, October 1, http://www.smartplanet.com/business/blog/intelligent-energy/a-offshore-cuban-oil-crisis/2944/)</p><p>Cuba could be drilling for oil off its shores for the first time, as soon as next year. Spanish company Repsol plans to drill exploratory wells in waters 5,600 feet deep about 22 miles off Havana. </u></strong>Not surprisingly, American companies—still awaiting the BP blowout-inspired ban on offshore drilling to lift on November 30—want in. But the 1960s trade embargo with the communist state won’t allow it. According to McClatchy Newspapers, any ship or rig comprised of more than 10 percent U.S. parts can’t operate in Cuba. (Repsol will use an Italian rig equipped with an American-made blowout preventer only.) In the face of the embargo and possibly in the hopes of easing it, <u><strong>companies say they at least want to be able to help. You know, just in case Cuba experiences an offshore oil incident similar to our Gulf disaster. As rookies, Cuba lacks submersible robots, drilling platforms and other forms of deepwater clean-up capacity. </u></strong>Even with the experience and this technology (and some golf balls?), the U.S. took about 5 months to plug BP’s well. And the area where Repsol will be drilling is about 60 miles from the Florida Keys. <u><strong>Should a spill occur there, marine scientists have been reported estimating that oil could reach Florida within 3 days, and possibly get swept into the Gulf Stream. </u></strong>The New York Times: The prospect of an accident is emboldening American drilling companies, backed by some critics of the embargo, to seek permission from the United States government to participate in Cuba’s nascent industry, even if only to protect against an accident. [....] Any opening could provide a convenient wedge for big American oil companies that have quietly lobbied Congress for years to allow them to bid for oil and natural gas deposits in waters off Cuba. Representatives of Exxon Mobil and Valero Energy attended an energy conference on Cuba in Mexico City in 2006, where they met Cuban oil officials. Cuba, like many Caribbean islands, currently relies heavily on oil imports from Venezuela. After April’s Gulf spill, the government office that enforces foreign economic sanctions said licenses for American companies to aid Cuba’s offshore efforts could be granted in emergency situations. To put it mildly, the sentiments surrounding this issue—offshore drilling, communism, environment, employment, economic sanctions, humanitarian efforts—run deep. But whatever the political implications, <u><strong>Cuba needs a rapid response spill plan before any drilling commences.</p></u></strong> </s>

Trade to Latin America is Key to the U.S. economy

http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD2012PolicyReportFINAL.pdf Expanded trade offer the greatest promise for robust US-Latin American relations . these areas have seen tremendous growth and development, driven chiefly by the private sector . The US government needs to better appreciate the rising importance of Latin America with its expanding markets for US exports, burgeoning opportunities for US investments, for the longer term performance of the US economy

“Remaking the Relationship¶ the United States and Latin America” http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD2012PolicyReportFINAL.pdf, accessed 6/11/13,WYO/JF Expanded trade, investment, and energy cooperation offer the greatest promise for robust US-Latin American relations . Independent of ¶ government policies, these areas have seen tremendous growth and development, driven chiefly by the private sector . The US government needs to ¶ better appreciate the rising importance of Latin America—with its expanding markets for US exports, burgeoning opportunities for US investments, ¶ enormous reserves of energy and minerals, and continuing supply of ¶ needed labor—for the longer term performance of the US economy.

<h4><strong>Trade to Latin America is Key to the U.S. economy</h4><p>Sol M . Linowitz Forum, 12</p><p></strong>Inter-American Dialogue 2012</p><p>“Remaking the Relationship¶ the United States and Latin America” <u>http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD2012PolicyReportFINAL.pdf</u>, accessed 6/11/13,WYO/JF</p><p><u><strong>Expanded trade</u></strong>, investment, and energy cooperation <u><strong>offer the greatest promise for robust US-Latin American relations .</u></strong> Independent of ¶ government policies, <u><strong>these areas have seen tremendous growth and development, driven chiefly by the private sector . The US government needs to </u></strong>¶<u><strong> better appreciate the rising importance of Latin America</u></strong>—<u><strong>with its expanding markets for US exports, burgeoning opportunities for US investments, </u></strong>¶ enormous reserves of energy and minerals, and continuing supply of ¶ needed labor—<u><strong>for the longer term performance of the US economy</u>. </p></strong>

Sol M . Linowitz Forum, 12 Inter-American Dialogue 2012

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Sol M . Linowitz Forum, 12 Inter-American Dialogue 2012 fulltext: “Remaking the Relationship¶ the United States and Latin America” http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD2012PolicyReportFINAL.pdf, accessed 6/11/13,WYO/JF Expanded trade, investment, and energy cooperation offer the greatest promise for robust US-Latin American relations . Independent of ¶ government policies, these areas have seen tremendous growth and development, driven chiefly by the private sector . The US government needs to ¶ better appreciate the rising importance of Latin America—with its expanding markets for US exports, burgeoning opportunities for US investments, ¶ enormous reserves of energy and minerals, and continuing supply of ¶ needed labor—for the longer term performance of the US economy. [/INST] <h4><strong>Trade to Latin America is Key to the U.S. economy</h4><p>Sol M . Linowitz Forum, 12</p><p></strong>Inter-American Dialogue 2012</p><p>“Remaking the Relationship¶ the United States and Latin America” <u>http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD2012PolicyReportFINAL.pdf</u>, accessed 6/11/13,WYO/JF</p><p><u><strong>Expanded trade</u></strong>, investment, and energy cooperation <u><strong>offer the greatest promise for robust US-Latin American relations .</u></strong> Independent of ¶ government policies, <u><strong>these areas have seen tremendous growth and development, driven chiefly by the private sector . The US government needs to </u></strong>¶<u><strong> better appreciate the rising importance of Latin America</u></strong>—<u><strong>with its expanding markets for US exports, burgeoning opportunities for US investments, </u></strong>¶ enormous reserves of energy and minerals, and continuing supply of ¶ needed labor—<u><strong>for the longer term performance of the US economy</u>. </p></strong> </s>

Lifting the embargo causes Cuban medical brain drain

Today, Cuba's major industries- and health care--are fragile. Cubans blame the long-standing U.S. trade embargo for some of these strains and are wildly optimistic about the transformations that will come once the embargo is lifted. Overlooked in these dreamy discussions of lifestyle improvements, however, is that Cuba's health-care industry will likely be radically affected by any serious easing in trade and travel restrictions between the United States and Cuba. If policymakers on both sides of the Florida Straits do not take great care, the tiny Caribbean nation could swiftly be robbed of its greatest triumph First, its public health network could be devastated by an exodus of thousands of well-trained Cuban physicians and nurses. Second, for-profit U.S. companies could transform the remaining health-care system into a prime destination for medical tourism from abroad. The very strategies that the Cuban government has employed to develop its system into a major success story have rendered it ripe for the plucking by the U.S. medical industry and by foreigners eager for affordable, elective surgeries in a sunny climate. In short, although the U.S. embargo strains Cuba's healthcare system and its overall economy, it may be the better of two bad options

[Laurie, LAURIE GARRETT is Senior Fellow for Global Health at the Council on Foreign Relations, Castrocare in crisis: will lifting the embargo make things worse?, Foreign Affairs. 89.4 (July-August 2010): p61, Accessed online via academic onefile] /Wyo-MB Cuba's economic situation has been dire since 1989, when the country lost its Soviet benefactors and its economy experienced a 35 percent contraction. Today, Cuba's major industries--tourism, nickel mining, tobacco and rum production, and health care--are fragile. Cubans blame the long-standing U.S. trade embargo for some of these strains and are wildly optimistic about the transformations that will come once the embargo is lifted. Overlooked in these dreamy discussions of lifestyle improvements, however, is that Cuba's health-care industry will likely be radically affected by any serious easing in trade and travel restrictions between the United States and Cuba. If policymakers on both sides of the Florida Straits do not take great care, the tiny Caribbean nation could swiftly be robbed of its greatest triumph. First, its public health network could be devastated by an exodus of thousands of well-trained Cuban physicians and nurses. Second, for-profit U.S. companies could transform the remaining health-care system into a prime destination for medical tourism from abroad. The very strategies that the Cuban government has employed to develop its system into a major success story have rendered it ripe for the plucking by the U.S. medical industry and by foreigners eager for affordable, elective surgeries in a sunny climate. In short, although the U.S. embargo strains Cuba's healthcare system and its overall economy, it may be the better of two bad options.

<h4><strong>Lifting the embargo causes Cuban medical brain drain</h4><p>Garett, 2010</p><p></strong>[Laurie, LAURIE GARRETT is Senior Fellow for Global Health at the Council on Foreign Relations, Castrocare in crisis: will lifting the embargo make things worse?, Foreign Affairs. 89.4 (July-August 2010): p61, Accessed online via academic onefile] /Wyo-MB</p><p>Cuba's economic situation has been dire since 1989, when the country lost its Soviet benefactors and its economy experienced a 35 percent contraction. <u><strong>Today, Cuba's major industries-</u></strong>-tourism, nickel mining, tobacco and rum production, <u><strong>and health care--are fragile. Cubans blame the long-standing U.S. trade embargo for some of these strains and are wildly optimistic about the transformations that will come once the embargo is lifted. Overlooked in these dreamy discussions of lifestyle improvements, however, is that Cuba's health-care industry will likely be radically affected by any serious easing in trade and travel restrictions between the United States and Cuba. If policymakers on both sides of the Florida Straits do not take great care, the tiny Caribbean nation could swiftly be robbed of its greatest triumph</u></strong>. <u><strong>First, its public health network could be devastated by an exodus of thousands of well-trained Cuban physicians and nurses. Second, for-profit U.S. companies could transform the remaining health-care system into a prime destination for medical tourism from abroad. The very strategies that the Cuban government has employed to develop its system into a major success story have rendered it ripe for the plucking by the U.S. medical industry and by foreigners eager for affordable, elective surgeries in a sunny climate. In short, although the U.S. embargo strains Cuba's healthcare system and its overall economy, it may be the better of two bad options</u></strong>.</p>

Garett, 2010

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Garett, 2010 fulltext: [Laurie, LAURIE GARRETT is Senior Fellow for Global Health at the Council on Foreign Relations, Castrocare in crisis: will lifting the embargo make things worse?, Foreign Affairs. 89.4 (July-August 2010): p61, Accessed online via academic onefile] /Wyo-MB Cuba's economic situation has been dire since 1989, when the country lost its Soviet benefactors and its economy experienced a 35 percent contraction. Today, Cuba's major industries--tourism, nickel mining, tobacco and rum production, and health care--are fragile. Cubans blame the long-standing U.S. trade embargo for some of these strains and are wildly optimistic about the transformations that will come once the embargo is lifted. Overlooked in these dreamy discussions of lifestyle improvements, however, is that Cuba's health-care industry will likely be radically affected by any serious easing in trade and travel restrictions between the United States and Cuba. If policymakers on both sides of the Florida Straits do not take great care, the tiny Caribbean nation could swiftly be robbed of its greatest triumph. First, its public health network could be devastated by an exodus of thousands of well-trained Cuban physicians and nurses. Second, for-profit U.S. companies could transform the remaining health-care system into a prime destination for medical tourism from abroad. The very strategies that the Cuban government has employed to develop its system into a major success story have rendered it ripe for the plucking by the U.S. medical industry and by foreigners eager for affordable, elective surgeries in a sunny climate. In short, although the U.S. embargo strains Cuba's healthcare system and its overall economy, it may be the better of two bad options. [/INST] <h4><strong>Lifting the embargo causes Cuban medical brain drain</h4><p>Garett, 2010</p><p></strong>[Laurie, LAURIE GARRETT is Senior Fellow for Global Health at the Council on Foreign Relations, Castrocare in crisis: will lifting the embargo make things worse?, Foreign Affairs. 89.4 (July-August 2010): p61, Accessed online via academic onefile] /Wyo-MB</p><p>Cuba's economic situation has been dire since 1989, when the country lost its Soviet benefactors and its economy experienced a 35 percent contraction. <u><strong>Today, Cuba's major industries-</u></strong>-tourism, nickel mining, tobacco and rum production, <u><strong>and health care--are fragile. Cubans blame the long-standing U.S. trade embargo for some of these strains and are wildly optimistic about the transformations that will come once the embargo is lifted. Overlooked in these dreamy discussions of lifestyle improvements, however, is that Cuba's health-care industry will likely be radically affected by any serious easing in trade and travel restrictions between the United States and Cuba. If policymakers on both sides of the Florida Straits do not take great care, the tiny Caribbean nation could swiftly be robbed of its greatest triumph</u></strong>. <u><strong>First, its public health network could be devastated by an exodus of thousands of well-trained Cuban physicians and nurses. Second, for-profit U.S. companies could transform the remaining health-care system into a prime destination for medical tourism from abroad. The very strategies that the Cuban government has employed to develop its system into a major success story have rendered it ripe for the plucking by the U.S. medical industry and by foreigners eager for affordable, elective surgeries in a sunny climate. In short, although the U.S. embargo strains Cuba's healthcare system and its overall economy, it may be the better of two bad options</u></strong>.</p> </s>

No impact to your heg scenarios- China has no intention of infringing on relations with the US

Chinese officials have been careful to avoid any connection — rhetorical or otherwise — to flare-ups between Havana and its northern neighbor. "China does not want to get itself involved with the bilateral relationship between Cuba and the U.S.,'' said Jiang Shixue, a senior analyst and administrator at the government-funded Chinese Academy of Social Sciences China wants to do business. If you put economic cooperation and political interference in the same basket, things will be terrible

(Tom, McClatchy Newspapers, “'Old friends' Cuba, China strengthen ties,” September 16, 2009, http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2009/09/16/75560/old-friends-cuba-china-strengthen.html#.UcD9F_mThSQ) /wyo-mm Mindful that America has maintained an embargo against Cuba for more than 45 years, Chinese officials have been careful to avoid any connection — rhetorical or otherwise — to flare-ups between Havana and its northern neighbor. "China does not want to get itself involved with the bilateral relationship between Cuba and the U.S.,'' said Jiang Shixue, a senior analyst and administrator at the government-funded Chinese Academy of Social Sciences who's a previous deputy director of its Latin America studies program. "China wants to do business. If you put economic cooperation and political interference in the same basket, things will be terrible.''

<h4><strong>No impact to your heg scenarios- China has no intention of infringing on relations with the US</h4><p>Lasseter 09</p><p></strong>(Tom, McClatchy Newspapers, “'Old friends' Cuba, China strengthen ties,” September 16, 2009, http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2009/09/16/75560/old-friends-cuba-china-strengthen.html#.UcD9F_mThSQ) /wyo-mm</p><p>Mindful that America has maintained an embargo against Cuba for more than 45 years, <u><strong>Chinese officials have been careful to avoid any connection — rhetorical or otherwise — to flare-ups between Havana and its northern neighbor. "China does not want to get itself involved with the bilateral relationship between Cuba and the U.S.,'' said Jiang Shixue, a senior analyst and administrator at the government-funded Chinese Academy of Social Sciences</u></strong> who's a previous deputy director of its Latin America studies program. "<u><strong>China wants to do business. If you put economic cooperation and political interference in the same basket, things will be terrible</u></strong>.''</p>

Lasseter 09

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Lasseter 09 fulltext: (Tom, McClatchy Newspapers, “'Old friends' Cuba, China strengthen ties,” September 16, 2009, http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2009/09/16/75560/old-friends-cuba-china-strengthen.html#.UcD9F_mThSQ) /wyo-mm Mindful that America has maintained an embargo against Cuba for more than 45 years, Chinese officials have been careful to avoid any connection — rhetorical or otherwise — to flare-ups between Havana and its northern neighbor. "China does not want to get itself involved with the bilateral relationship between Cuba and the U.S.,'' said Jiang Shixue, a senior analyst and administrator at the government-funded Chinese Academy of Social Sciences who's a previous deputy director of its Latin America studies program. "China wants to do business. If you put economic cooperation and political interference in the same basket, things will be terrible.'' [/INST] <h4><strong>No impact to your heg scenarios- China has no intention of infringing on relations with the US</h4><p>Lasseter 09</p><p></strong>(Tom, McClatchy Newspapers, “'Old friends' Cuba, China strengthen ties,” September 16, 2009, http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2009/09/16/75560/old-friends-cuba-china-strengthen.html#.UcD9F_mThSQ) /wyo-mm</p><p>Mindful that America has maintained an embargo against Cuba for more than 45 years, <u><strong>Chinese officials have been careful to avoid any connection — rhetorical or otherwise — to flare-ups between Havana and its northern neighbor. "China does not want to get itself involved with the bilateral relationship between Cuba and the U.S.,'' said Jiang Shixue, a senior analyst and administrator at the government-funded Chinese Academy of Social Sciences</u></strong> who's a previous deputy director of its Latin America studies program. "<u><strong>China wants to do business. If you put economic cooperation and political interference in the same basket, things will be terrible</u></strong>.''</p> </s>

Even if no oil spill occurs – normalizing relations with Cuba is key to encouraging global environmental sustainability

Cuba’s abundant natural resources need to be protected with heightened vigilance Lifting the trade embargo would open up the possibility for a constructive partnership between Cuba and the U.S. by developing compatible and sustainable environmental policies •With the support of the U.S., Cuba could become a model for sustainable preservation and environmental protection on a global scale Cuba is a priceless ecological resource. The United States should capitalize on its proximity to this resource-rich island nation by Smoving to normalize relations and establishing a framework for environmental cooperation Cuba is the most biologically diverse of all the Caribbean Islands. Since it lies just 90 miles south of the Florida Keys, where the Atlantic, the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico intersect President Obama is sincerely committed to environmental sustainability, he must forge international partnerships to implement this objective. Where better to begin than in the U.S.’s own backyard, where Cuba has a huge presence. Only then can Cuba and the United States move forward to find joint solutions to environmental challenges. , Cuba has 12 times more mammal species, 29 times as many amphibian and reptile species, 39 times more bird species, and 27 times as many vascular plant species adjacent ocean currents and the island nation’s close proximity, carry fish larvae into U.S. waters, making protection of Cuba’s coastal ecosystems vital to replenishing the U.S.’s ailing fisheries. Therefore, preserving the marine resources of Cuba is critical to the economic health of Fifty percent of its flora and 41 percent of its fauna are endemic, signifying the importance of protecting the island’s resources in order to safeguard the paradis Cuba and the U.S. can develop policies to combat the negative results coming from the exploitation of these resources. The increased extraction and refining of oil in Cuba could have detrimental effects on the environmen Excavation increases the possibility of oil spills, which would in turn destroy the surrounding ecosystem, including fisheries and coral reef formations. Washington must work with Cuba to create an ecological protection plan not only to establish an environmentally friendly public image, but to make it a reality as well. and if preservation and conservation measures are planned and carried out in a cognizant manner, it could become a paradigm for sustainable development at the global level. Obama’s modifications fall short of what it will take to reestablish a constructive U.S.-Cuba relationship. n environmental partnership between the U.S. and Cuba is not only possible, but could result in development models that could serve as an example for environmental strategies throughout the Americas. The U.S. has the economic resources necessary to aid Cuba in developing effective policy, while the island provides the space where sustainable systems can be implemented initially instead of being applied after the fact. Cuba’s extreme lack of development provides an unspoiled arena for the execution of exemplary sustainable environmental protection practices. This decline demonstrates that the U.S. has the framework to reverse Cuba’s substandard environmental track record. By aiding Havana, Washington would be able to brand itself as an active conservationist. Such a label would enable the U.S. to create a valuable ecological public image in the international arena. The key to a new dynamic in the U.S.-Cuba relationship might be to embark on a series of strategic actions that aim to establish a bilateral relationship for sustainable development and associated activities based on mutual respect and the autonomy of each country’s sovereignty and traditions.

•Cuba’s abundant natural resources need to be protected with heightened vigilance •Lifting the trade embargo would open up the possibility for a constructive partnership between Cuba and the U.S. by developing compatible and sustainable environmental policies •With the support of the U.S., Cuba could become a model for sustainable preservation and environmental protection on a global scale Through accidents of geography and history, Cuba is a priceless ecological resource. The United States should capitalize on its proximity to this resource-rich island nation by Smoving to normalize relations and establishing a framework for environmental cooperation and joint initiatives throughout the Americas. Cuba is the most biologically diverse of all the Caribbean Islands. Since it lies just 90 miles south of the Florida Keys, where the Atlantic, the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico intersect, the U.S. could play a key role in environmental conservation as well as the region in general. However, when it comes to environmental preservation, the Obama administration is obstructing progress and hindering any meaningful cooperation with its current U.S.- Cuba policy. Climate change and environmental degradation are two of the most pressing contemporary issues. If President Obama is sincerely committed to environmental sustainability, he must forge international partnerships to implement this objective. Where better to begin than in the U.S.’s own backyard, where Cuba has a huge presence. Only then can Cuba and the United States move forward to find joint solutions to environmental challenges. Environmental Riches and Implications Cuba’s glittering white sand beaches, extensive coral reefs, endemic fauna and diverse populations of fish compose the Caribbean’s most biologically diverse island. Based on a per hectare sampling when compared to the U.S. plus Canada, Cuba has 12 times more mammal species, 29 times as many amphibian and reptile species, 39 times more bird species, and 27 times as many vascular plant species. Equally important, adjacent ocean currents and the island nation’s close proximity, carry fish larvae into U.S. waters, making protection of Cuba’s coastal ecosystems vital to replenishing the U.S.’s ailing fisheries. Therefore, preserving the marine resources of Cuba is critical to the economic health of North America’s Atlantic coastal communities. The U.S. and Cuba also share an ancient deepwater coral system that stretches up to North Carolina. The island’s 4,200 islets and keys support important commercial reef fish species such as snapper and grouper as well as other marine life including sea turtles, dolphins and manatees in both countries. Fifty percent of its flora and 41 percent of its fauna are endemic, signifying the importance of protecting the island’s resources in order to safeguard the paradisiacal vision that Christopher Columbus observed when landing on the island in 1492. Oro Negro and Dinero The recent discovery of oil and natural gas reserves in the Florida straits in Cuban waters has attracted foreign oil exploration from China and India, both eager to begin extraction. Offshore oil and gas development could threaten Cuba’s and Florida’s environmental riches. Together, Cuba and the U.S. can develop policies to combat the negative results coming from the exploitation of these resources. The increased extraction and refining of oil in Cuba could have detrimental effects on the environment. Offshore drilling is likely to increase with the discovery of petroleum deposits in the Bay of Cárdenas and related areas. Excavation increases the possibility of oil spills, which would in turn destroy the surrounding ecosystem, including fisheries and coral reef formations. The amount of pollutants released into the air from refining crude oil and the amount of wayward oil residuals would also increase with drilling and extraction. Those conversant with the very sensitive habitat issues are calling for immediate consultations aimed at anticipating what should be done. However the U.S.’s enormous oil usage and its development requirements will cultivate economic growth on the island. Washington must work with Cuba to create an ecological protection plan not only to establish an environmentally friendly public image, but to make it a reality as well. Degradation of the environment will deprive Cuba, in the long run, of one of its most important sources of present and future revenue: tourism. Consequently, it is in the mutual interests of the U.S. and Cuba to develop a cooperative relationship that will foster tourism and growth in a sustainable manner. Sustainability through Collaboration In many parts of the country communism has inadequately acted as a seal to preserve elements of Cuba’s past as the centralized government prohibited private development by not giving special permission. A number of tourist resorts already dot the island, but Cuba has been largely exempt from mass tourist exploitation due to frozen relations with the U.S. Although the island remains underdeveloped, Fidel Castro has used his unchecked power to back policies, which have been heedless to environmental considerations, thus damaging some of the island’s pristine ecosystem that once defined the island. Roughly the size of Pennsylvania, Cuba is the largest Caribbean island, and if preservation and conservation measures are planned and carried out in a cognizant manner, it could become a paradigm for sustainable development at the global level. The Obama administration’s recent easing of travel restrictions on Cuban Americans visiting relatives on the island could be of immense importance not only to Cuban families, but also to the preservation of Cuba’s unique and increasingly threatened coastal and marine environments. Such a concession on Washington’s part would mark a small, but still significant stride in U.S.-Cuba relations, yet the travel restrictions still remain inherently discriminatory. The preposterous regulations that allow only a certain category of Americans into Cuba signify only a meager shift in U.S. policy towards Cuba. The 50-year-old U.S. embargo against the island has resoundingly failed to achieve its purpose. Obama’s modifications fall short of what it will take to reestablish a constructive U.S.-Cuba relationship. Cuba’s tropical forests, soils, and maritime areas have suffered degradation as a result of harmful policies stemming from a Soviet-style economic system. Cuba’s economy could be reinvigorated through expanded tourism, development initiatives and an expansion of commodity exports, including sugarcane for ethanol. U.S. policy toward Cuba should encourage environmental factors, thereby strengthening U.S. credibility throughout the hemisphere. An environmental partnership between the U.S. and Cuba is not only possible, but could result in development models that could serve as an example for environmental strategies throughout the Americas. The U.S. has the economic resources necessary to aid Cuba in developing effective policy, while the island provides the space where sustainable systems can be implemented initially instead of being applied after the fact. Cuba’s extreme lack of development provides an unspoiled arena for the execution of exemplary sustainable environmental protection practices. Waste Not, Want Not Although the government of Cuba has established state-based agencies to develop sustainable environmental practices, the island’s resources are left to be used at the government’s discretion. It is estimated that throughout Cuba, about 113.5 billion gallons of water contaminated with agricultural, industrial and urban wastes are dumped into the sea annually and more than 3.27 billion gallons find their way into its rivers. As direct dumping of untreated industrial waste into rivers, aquifers, and the sea is the norm, Cuban scientists estimate that this volume of industrial liquid waste pollutes roughly 486 gallons of clean water per year. The majority of this contamination stems from four industries, all state owned and operated, nickel excavation, sugar refineries, oil refineries, and rice farms. A 1994 Cuban press release disclosed that the Soto Alba nickel plant on the Moa Bay dumped more than 3.17 billion gallons of untreated liquid waste into the sea every day. The waste contained 72 tons of aluminum, 48 tons of chromium, 15 tons of magnesium, and 30 tons of sulfuric acid. By way of comparison, the treatment standards for wastewater in the U.S. limit the concentration of chromium to a maximum of 0.32 milligrams per liter, 12 times less than the daily dumping into the Moa Bay by only one of the three nickel plants operating in the area. In the sugar industry, more than 15.85 billion gallons of liquid waste are dumped into caves by the 151 operating sugar mills on the island creating the most enduring environmental problem. These alarming figures highlight the precipitous position of Cuba’s environment. While Cuban citizens increasingly are aware of the importance of environmental conservation, the government continues to exploit the island’s resources for state use without hindrance of being environmentally sound. Environmentalists maintain that the Cuban government must take responsibility for enforcing the environmental laws it has enacted and agreements it has signed. For Cubans and foreigners alike, the beaches of Cuba constitute the principle tourist attraction in the country, but even these have not escaped wasteful government exploitation. The famous beaches east of Havana have been the victims of sand removal for use by the Cuban government in the construction industry. In addition to coastal destruction, like many of its Caribbean neighbors, Cuba faces deforestation, over-cultivation of land and compaction of soils due to the use of heavy farm machinery and strip mining. These practices have resulted in high salinity in soils and heavy land erosion. Furthermore, poor water quality in freshwater streams has affected the wildlife habitat, which is in turn influenced by runoff from agricultural practices, erosion due to deforestation, and sedimentation of freshwater streams. Cuba must act in a responsible manner to stop environmental degradation and preserve its tourist industry as an early step to salvage its inert economy. Beginning Concerns The environmental degradation that began during the colonial era has transcended time as a result of Castro’s political and economic paradigm. Only in the last 40 years, with the development of the Commission for the Protection of the Environment and the Conservation of Natural Resources (COMARNA), has Cuba begun to address growing environmental concerns. COMARNA consolidated all of the agencies with environmental responsibilities, as a step towards giving them the power to influence all environmental issues. Although COMARNA was all-inclusive, it lacked independent authority, so its activities achieved few tangible results. The sad fact was that the centralized agency only succeeded in aiding the state in squandering resources. In reality, establishing the agency was a modest concession to ease environmental concerns, but the truth lingered that Cuba’s wealth of natural resources remained under the auspices of the government. COMARNA acknowledged the appeals for conservation by the international community, yet it allowed for the misuse of natural resources by the State. By way of example, the centralized Cuban agency built thousands of miles of roads for the development of non-existent state agricultural enterprises and dams where there was hardly any water to contain. In 1981, Cuba enacted Law 33 in an attempt to legitimize their environmental laws and regulations, yet Law 33 played only a miniscule role in guiding the extraction of natural resources and the conservation of ecological life on the island. Lauded as a law ahead of its time, Law 33 purportedly covers all the regulations concerning the environment and the protection and use of Cuban national resources, even though it produced few results. The statute includes a section comparing the “wise use of natural resources by communist countries versus the indiscriminate use of natural resources by the capitalistic world.” In this regard, the document is more a piece of political propaganda than a law meant to be rigorously enforced. Moreover it palls in comparison to international environmental protection guidelines and has relatively limited significance within the country since the Cuban government is responsible for the operation of the bulk of the industries and is therefore the principal polluter and consumer of natural resources. Thus Law 33 exonerates the Cuban government from enforcing stricter conservation standards by making a system that looks efficient, but in reality may not be so. A closer analysis on Law 33 exposes its inherent lack of efficacy and applicability. Attempts to Move Forward In 1994, Cuba developed the Ministry of Science, Technology and the Environment (CITMA) in order to absorb the tasks of the unproductive COMARNA. CITMA attempts to steer the implementation of environmental policy, the rational use of natural resources, and the adoption of sustainable development programs. Law 81 developed out of the necessity to give the Ministry a more sharply defined role in the government by replacing the outdated Law 33. Law 81, the Law of the Environment, was enacted in 1997 and presents a comprehensive framework law that covers all aspects of the environment ranging from air, water and waste, to historic preservation and coastal zone management. Although it details inspections and an enforcement plan, the law is ultimately ineffective due to its overarching nature, which makes it difficult to enforce. Law 81 may replace a necessary revision of Law 33; however, it remains vague in its enforcement procedures. For example, Law 81, Article 81 states that national resources will be used in accordance with the provisions that “their rational use will be assured, for which their quantitative and qualitative continuity will be preserved, recycling and recovery systems will be developed, and the ecosystems to which they belong safeguarded.” This portion of the provision elucidates the ambiguous nature of the law, as it continues to delineate objectives without coming up with specific implementation strategies. In 1997, the Earth Summit, a conference sponsored by the United Nations aimed at aiding governments in rethinking economic development and finding ways to halt the destruction of irreplaceable natural resources and pollution of the planet was held in New York. At the Summit, Cuban officials were refreshingly blunt in acknowledging the environmental degradation present on their island. In a pamphlet distributed at the conference, the Havana government stated that “there have been mistakes and shortcomings, due mainly to insufficient environmental awareness, knowledge and education, the lack of a higher management demand, limited introduction and generalization of scientific and technological achievements, as well as the still insufficient incorporation of environmental dimensions in its policies. The authorities also pointed to the insufficient development plans and programs and the absence of a sufficiently integrative and coherent judicial system,” to enforce environmental regulations. After the Earth Summit, Cuba designed and implemented a variety of programs, administrative structures, and public awareness initiatives to promote sound environmental management and sustainable development. Although the conference spurred motivation in environmental matters, Cuba still lacked the economic resources needed to support its share of environmental protection responsibilities due to the loss of its financial ties with the former Soviet Union. The Earth Summit came after the fall of the Soviet Union and the tightening of the U.S. blockade against Cuba in 1992, which resulted in a 35% retrenchment of the Cuban GDP. The Special Period, referring to the cut off of economic subsidies that had regularly come from the former Soviet Union, witnessed a decrease in many environmentally damaging activities both by choice and by necessity. The end of aid from the Russia also resulted in many decisions aimed at resuscitating the Cuban economy. The economic crisis increased pressure to sacrifice environmental protection for economic output. Although development slowed due to economic concerns, the island’s forests were particularly overworked for firewood and finished wood exports. However, the crisis also provided the impetus for pursuing sustainable development strategies. The principle motivating such change has been a realization that if Cuba does not preserve its environment, it will, at the very least, lose its attraction to tourists. Diverging Views Unlike the U.S., which still has never ratified the Kyoto Protocol, Cuba signed the document in 1997, which calls for the stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous interference with the global climate system. This legally binding international agreement attempts to tackle the issue of global warming and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S., although a signatory of the Kyoto Protocol, has neither ratified nor withdrawn from the Protocol. The signature alone is merely symbolic, as the Kyoto Protocol is non-binding on the United States unless ratified. Although in 2005 the United States was the largest per capita emitter of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, it experienced only a modest decline of 2.8 percent from 2007 to 2008. This decline demonstrates that the U.S. has the framework to reverse Cuba’s substandard environmental track record. By aiding Havana, Washington would be able to brand itself as an active conservationist. Such a label would enable the U.S. to create a valuable ecological public image in the international arena. The developmental assistance and economic growth potential that might stem from a U.S.-Cuba partnership might aid in developing enforceable implementation strategies. Even though Cuba’s written regulations characteristically lack feasible, implementable standards. Cuban laws, currently in effect, do provide a foundation for greater conservation activity in the future. The Cuban government does show an interest in encouraging sustainable development initiatives in the future, yet its laws are all based on maintaining a centralized government featuring a command economy. For example, CITMA appears to be trying to affect change, but many aspects of Cuba’s bureaucracy are rooted in the past and it remains difficult to update the ways of an outdated administrative substructure. If the embargo is lifted without a robust partnership and plans for environmental sustainability, the invasion of U.S. consumerism may seriously damage the island. Fear of “Cancunization” Many Cuba well-wishers fear if President Obama lifts the trade embargo, the invasion of raw capitalism could destroy Cuba’s relatively pristine environment. Although the Cuban government points to its environmental laws and the government agency which was established to develop a sustainable environmental policy, these measures have done little up to now to affect substantial change. In several distinct sectors, Cuba seems to remain unprepared for the lifting of the embargo and the island inevitably could face a flood of investors from the United States and elsewhere, eager to exploit the beautiful landscapes of the island, at great cost and risk. After years of relying on government subsidies and protectionism, this rapid growth could generate irreparable shock waves through the economy. Oliver Houck, a professor at Tulane University who aided the Cuban government in writing its environmental protection provisions, said “an invasion of U.S. consumerism, a U.S.-dominated future, could roll over it (Cuba) like a bulldozer,” when the embargo ends. The wider Caribbean region has experienced water contamination, mangrove destruction and sewage problems due to large quantities of tourists and inadequate plumbing. Therefore, U.S. tourism regulations need to be in place in order to protect the precious ecosystem of the island and prohibit over development. Collaboration between the U.S. and Cuba would be mutually beneficial, as the U.S. could use Cuba as a laboratory of sustainable development and U.S. tourism would stimulate Cuba’s stagnant economy, if its negative impact could be controlled. Both countries must agree upon a mutual plan for development. The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) has conducted research in Cuba since 2000, working with Cuban partners on scientific investigations and strategies for protecting coastal and marine resources. Operating under a special license from the United States government, EDF experts are collaborating with Cuban scientists on research projects aimed at ensuring that if Cuba taps offshore oil and gas reserves, it will be done in an environmentally concious way. The US should establish more partnerships like these as President Obama has the legal authority to institute far-reaching cooperation with Cuba on joint marine environmental projects. These partnerships should be implemented as the first step in creating an elaborate alliance for environmental protection between the two countries. If the embargo is lifted, symbols of meretricious American capitalism are likely to invade the once relatively isolated island. Opinion columnist Cynthia Tucker has commented on such matters: “Mickey Mouse is sure to arrive, bringing with him the aptly predicted full frontal assault of American culture and consumer goods,” suggesting that if Obama lifts the embargo, a functioning system of environmental protection supported by both the U.S. and the Cuban public must be present for the island to be protected. It is Cuba’s lack of development that makes the island attractive to tourists and although tourism boosts the economy, it also could have detrimental effects on the environment. If the embargo is lifted, strict development restrictions need to be in place in order to prevent further environmental exploitation. Currently, without a severe shift in enforcement of environmental laws and the formation of a hard-working U.S.-Cuba partnership, the Caribbean’s most biodiverse island will continue to be damaged. The key to a new dynamic in the U.S.-Cuba relationship might be to embark on a series of strategic actions that aim to establish a bilateral relationship for sustainable development and associated activities based on mutual respect and the autonomy of each country’s sovereignty and traditions.

<h4>Even if no oil spill occurs – normalizing relations with Cuba is key to encouraging global environmental sustainability</h4><p><strong>Council on Hemispheric Affairs 9</strong> </p><p><u><strong>("The US and Cuba: an Environmental Duo," Scoop World, June 15, http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0906/S00198.htm)</p><p></u></strong>•<u><strong>Cuba’s abundant natural resources need to be protected with heightened vigilance</u></strong> •<u><strong>Lifting the trade embargo would open up the possibility for a constructive partnership between Cuba and the U.S. by developing compatible and sustainable environmental policies •With the support of the U.S., Cuba could become a model for sustainable preservation and environmental protection on a global scale </u></strong>Through accidents of geography and history, <u><strong>Cuba is a priceless ecological resource. The United States should capitalize on its proximity to this resource-rich island nation by Smoving to normalize relations and establishing a framework for environmental cooperation</u></strong> and joint initiatives throughout the Americas. <u><strong>Cuba is the most biologically diverse of all the Caribbean Islands. Since it lies just 90 miles south of the Florida Keys, where the Atlantic, the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico intersect</u></strong>, the U.S. could play a key role in environmental conservation as well as the region in general. However, when it comes to environmental preservation, the Obama administration is obstructing progress and hindering any meaningful cooperation with its current U.S.- Cuba policy. Climate change and environmental degradation are two of the most pressing contemporary issues. If <u><strong>President Obama is sincerely committed to environmental sustainability, he must forge international partnerships to implement this objective. Where better to begin than in the U.S.’s own backyard, where Cuba has a huge presence. Only then can Cuba and the United States move forward to find joint solutions to environmental challenges. </u></strong>Environmental Riches and Implications Cuba’s glittering white sand beaches, extensive coral reefs, endemic fauna and diverse populations of fish compose the Caribbean’s most biologically diverse island. Based on a per hectare sampling when compared to the U.S. plus Canada<u><strong>, Cuba has 12 times more mammal species, 29 times as many amphibian and reptile species, 39 times more bird species, and 27 times as many vascular plant species</u></strong>. Equally important, <u><strong>adjacent ocean currents and the island nation’s close proximity, carry fish larvae into U.S. waters, making protection of Cuba’s coastal ecosystems vital to replenishing the U.S.’s ailing fisheries. Therefore, preserving the marine resources of Cuba is critical to the economic health of</u></strong> North America’s Atlantic coastal communities. The U.S. and Cuba also share an ancient deepwater coral system that stretches up to North Carolina. The island’s 4,200 islets and keys support important commercial reef fish species such as snapper and grouper as well as other marine life including sea turtles, dolphins and manatees in both countries. <u><strong>Fifty percent of its flora and 41 percent of its fauna are endemic, signifying the importance of protecting the island’s resources in order to safeguard the paradis</u></strong>iacal vision that Christopher Columbus observed when landing on the island in 1492. Oro Negro and Dinero The recent discovery of oil and natural gas reserves in the Florida straits in Cuban waters has attracted foreign oil exploration from China and India, both eager to begin extraction. Offshore oil and gas development could threaten Cuba’s and Florida’s environmental riches. Together, <u><strong>Cuba and the U.S. can develop policies to combat the negative results coming from the exploitation of these resources. The increased extraction and refining of oil in Cuba could have detrimental effects on the environmen</u></strong>t. Offshore drilling is likely to increase with the discovery of petroleum deposits in the Bay of Cárdenas and related areas. <u><strong>Excavation increases the possibility of oil spills, which would in turn destroy the surrounding ecosystem, including fisheries and coral reef formations.</u></strong> The amount of pollutants released into the air from refining crude oil and the amount of wayward oil residuals would also increase with drilling and extraction. Those conversant with the very sensitive habitat issues are calling for immediate consultations aimed at anticipating what should be done. However the U.S.’s enormous oil usage and its development requirements will cultivate economic growth on the island. <u><strong>Washington must work with Cuba to create an ecological protection plan not only to establish an environmentally friendly public image, but to make it a reality as well. </u></strong>Degradation of the environment will deprive Cuba, in the long run, of one of its most important sources of present and future revenue: tourism. Consequently, it is in the mutual interests of the U.S. and Cuba to develop a cooperative relationship that will foster tourism and growth in a sustainable manner. Sustainability through Collaboration In many parts of the country communism has inadequately acted as a seal to preserve elements of Cuba’s past as the centralized government prohibited private development by not giving special permission. A number of tourist resorts already dot the island, but Cuba has been largely exempt from mass tourist exploitation due to frozen relations with the U.S. Although the island remains underdeveloped, Fidel Castro has used his unchecked power to back policies, which have been heedless to environmental considerations, thus damaging some of the island’s pristine ecosystem that once defined the island. Roughly the size of Pennsylvania, Cuba is the largest Caribbean island, <u><strong>and if preservation and conservation measures are planned and carried out in a cognizant manner, it could become a paradigm for sustainable development at the global level. </u></strong>The Obama administration’s recent easing of travel restrictions on Cuban Americans visiting relatives on the island could be of immense importance not only to Cuban families, but also to the preservation of Cuba’s unique and increasingly threatened coastal and marine environments. Such a concession on Washington’s part would mark a small, but still significant stride in U.S.-Cuba relations, yet the travel restrictions still remain inherently discriminatory. The preposterous regulations that allow only a certain category of Americans into Cuba signify only a meager shift in U.S. policy towards Cuba. The 50-year-old U.S. embargo against the island has resoundingly failed to achieve its purpose. <u><strong>Obama’s modifications fall short of what it will take to reestablish a constructive U.S.-Cuba relationship.</u></strong> Cuba’s tropical forests, soils, and maritime areas have suffered degradation as a result of harmful policies stemming from a Soviet-style economic system. Cuba’s economy could be reinvigorated through expanded tourism, development initiatives and an expansion of commodity exports, including sugarcane for ethanol. U.S. policy toward Cuba should encourage environmental factors, thereby strengthening U.S. credibility throughout the hemisphere. A<u><strong>n environmental partnership between the U.S. and Cuba is not only possible, but could result in development models that could serve as an example for environmental strategies throughout the Americas. The U.S. has the economic resources necessary to aid Cuba in developing effective policy, while the island provides the space where sustainable systems can be implemented initially instead of being applied after the fact. Cuba’s extreme lack of development provides an unspoiled arena for the execution of exemplary sustainable environmental protection practices. </u></strong>Waste Not, Want Not Although the government of Cuba has established state-based agencies to develop sustainable environmental practices, the island’s resources are left to be used at the government’s discretion. It is estimated that throughout Cuba, about 113.5 billion gallons of water contaminated with agricultural, industrial and urban wastes are dumped into the sea annually and more than 3.27 billion gallons find their way into its rivers. As direct dumping of untreated industrial waste into rivers, aquifers, and the sea is the norm, Cuban scientists estimate that this volume of industrial liquid waste pollutes roughly 486 gallons of clean water per year. The majority of this contamination stems from four industries, all state owned and operated, nickel excavation, sugar refineries, oil refineries, and rice farms. A 1994 Cuban press release disclosed that the Soto Alba nickel plant on the Moa Bay dumped more than 3.17 billion gallons of untreated liquid waste into the sea every day. The waste contained 72 tons of aluminum, 48 tons of chromium, 15 tons of magnesium, and 30 tons of sulfuric acid. By way of comparison, the treatment standards for wastewater in the U.S. limit the concentration of chromium to a maximum of 0.32 milligrams per liter, 12 times less than the daily dumping into the Moa Bay by only one of the three nickel plants operating in the area. In the sugar industry, more than 15.85 billion gallons of liquid waste are dumped into caves by the 151 operating sugar mills on the island creating the most enduring environmental problem. These alarming figures highlight the precipitous position of Cuba’s environment. While Cuban citizens increasingly are aware of the importance of environmental conservation, the government continues to exploit the island’s resources for state use without hindrance of being environmentally sound. Environmentalists maintain that the Cuban government must take responsibility for enforcing the environmental laws it has enacted and agreements it has signed. For Cubans and foreigners alike, the beaches of Cuba constitute the principle tourist attraction in the country, but even these have not escaped wasteful government exploitation. The famous beaches east of Havana have been the victims of sand removal for use by the Cuban government in the construction industry. In addition to coastal destruction, like many of its Caribbean neighbors, Cuba faces deforestation, over-cultivation of land and compaction of soils due to the use of heavy farm machinery and strip mining. These practices have resulted in high salinity in soils and heavy land erosion. Furthermore, poor water quality in freshwater streams has affected the wildlife habitat, which is in turn influenced by runoff from agricultural practices, erosion due to deforestation, and sedimentation of freshwater streams. Cuba must act in a responsible manner to stop environmental degradation and preserve its tourist industry as an early step to salvage its inert economy. Beginning Concerns The environmental degradation that began during the colonial era has transcended time as a result of Castro’s political and economic paradigm. Only in the last 40 years, with the development of the Commission for the Protection of the Environment and the Conservation of Natural Resources (COMARNA), has Cuba begun to address growing environmental concerns. COMARNA consolidated all of the agencies with environmental responsibilities, as a step towards giving them the power to influence all environmental issues. Although COMARNA was all-inclusive, it lacked independent authority, so its activities achieved few tangible results. The sad fact was that the centralized agency only succeeded in aiding the state in squandering resources. In reality, establishing the agency was a modest concession to ease environmental concerns, but the truth lingered that Cuba’s wealth of natural resources remained under the auspices of the government. COMARNA acknowledged the appeals for conservation by the international community, yet it allowed for the misuse of natural resources by the State. By way of example, the centralized Cuban agency built thousands of miles of roads for the development of non-existent state agricultural enterprises and dams where there was hardly any water to contain. In 1981, Cuba enacted Law 33 in an attempt to legitimize their environmental laws and regulations, yet Law 33 played only a miniscule role in guiding the extraction of natural resources and the conservation of ecological life on the island. Lauded as a law ahead of its time, Law 33 purportedly covers all the regulations concerning the environment and the protection and use of Cuban national resources, even though it produced few results. The statute includes a section comparing the “wise use of natural resources by communist countries versus the indiscriminate use of natural resources by the capitalistic world.” In this regard, the document is more a piece of political propaganda than a law meant to be rigorously enforced. Moreover it palls in comparison to international environmental protection guidelines and has relatively limited significance within the country since the Cuban government is responsible for the operation of the bulk of the industries and is therefore the principal polluter and consumer of natural resources. Thus Law 33 exonerates the Cuban government from enforcing stricter conservation standards by making a system that looks efficient, but in reality may not be so. A closer analysis on Law 33 exposes its inherent lack of efficacy and applicability. Attempts to Move Forward In 1994, Cuba developed the Ministry of Science, Technology and the Environment (CITMA) in order to absorb the tasks of the unproductive COMARNA. CITMA attempts to steer the implementation of environmental policy, the rational use of natural resources, and the adoption of sustainable development programs. Law 81 developed out of the necessity to give the Ministry a more sharply defined role in the government by replacing the outdated Law 33. Law 81, the Law of the Environment, was enacted in 1997 and presents a comprehensive framework law that covers all aspects of the environment ranging from air, water and waste, to historic preservation and coastal zone management. Although it details inspections and an enforcement plan, the law is ultimately ineffective due to its overarching nature, which makes it difficult to enforce. Law 81 may replace a necessary revision of Law 33; however, it remains vague in its enforcement procedures. For example, Law 81, Article 81 states that national resources will be used in accordance with the provisions that “their rational use will be assured, for which their quantitative and qualitative continuity will be preserved, recycling and recovery systems will be developed, and the ecosystems to which they belong safeguarded.” This portion of the provision elucidates the ambiguous nature of the law, as it continues to delineate objectives without coming up with specific implementation strategies. In 1997, the Earth Summit, a conference sponsored by the United Nations aimed at aiding governments in rethinking economic development and finding ways to halt the destruction of irreplaceable natural resources and pollution of the planet was held in New York. At the Summit, Cuban officials were refreshingly blunt in acknowledging the environmental degradation present on their island. In a pamphlet distributed at the conference, the Havana government stated that “there have been mistakes and shortcomings, due mainly to insufficient environmental awareness, knowledge and education, the lack of a higher management demand, limited introduction and generalization of scientific and technological achievements, as well as the still insufficient incorporation of environmental dimensions in its policies. The authorities also pointed to the insufficient development plans and programs and the absence of a sufficiently integrative and coherent judicial system,” to enforce environmental regulations. After the Earth Summit, Cuba designed and implemented a variety of programs, administrative structures, and public awareness initiatives to promote sound environmental management and sustainable development. Although the conference spurred motivation in environmental matters, Cuba still lacked the economic resources needed to support its share of environmental protection responsibilities due to the loss of its financial ties with the former Soviet Union. The Earth Summit came after the fall of the Soviet Union and the tightening of the U.S. blockade against Cuba in 1992, which resulted in a 35% retrenchment of the Cuban GDP. The Special Period, referring to the cut off of economic subsidies that had regularly come from the former Soviet Union, witnessed a decrease in many environmentally damaging activities both by choice and by necessity. The end of aid from the Russia also resulted in many decisions aimed at resuscitating the Cuban economy. The economic crisis increased pressure to sacrifice environmental protection for economic output. Although development slowed due to economic concerns, the island’s forests were particularly overworked for firewood and finished wood exports. However, the crisis also provided the impetus for pursuing sustainable development strategies. The principle motivating such change has been a realization that if Cuba does not preserve its environment, it will, at the very least, lose its attraction to tourists. Diverging Views Unlike the U.S., which still has never ratified the Kyoto Protocol, Cuba signed the document in 1997, which calls for the stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous interference with the global climate system. This legally binding international agreement attempts to tackle the issue of global warming and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S., although a signatory of the Kyoto Protocol, has neither ratified nor withdrawn from the Protocol. The signature alone is merely symbolic, as the Kyoto Protocol is non-binding on the United States unless ratified. Although in 2005 the United States was the largest per capita emitter of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, it experienced only a modest decline of 2.8 percent from 2007 to 2008. <u><strong>This decline demonstrates that the U.S. has the framework to reverse Cuba’s substandard environmental track record. By aiding Havana, Washington would be able to brand itself as an active conservationist. Such a label would enable the U.S. to create a valuable ecological public image in the international arena. </u></strong>The developmental assistance and economic growth potential that might stem from a U.S.-Cuba partnership might aid in developing enforceable implementation strategies. Even though Cuba’s written regulations characteristically lack feasible, implementable standards. Cuban laws, currently in effect, do provide a foundation for greater conservation activity in the future. The Cuban government does show an interest in encouraging sustainable development initiatives in the future, yet its laws are all based on maintaining a centralized government featuring a command economy. For example, CITMA appears to be trying to affect change, but many aspects of Cuba’s bureaucracy are rooted in the past and it remains difficult to update the ways of an outdated administrative substructure. If the embargo is lifted without a robust partnership and plans for environmental sustainability, the invasion of U.S. consumerism may seriously damage the island. Fear of “Cancunization” Many Cuba well-wishers fear if President Obama lifts the trade embargo, the invasion of raw capitalism could destroy Cuba’s relatively pristine environment. Although the Cuban government points to its environmental laws and the government agency which was established to develop a sustainable environmental policy, these measures have done little up to now to affect substantial change. In several distinct sectors, Cuba seems to remain unprepared for the lifting of the embargo and the island inevitably could face a flood of investors from the United States and elsewhere, eager to exploit the beautiful landscapes of the island, at great cost and risk. After years of relying on government subsidies and protectionism, this rapid growth could generate irreparable shock waves through the economy. Oliver Houck, a professor at Tulane University who aided the Cuban government in writing its environmental protection provisions, said “an invasion of U.S. consumerism, a U.S.-dominated future, could roll over it (Cuba) like a bulldozer,” when the embargo ends. The wider Caribbean region has experienced water contamination, mangrove destruction and sewage problems due to large quantities of tourists and inadequate plumbing. Therefore, U.S. tourism regulations need to be in place in order to protect the precious ecosystem of the island and prohibit over development. Collaboration between the U.S. and Cuba would be mutually beneficial, as the U.S. could use Cuba as a laboratory of sustainable development and U.S. tourism would stimulate Cuba’s stagnant economy, if its negative impact could be controlled. Both countries must agree upon a mutual plan for development. The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) has conducted research in Cuba since 2000, working with Cuban partners on scientific investigations and strategies for protecting coastal and marine resources. Operating under a special license from the United States government, EDF experts are collaborating with Cuban scientists on research projects aimed at ensuring that if Cuba taps offshore oil and gas reserves, it will be done in an environmentally concious way. The US should establish more partnerships like these as President Obama has the legal authority to institute far-reaching cooperation with Cuba on joint marine environmental projects. These partnerships should be implemented as the first step in creating an elaborate alliance for environmental protection between the two countries. If the embargo is lifted, symbols of meretricious American capitalism are likely to invade the once relatively isolated island. Opinion columnist Cynthia Tucker has commented on such matters: “Mickey Mouse is sure to arrive, bringing with him the aptly predicted full frontal assault of American culture and consumer goods,” suggesting that if Obama lifts the embargo, a functioning system of environmental protection supported by both the U.S. and the Cuban public must be present for the island to be protected. It is Cuba’s lack of development that makes the island attractive to tourists and although tourism boosts the economy, it also could have detrimental effects on the environment. If the embargo is lifted, strict development restrictions need to be in place in order to prevent further environmental exploitation. Currently, without a severe shift in enforcement of environmental laws and the formation of a hard-working U.S.-Cuba partnership, the Caribbean’s most biodiverse island will continue to be damaged. <u><strong>The key to a new dynamic in the U.S.-Cuba relationship might be to embark on a series of strategic actions that aim to establish a bilateral relationship for sustainable development and associated activities based on mutual respect and the autonomy of each country’s sovereignty and traditions.</p></u></strong>

Council on Hemispheric Affairs 9 ("The US and Cuba: an Environmental Duo," Scoop World, June 15, http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0906/S00198.htm)

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Council on Hemispheric Affairs 9 ("The US and Cuba: an Environmental Duo," Scoop World, June 15, http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0906/S00198.htm) fulltext: •Cuba’s abundant natural resources need to be protected with heightened vigilance •Lifting the trade embargo would open up the possibility for a constructive partnership between Cuba and the U.S. by developing compatible and sustainable environmental policies •With the support of the U.S., Cuba could become a model for sustainable preservation and environmental protection on a global scale Through accidents of geography and history, Cuba is a priceless ecological resource. The United States should capitalize on its proximity to this resource-rich island nation by Smoving to normalize relations and establishing a framework for environmental cooperation and joint initiatives throughout the Americas. Cuba is the most biologically diverse of all the Caribbean Islands. Since it lies just 90 miles south of the Florida Keys, where the Atlantic, the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico intersect, the U.S. could play a key role in environmental conservation as well as the region in general. However, when it comes to environmental preservation, the Obama administration is obstructing progress and hindering any meaningful cooperation with its current U.S.- Cuba policy. Climate change and environmental degradation are two of the most pressing contemporary issues. If President Obama is sincerely committed to environmental sustainability, he must forge international partnerships to implement this objective. Where better to begin than in the U.S.’s own backyard, where Cuba has a huge presence. Only then can Cuba and the United States move forward to find joint solutions to environmental challenges. Environmental Riches and Implications Cuba’s glittering white sand beaches, extensive coral reefs, endemic fauna and diverse populations of fish compose the Caribbean’s most biologically diverse island. Based on a per hectare sampling when compared to the U.S. plus Canada, Cuba has 12 times more mammal species, 29 times as many amphibian and reptile species, 39 times more bird species, and 27 times as many vascular plant species. Equally important, adjacent ocean currents and the island nation’s close proximity, carry fish larvae into U.S. waters, making protection of Cuba’s coastal ecosystems vital to replenishing the U.S.’s ailing fisheries. Therefore, preserving the marine resources of Cuba is critical to the economic health of North America’s Atlantic coastal communities. The U.S. and Cuba also share an ancient deepwater coral system that stretches up to North Carolina. The island’s 4,200 islets and keys support important commercial reef fish species such as snapper and grouper as well as other marine life including sea turtles, dolphins and manatees in both countries. Fifty percent of its flora and 41 percent of its fauna are endemic, signifying the importance of protecting the island’s resources in order to safeguard the paradisiacal vision that Christopher Columbus observed when landing on the island in 1492. Oro Negro and Dinero The recent discovery of oil and natural gas reserves in the Florida straits in Cuban waters has attracted foreign oil exploration from China and India, both eager to begin extraction. Offshore oil and gas development could threaten Cuba’s and Florida’s environmental riches. Together, Cuba and the U.S. can develop policies to combat the negative results coming from the exploitation of these resources. The increased extraction and refining of oil in Cuba could have detrimental effects on the environment. Offshore drilling is likely to increase with the discovery of petroleum deposits in the Bay of Cárdenas and related areas. Excavation increases the possibility of oil spills, which would in turn destroy the surrounding ecosystem, including fisheries and coral reef formations. The amount of pollutants released into the air from refining crude oil and the amount of wayward oil residuals would also increase with drilling and extraction. Those conversant with the very sensitive habitat issues are calling for immediate consultations aimed at anticipating what should be done. However the U.S.’s enormous oil usage and its development requirements will cultivate economic growth on the island. Washington must work with Cuba to create an ecological protection plan not only to establish an environmentally friendly public image, but to make it a reality as well. Degradation of the environment will deprive Cuba, in the long run, of one of its most important sources of present and future revenue: tourism. Consequently, it is in the mutual interests of the U.S. and Cuba to develop a cooperative relationship that will foster tourism and growth in a sustainable manner. Sustainability through Collaboration In many parts of the country communism has inadequately acted as a seal to preserve elements of Cuba’s past as the centralized government prohibited private development by not giving special permission. A number of tourist resorts already dot the island, but Cuba has been largely exempt from mass tourist exploitation due to frozen relations with the U.S. Although the island remains underdeveloped, Fidel Castro has used his unchecked power to back policies, which have been heedless to environmental considerations, thus damaging some of the island’s pristine ecosystem that once defined the island. Roughly the size of Pennsylvania, Cuba is the largest Caribbean island, and if preservation and conservation measures are planned and carried out in a cognizant manner, it could become a paradigm for sustainable development at the global level. The Obama administration’s recent easing of travel restrictions on Cuban Americans visiting relatives on the island could be of immense importance not only to Cuban families, but also to the preservation of Cuba’s unique and increasingly threatened coastal and marine environments. Such a concession on Washington’s part would mark a small, but still significant stride in U.S.-Cuba relations, yet the travel restrictions still remain inherently discriminatory. The preposterous regulations that allow only a certain category of Americans into Cuba signify only a meager shift in U.S. policy towards Cuba. The 50-year-old U.S. embargo against the island has resoundingly failed to achieve its purpose. Obama’s modifications fall short of what it will take to reestablish a constructive U.S.-Cuba relationship. Cuba’s tropical forests, soils, and maritime areas have suffered degradation as a result of harmful policies stemming from a Soviet-style economic system. Cuba’s economy could be reinvigorated through expanded tourism, development initiatives and an expansion of commodity exports, including sugarcane for ethanol. U.S. policy toward Cuba should encourage environmental factors, thereby strengthening U.S. credibility throughout the hemisphere. An environmental partnership between the U.S. and Cuba is not only possible, but could result in development models that could serve as an example for environmental strategies throughout the Americas. The U.S. has the economic resources necessary to aid Cuba in developing effective policy, while the island provides the space where sustainable systems can be implemented initially instead of being applied after the fact. Cuba’s extreme lack of development provides an unspoiled arena for the execution of exemplary sustainable environmental protection practices. Waste Not, Want Not Although the government of Cuba has established state-based agencies to develop sustainable environmental practices, the island’s resources are left to be used at the government’s discretion. It is estimated that throughout Cuba, about 113.5 billion gallons of water contaminated with agricultural, industrial and urban wastes are dumped into the sea annually and more than 3.27 billion gallons find their way into its rivers. As direct dumping of untreated industrial waste into rivers, aquifers, and the sea is the norm, Cuban scientists estimate that this volume of industrial liquid waste pollutes roughly 486 gallons of clean water per year. The majority of this contamination stems from four industries, all state owned and operated, nickel excavation, sugar refineries, oil refineries, and rice farms. A 1994 Cuban press release disclosed that the Soto Alba nickel plant on the Moa Bay dumped more than 3.17 billion gallons of untreated liquid waste into the sea every day. The waste contained 72 tons of aluminum, 48 tons of chromium, 15 tons of magnesium, and 30 tons of sulfuric acid. By way of comparison, the treatment standards for wastewater in the U.S. limit the concentration of chromium to a maximum of 0.32 milligrams per liter, 12 times less than the daily dumping into the Moa Bay by only one of the three nickel plants operating in the area. In the sugar industry, more than 15.85 billion gallons of liquid waste are dumped into caves by the 151 operating sugar mills on the island creating the most enduring environmental problem. These alarming figures highlight the precipitous position of Cuba’s environment. While Cuban citizens increasingly are aware of the importance of environmental conservation, the government continues to exploit the island’s resources for state use without hindrance of being environmentally sound. Environmentalists maintain that the Cuban government must take responsibility for enforcing the environmental laws it has enacted and agreements it has signed. For Cubans and foreigners alike, the beaches of Cuba constitute the principle tourist attraction in the country, but even these have not escaped wasteful government exploitation. The famous beaches east of Havana have been the victims of sand removal for use by the Cuban government in the construction industry. In addition to coastal destruction, like many of its Caribbean neighbors, Cuba faces deforestation, over-cultivation of land and compaction of soils due to the use of heavy farm machinery and strip mining. These practices have resulted in high salinity in soils and heavy land erosion. Furthermore, poor water quality in freshwater streams has affected the wildlife habitat, which is in turn influenced by runoff from agricultural practices, erosion due to deforestation, and sedimentation of freshwater streams. Cuba must act in a responsible manner to stop environmental degradation and preserve its tourist industry as an early step to salvage its inert economy. Beginning Concerns The environmental degradation that began during the colonial era has transcended time as a result of Castro’s political and economic paradigm. Only in the last 40 years, with the development of the Commission for the Protection of the Environment and the Conservation of Natural Resources (COMARNA), has Cuba begun to address growing environmental concerns. COMARNA consolidated all of the agencies with environmental responsibilities, as a step towards giving them the power to influence all environmental issues. Although COMARNA was all-inclusive, it lacked independent authority, so its activities achieved few tangible results. The sad fact was that the centralized agency only succeeded in aiding the state in squandering resources. In reality, establishing the agency was a modest concession to ease environmental concerns, but the truth lingered that Cuba’s wealth of natural resources remained under the auspices of the government. COMARNA acknowledged the appeals for conservation by the international community, yet it allowed for the misuse of natural resources by the State. By way of example, the centralized Cuban agency built thousands of miles of roads for the development of non-existent state agricultural enterprises and dams where there was hardly any water to contain. In 1981, Cuba enacted Law 33 in an attempt to legitimize their environmental laws and regulations, yet Law 33 played only a miniscule role in guiding the extraction of natural resources and the conservation of ecological life on the island. Lauded as a law ahead of its time, Law 33 purportedly covers all the regulations concerning the environment and the protection and use of Cuban national resources, even though it produced few results. The statute includes a section comparing the “wise use of natural resources by communist countries versus the indiscriminate use of natural resources by the capitalistic world.” In this regard, the document is more a piece of political propaganda than a law meant to be rigorously enforced. Moreover it palls in comparison to international environmental protection guidelines and has relatively limited significance within the country since the Cuban government is responsible for the operation of the bulk of the industries and is therefore the principal polluter and consumer of natural resources. Thus Law 33 exonerates the Cuban government from enforcing stricter conservation standards by making a system that looks efficient, but in reality may not be so. A closer analysis on Law 33 exposes its inherent lack of efficacy and applicability. Attempts to Move Forward In 1994, Cuba developed the Ministry of Science, Technology and the Environment (CITMA) in order to absorb the tasks of the unproductive COMARNA. CITMA attempts to steer the implementation of environmental policy, the rational use of natural resources, and the adoption of sustainable development programs. Law 81 developed out of the necessity to give the Ministry a more sharply defined role in the government by replacing the outdated Law 33. Law 81, the Law of the Environment, was enacted in 1997 and presents a comprehensive framework law that covers all aspects of the environment ranging from air, water and waste, to historic preservation and coastal zone management. Although it details inspections and an enforcement plan, the law is ultimately ineffective due to its overarching nature, which makes it difficult to enforce. Law 81 may replace a necessary revision of Law 33; however, it remains vague in its enforcement procedures. For example, Law 81, Article 81 states that national resources will be used in accordance with the provisions that “their rational use will be assured, for which their quantitative and qualitative continuity will be preserved, recycling and recovery systems will be developed, and the ecosystems to which they belong safeguarded.” This portion of the provision elucidates the ambiguous nature of the law, as it continues to delineate objectives without coming up with specific implementation strategies. In 1997, the Earth Summit, a conference sponsored by the United Nations aimed at aiding governments in rethinking economic development and finding ways to halt the destruction of irreplaceable natural resources and pollution of the planet was held in New York. At the Summit, Cuban officials were refreshingly blunt in acknowledging the environmental degradation present on their island. In a pamphlet distributed at the conference, the Havana government stated that “there have been mistakes and shortcomings, due mainly to insufficient environmental awareness, knowledge and education, the lack of a higher management demand, limited introduction and generalization of scientific and technological achievements, as well as the still insufficient incorporation of environmental dimensions in its policies. The authorities also pointed to the insufficient development plans and programs and the absence of a sufficiently integrative and coherent judicial system,” to enforce environmental regulations. After the Earth Summit, Cuba designed and implemented a variety of programs, administrative structures, and public awareness initiatives to promote sound environmental management and sustainable development. Although the conference spurred motivation in environmental matters, Cuba still lacked the economic resources needed to support its share of environmental protection responsibilities due to the loss of its financial ties with the former Soviet Union. The Earth Summit came after the fall of the Soviet Union and the tightening of the U.S. blockade against Cuba in 1992, which resulted in a 35% retrenchment of the Cuban GDP. The Special Period, referring to the cut off of economic subsidies that had regularly come from the former Soviet Union, witnessed a decrease in many environmentally damaging activities both by choice and by necessity. The end of aid from the Russia also resulted in many decisions aimed at resuscitating the Cuban economy. The economic crisis increased pressure to sacrifice environmental protection for economic output. Although development slowed due to economic concerns, the island’s forests were particularly overworked for firewood and finished wood exports. However, the crisis also provided the impetus for pursuing sustainable development strategies. The principle motivating such change has been a realization that if Cuba does not preserve its environment, it will, at the very least, lose its attraction to tourists. Diverging Views Unlike the U.S., which still has never ratified the Kyoto Protocol, Cuba signed the document in 1997, which calls for the stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous interference with the global climate system. This legally binding international agreement attempts to tackle the issue of global warming and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S., although a signatory of the Kyoto Protocol, has neither ratified nor withdrawn from the Protocol. The signature alone is merely symbolic, as the Kyoto Protocol is non-binding on the United States unless ratified. Although in 2005 the United States was the largest per capita emitter of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, it experienced only a modest decline of 2.8 percent from 2007 to 2008. This decline demonstrates that the U.S. has the framework to reverse Cuba’s substandard environmental track record. By aiding Havana, Washington would be able to brand itself as an active conservationist. Such a label would enable the U.S. to create a valuable ecological public image in the international arena. The developmental assistance and economic growth potential that might stem from a U.S.-Cuba partnership might aid in developing enforceable implementation strategies. Even though Cuba’s written regulations characteristically lack feasible, implementable standards. Cuban laws, currently in effect, do provide a foundation for greater conservation activity in the future. The Cuban government does show an interest in encouraging sustainable development initiatives in the future, yet its laws are all based on maintaining a centralized government featuring a command economy. For example, CITMA appears to be trying to affect change, but many aspects of Cuba’s bureaucracy are rooted in the past and it remains difficult to update the ways of an outdated administrative substructure. If the embargo is lifted without a robust partnership and plans for environmental sustainability, the invasion of U.S. consumerism may seriously damage the island. Fear of “Cancunization” Many Cuba well-wishers fear if President Obama lifts the trade embargo, the invasion of raw capitalism could destroy Cuba’s relatively pristine environment. Although the Cuban government points to its environmental laws and the government agency which was established to develop a sustainable environmental policy, these measures have done little up to now to affect substantial change. In several distinct sectors, Cuba seems to remain unprepared for the lifting of the embargo and the island inevitably could face a flood of investors from the United States and elsewhere, eager to exploit the beautiful landscapes of the island, at great cost and risk. After years of relying on government subsidies and protectionism, this rapid growth could generate irreparable shock waves through the economy. Oliver Houck, a professor at Tulane University who aided the Cuban government in writing its environmental protection provisions, said “an invasion of U.S. consumerism, a U.S.-dominated future, could roll over it (Cuba) like a bulldozer,” when the embargo ends. The wider Caribbean region has experienced water contamination, mangrove destruction and sewage problems due to large quantities of tourists and inadequate plumbing. Therefore, U.S. tourism regulations need to be in place in order to protect the precious ecosystem of the island and prohibit over development. Collaboration between the U.S. and Cuba would be mutually beneficial, as the U.S. could use Cuba as a laboratory of sustainable development and U.S. tourism would stimulate Cuba’s stagnant economy, if its negative impact could be controlled. Both countries must agree upon a mutual plan for development. The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) has conducted research in Cuba since 2000, working with Cuban partners on scientific investigations and strategies for protecting coastal and marine resources. Operating under a special license from the United States government, EDF experts are collaborating with Cuban scientists on research projects aimed at ensuring that if Cuba taps offshore oil and gas reserves, it will be done in an environmentally concious way. The US should establish more partnerships like these as President Obama has the legal authority to institute far-reaching cooperation with Cuba on joint marine environmental projects. These partnerships should be implemented as the first step in creating an elaborate alliance for environmental protection between the two countries. If the embargo is lifted, symbols of meretricious American capitalism are likely to invade the once relatively isolated island. Opinion columnist Cynthia Tucker has commented on such matters: “Mickey Mouse is sure to arrive, bringing with him the aptly predicted full frontal assault of American culture and consumer goods,” suggesting that if Obama lifts the embargo, a functioning system of environmental protection supported by both the U.S. and the Cuban public must be present for the island to be protected. It is Cuba’s lack of development that makes the island attractive to tourists and although tourism boosts the economy, it also could have detrimental effects on the environment. If the embargo is lifted, strict development restrictions need to be in place in order to prevent further environmental exploitation. Currently, without a severe shift in enforcement of environmental laws and the formation of a hard-working U.S.-Cuba partnership, the Caribbean’s most biodiverse island will continue to be damaged. The key to a new dynamic in the U.S.-Cuba relationship might be to embark on a series of strategic actions that aim to establish a bilateral relationship for sustainable development and associated activities based on mutual respect and the autonomy of each country’s sovereignty and traditions. [/INST] <h4>Even if no oil spill occurs – normalizing relations with Cuba is key to encouraging global environmental sustainability</h4><p><strong>Council on Hemispheric Affairs 9</strong> </p><p><u><strong>("The US and Cuba: an Environmental Duo," Scoop World, June 15, http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0906/S00198.htm)</p><p></u></strong>•<u><strong>Cuba’s abundant natural resources need to be protected with heightened vigilance</u></strong> •<u><strong>Lifting the trade embargo would open up the possibility for a constructive partnership between Cuba and the U.S. by developing compatible and sustainable environmental policies •With the support of the U.S., Cuba could become a model for sustainable preservation and environmental protection on a global scale </u></strong>Through accidents of geography and history, <u><strong>Cuba is a priceless ecological resource. The United States should capitalize on its proximity to this resource-rich island nation by Smoving to normalize relations and establishing a framework for environmental cooperation</u></strong> and joint initiatives throughout the Americas. <u><strong>Cuba is the most biologically diverse of all the Caribbean Islands. Since it lies just 90 miles south of the Florida Keys, where the Atlantic, the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico intersect</u></strong>, the U.S. could play a key role in environmental conservation as well as the region in general. However, when it comes to environmental preservation, the Obama administration is obstructing progress and hindering any meaningful cooperation with its current U.S.- Cuba policy. Climate change and environmental degradation are two of the most pressing contemporary issues. If <u><strong>President Obama is sincerely committed to environmental sustainability, he must forge international partnerships to implement this objective. Where better to begin than in the U.S.’s own backyard, where Cuba has a huge presence. Only then can Cuba and the United States move forward to find joint solutions to environmental challenges. </u></strong>Environmental Riches and Implications Cuba’s glittering white sand beaches, extensive coral reefs, endemic fauna and diverse populations of fish compose the Caribbean’s most biologically diverse island. Based on a per hectare sampling when compared to the U.S. plus Canada<u><strong>, Cuba has 12 times more mammal species, 29 times as many amphibian and reptile species, 39 times more bird species, and 27 times as many vascular plant species</u></strong>. Equally important, <u><strong>adjacent ocean currents and the island nation’s close proximity, carry fish larvae into U.S. waters, making protection of Cuba’s coastal ecosystems vital to replenishing the U.S.’s ailing fisheries. Therefore, preserving the marine resources of Cuba is critical to the economic health of</u></strong> North America’s Atlantic coastal communities. The U.S. and Cuba also share an ancient deepwater coral system that stretches up to North Carolina. The island’s 4,200 islets and keys support important commercial reef fish species such as snapper and grouper as well as other marine life including sea turtles, dolphins and manatees in both countries. <u><strong>Fifty percent of its flora and 41 percent of its fauna are endemic, signifying the importance of protecting the island’s resources in order to safeguard the paradis</u></strong>iacal vision that Christopher Columbus observed when landing on the island in 1492. Oro Negro and Dinero The recent discovery of oil and natural gas reserves in the Florida straits in Cuban waters has attracted foreign oil exploration from China and India, both eager to begin extraction. Offshore oil and gas development could threaten Cuba’s and Florida’s environmental riches. Together, <u><strong>Cuba and the U.S. can develop policies to combat the negative results coming from the exploitation of these resources. The increased extraction and refining of oil in Cuba could have detrimental effects on the environmen</u></strong>t. Offshore drilling is likely to increase with the discovery of petroleum deposits in the Bay of Cárdenas and related areas. <u><strong>Excavation increases the possibility of oil spills, which would in turn destroy the surrounding ecosystem, including fisheries and coral reef formations.</u></strong> The amount of pollutants released into the air from refining crude oil and the amount of wayward oil residuals would also increase with drilling and extraction. Those conversant with the very sensitive habitat issues are calling for immediate consultations aimed at anticipating what should be done. However the U.S.’s enormous oil usage and its development requirements will cultivate economic growth on the island. <u><strong>Washington must work with Cuba to create an ecological protection plan not only to establish an environmentally friendly public image, but to make it a reality as well. </u></strong>Degradation of the environment will deprive Cuba, in the long run, of one of its most important sources of present and future revenue: tourism. Consequently, it is in the mutual interests of the U.S. and Cuba to develop a cooperative relationship that will foster tourism and growth in a sustainable manner. Sustainability through Collaboration In many parts of the country communism has inadequately acted as a seal to preserve elements of Cuba’s past as the centralized government prohibited private development by not giving special permission. A number of tourist resorts already dot the island, but Cuba has been largely exempt from mass tourist exploitation due to frozen relations with the U.S. Although the island remains underdeveloped, Fidel Castro has used his unchecked power to back policies, which have been heedless to environmental considerations, thus damaging some of the island’s pristine ecosystem that once defined the island. Roughly the size of Pennsylvania, Cuba is the largest Caribbean island, <u><strong>and if preservation and conservation measures are planned and carried out in a cognizant manner, it could become a paradigm for sustainable development at the global level. </u></strong>The Obama administration’s recent easing of travel restrictions on Cuban Americans visiting relatives on the island could be of immense importance not only to Cuban families, but also to the preservation of Cuba’s unique and increasingly threatened coastal and marine environments. Such a concession on Washington’s part would mark a small, but still significant stride in U.S.-Cuba relations, yet the travel restrictions still remain inherently discriminatory. The preposterous regulations that allow only a certain category of Americans into Cuba signify only a meager shift in U.S. policy towards Cuba. The 50-year-old U.S. embargo against the island has resoundingly failed to achieve its purpose. <u><strong>Obama’s modifications fall short of what it will take to reestablish a constructive U.S.-Cuba relationship.</u></strong> Cuba’s tropical forests, soils, and maritime areas have suffered degradation as a result of harmful policies stemming from a Soviet-style economic system. Cuba’s economy could be reinvigorated through expanded tourism, development initiatives and an expansion of commodity exports, including sugarcane for ethanol. U.S. policy toward Cuba should encourage environmental factors, thereby strengthening U.S. credibility throughout the hemisphere. A<u><strong>n environmental partnership between the U.S. and Cuba is not only possible, but could result in development models that could serve as an example for environmental strategies throughout the Americas. The U.S. has the economic resources necessary to aid Cuba in developing effective policy, while the island provides the space where sustainable systems can be implemented initially instead of being applied after the fact. Cuba’s extreme lack of development provides an unspoiled arena for the execution of exemplary sustainable environmental protection practices. </u></strong>Waste Not, Want Not Although the government of Cuba has established state-based agencies to develop sustainable environmental practices, the island’s resources are left to be used at the government’s discretion. It is estimated that throughout Cuba, about 113.5 billion gallons of water contaminated with agricultural, industrial and urban wastes are dumped into the sea annually and more than 3.27 billion gallons find their way into its rivers. As direct dumping of untreated industrial waste into rivers, aquifers, and the sea is the norm, Cuban scientists estimate that this volume of industrial liquid waste pollutes roughly 486 gallons of clean water per year. The majority of this contamination stems from four industries, all state owned and operated, nickel excavation, sugar refineries, oil refineries, and rice farms. A 1994 Cuban press release disclosed that the Soto Alba nickel plant on the Moa Bay dumped more than 3.17 billion gallons of untreated liquid waste into the sea every day. The waste contained 72 tons of aluminum, 48 tons of chromium, 15 tons of magnesium, and 30 tons of sulfuric acid. By way of comparison, the treatment standards for wastewater in the U.S. limit the concentration of chromium to a maximum of 0.32 milligrams per liter, 12 times less than the daily dumping into the Moa Bay by only one of the three nickel plants operating in the area. In the sugar industry, more than 15.85 billion gallons of liquid waste are dumped into caves by the 151 operating sugar mills on the island creating the most enduring environmental problem. These alarming figures highlight the precipitous position of Cuba’s environment. While Cuban citizens increasingly are aware of the importance of environmental conservation, the government continues to exploit the island’s resources for state use without hindrance of being environmentally sound. Environmentalists maintain that the Cuban government must take responsibility for enforcing the environmental laws it has enacted and agreements it has signed. For Cubans and foreigners alike, the beaches of Cuba constitute the principle tourist attraction in the country, but even these have not escaped wasteful government exploitation. The famous beaches east of Havana have been the victims of sand removal for use by the Cuban government in the construction industry. In addition to coastal destruction, like many of its Caribbean neighbors, Cuba faces deforestation, over-cultivation of land and compaction of soils due to the use of heavy farm machinery and strip mining. These practices have resulted in high salinity in soils and heavy land erosion. Furthermore, poor water quality in freshwater streams has affected the wildlife habitat, which is in turn influenced by runoff from agricultural practices, erosion due to deforestation, and sedimentation of freshwater streams. Cuba must act in a responsible manner to stop environmental degradation and preserve its tourist industry as an early step to salvage its inert economy. Beginning Concerns The environmental degradation that began during the colonial era has transcended time as a result of Castro’s political and economic paradigm. Only in the last 40 years, with the development of the Commission for the Protection of the Environment and the Conservation of Natural Resources (COMARNA), has Cuba begun to address growing environmental concerns. COMARNA consolidated all of the agencies with environmental responsibilities, as a step towards giving them the power to influence all environmental issues. Although COMARNA was all-inclusive, it lacked independent authority, so its activities achieved few tangible results. The sad fact was that the centralized agency only succeeded in aiding the state in squandering resources. In reality, establishing the agency was a modest concession to ease environmental concerns, but the truth lingered that Cuba’s wealth of natural resources remained under the auspices of the government. COMARNA acknowledged the appeals for conservation by the international community, yet it allowed for the misuse of natural resources by the State. By way of example, the centralized Cuban agency built thousands of miles of roads for the development of non-existent state agricultural enterprises and dams where there was hardly any water to contain. In 1981, Cuba enacted Law 33 in an attempt to legitimize their environmental laws and regulations, yet Law 33 played only a miniscule role in guiding the extraction of natural resources and the conservation of ecological life on the island. Lauded as a law ahead of its time, Law 33 purportedly covers all the regulations concerning the environment and the protection and use of Cuban national resources, even though it produced few results. The statute includes a section comparing the “wise use of natural resources by communist countries versus the indiscriminate use of natural resources by the capitalistic world.” In this regard, the document is more a piece of political propaganda than a law meant to be rigorously enforced. Moreover it palls in comparison to international environmental protection guidelines and has relatively limited significance within the country since the Cuban government is responsible for the operation of the bulk of the industries and is therefore the principal polluter and consumer of natural resources. Thus Law 33 exonerates the Cuban government from enforcing stricter conservation standards by making a system that looks efficient, but in reality may not be so. A closer analysis on Law 33 exposes its inherent lack of efficacy and applicability. Attempts to Move Forward In 1994, Cuba developed the Ministry of Science, Technology and the Environment (CITMA) in order to absorb the tasks of the unproductive COMARNA. CITMA attempts to steer the implementation of environmental policy, the rational use of natural resources, and the adoption of sustainable development programs. Law 81 developed out of the necessity to give the Ministry a more sharply defined role in the government by replacing the outdated Law 33. Law 81, the Law of the Environment, was enacted in 1997 and presents a comprehensive framework law that covers all aspects of the environment ranging from air, water and waste, to historic preservation and coastal zone management. Although it details inspections and an enforcement plan, the law is ultimately ineffective due to its overarching nature, which makes it difficult to enforce. Law 81 may replace a necessary revision of Law 33; however, it remains vague in its enforcement procedures. For example, Law 81, Article 81 states that national resources will be used in accordance with the provisions that “their rational use will be assured, for which their quantitative and qualitative continuity will be preserved, recycling and recovery systems will be developed, and the ecosystems to which they belong safeguarded.” This portion of the provision elucidates the ambiguous nature of the law, as it continues to delineate objectives without coming up with specific implementation strategies. In 1997, the Earth Summit, a conference sponsored by the United Nations aimed at aiding governments in rethinking economic development and finding ways to halt the destruction of irreplaceable natural resources and pollution of the planet was held in New York. At the Summit, Cuban officials were refreshingly blunt in acknowledging the environmental degradation present on their island. In a pamphlet distributed at the conference, the Havana government stated that “there have been mistakes and shortcomings, due mainly to insufficient environmental awareness, knowledge and education, the lack of a higher management demand, limited introduction and generalization of scientific and technological achievements, as well as the still insufficient incorporation of environmental dimensions in its policies. The authorities also pointed to the insufficient development plans and programs and the absence of a sufficiently integrative and coherent judicial system,” to enforce environmental regulations. After the Earth Summit, Cuba designed and implemented a variety of programs, administrative structures, and public awareness initiatives to promote sound environmental management and sustainable development. Although the conference spurred motivation in environmental matters, Cuba still lacked the economic resources needed to support its share of environmental protection responsibilities due to the loss of its financial ties with the former Soviet Union. The Earth Summit came after the fall of the Soviet Union and the tightening of the U.S. blockade against Cuba in 1992, which resulted in a 35% retrenchment of the Cuban GDP. The Special Period, referring to the cut off of economic subsidies that had regularly come from the former Soviet Union, witnessed a decrease in many environmentally damaging activities both by choice and by necessity. The end of aid from the Russia also resulted in many decisions aimed at resuscitating the Cuban economy. The economic crisis increased pressure to sacrifice environmental protection for economic output. Although development slowed due to economic concerns, the island’s forests were particularly overworked for firewood and finished wood exports. However, the crisis also provided the impetus for pursuing sustainable development strategies. The principle motivating such change has been a realization that if Cuba does not preserve its environment, it will, at the very least, lose its attraction to tourists. Diverging Views Unlike the U.S., which still has never ratified the Kyoto Protocol, Cuba signed the document in 1997, which calls for the stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous interference with the global climate system. This legally binding international agreement attempts to tackle the issue of global warming and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S., although a signatory of the Kyoto Protocol, has neither ratified nor withdrawn from the Protocol. The signature alone is merely symbolic, as the Kyoto Protocol is non-binding on the United States unless ratified. Although in 2005 the United States was the largest per capita emitter of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, it experienced only a modest decline of 2.8 percent from 2007 to 2008. <u><strong>This decline demonstrates that the U.S. has the framework to reverse Cuba’s substandard environmental track record. By aiding Havana, Washington would be able to brand itself as an active conservationist. Such a label would enable the U.S. to create a valuable ecological public image in the international arena. </u></strong>The developmental assistance and economic growth potential that might stem from a U.S.-Cuba partnership might aid in developing enforceable implementation strategies. Even though Cuba’s written regulations characteristically lack feasible, implementable standards. Cuban laws, currently in effect, do provide a foundation for greater conservation activity in the future. The Cuban government does show an interest in encouraging sustainable development initiatives in the future, yet its laws are all based on maintaining a centralized government featuring a command economy. For example, CITMA appears to be trying to affect change, but many aspects of Cuba’s bureaucracy are rooted in the past and it remains difficult to update the ways of an outdated administrative substructure. If the embargo is lifted without a robust partnership and plans for environmental sustainability, the invasion of U.S. consumerism may seriously damage the island. Fear of “Cancunization” Many Cuba well-wishers fear if President Obama lifts the trade embargo, the invasion of raw capitalism could destroy Cuba’s relatively pristine environment. Although the Cuban government points to its environmental laws and the government agency which was established to develop a sustainable environmental policy, these measures have done little up to now to affect substantial change. In several distinct sectors, Cuba seems to remain unprepared for the lifting of the embargo and the island inevitably could face a flood of investors from the United States and elsewhere, eager to exploit the beautiful landscapes of the island, at great cost and risk. After years of relying on government subsidies and protectionism, this rapid growth could generate irreparable shock waves through the economy. Oliver Houck, a professor at Tulane University who aided the Cuban government in writing its environmental protection provisions, said “an invasion of U.S. consumerism, a U.S.-dominated future, could roll over it (Cuba) like a bulldozer,” when the embargo ends. The wider Caribbean region has experienced water contamination, mangrove destruction and sewage problems due to large quantities of tourists and inadequate plumbing. Therefore, U.S. tourism regulations need to be in place in order to protect the precious ecosystem of the island and prohibit over development. Collaboration between the U.S. and Cuba would be mutually beneficial, as the U.S. could use Cuba as a laboratory of sustainable development and U.S. tourism would stimulate Cuba’s stagnant economy, if its negative impact could be controlled. Both countries must agree upon a mutual plan for development. The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) has conducted research in Cuba since 2000, working with Cuban partners on scientific investigations and strategies for protecting coastal and marine resources. Operating under a special license from the United States government, EDF experts are collaborating with Cuban scientists on research projects aimed at ensuring that if Cuba taps offshore oil and gas reserves, it will be done in an environmentally concious way. The US should establish more partnerships like these as President Obama has the legal authority to institute far-reaching cooperation with Cuba on joint marine environmental projects. These partnerships should be implemented as the first step in creating an elaborate alliance for environmental protection between the two countries. If the embargo is lifted, symbols of meretricious American capitalism are likely to invade the once relatively isolated island. Opinion columnist Cynthia Tucker has commented on such matters: “Mickey Mouse is sure to arrive, bringing with him the aptly predicted full frontal assault of American culture and consumer goods,” suggesting that if Obama lifts the embargo, a functioning system of environmental protection supported by both the U.S. and the Cuban public must be present for the island to be protected. It is Cuba’s lack of development that makes the island attractive to tourists and although tourism boosts the economy, it also could have detrimental effects on the environment. If the embargo is lifted, strict development restrictions need to be in place in order to prevent further environmental exploitation. Currently, without a severe shift in enforcement of environmental laws and the formation of a hard-working U.S.-Cuba partnership, the Caribbean’s most biodiverse island will continue to be damaged. <u><strong>The key to a new dynamic in the U.S.-Cuba relationship might be to embark on a series of strategic actions that aim to establish a bilateral relationship for sustainable development and associated activities based on mutual respect and the autonomy of each country’s sovereignty and traditions.</p></u></strong> </s>

No- China-Latin American relations don’t threaten US Heg

a Latin American specialist at Harvard University, has found that Sino-Latin American ties do have an anti-hegemony tone they lack an ideological basis and are pragmatic in nature. Increased trade ties between China and the region have not affected Latin American countries’ voting behavior

(LI, EAI Background Brief, “China’s Growing Influence in Latin America: Challenges and Opportunities,” October 30, 2008, http://www.eai.nus.edu.sg/BB411.pdf) /wyo-mm Since the late 1970s China has largely abandoned the export of revolutionary ideology and replaced it with the economically successful model of market socialism; yet its support for anti-hegemony remains. Jorge Dominguez, a Latin American specialist at Harvard University, has found that Sino-Latin American ties do have an anti-hegemony tone. However, they lack an ideological basis and are pragmatic in nature. Increased trade ties between China and the region have not affected Latin American countries’ voting behavior in the United Nations.16

<h4><strong>No- China-Latin American relations don’t threaten US Heg</h4><p>He 08</p><p></strong>(LI, EAI Background Brief, “China’s Growing Influence in Latin America: Challenges and Opportunities,” October 30, 2008, http://www.eai.nus.edu.sg/BB411.pdf) /wyo-mm</p><p>Since the late 1970s China has largely abandoned the export of revolutionary ideology and replaced it with the economically successful model of market socialism; yet its support for anti-hegemony remains. Jorge Dominguez, <u><strong>a Latin American specialist at Harvard University, has found that Sino-Latin American ties do have an anti-hegemony tone</u></strong>. However, <u><strong>they lack an ideological basis and are pragmatic in nature. Increased trade ties between China and the region have not affected Latin American countries’ voting behavior</u></strong> in the United Nations.16</p>

He 08

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: He 08 fulltext: (LI, EAI Background Brief, “China’s Growing Influence in Latin America: Challenges and Opportunities,” October 30, 2008, http://www.eai.nus.edu.sg/BB411.pdf) /wyo-mm Since the late 1970s China has largely abandoned the export of revolutionary ideology and replaced it with the economically successful model of market socialism; yet its support for anti-hegemony remains. Jorge Dominguez, a Latin American specialist at Harvard University, has found that Sino-Latin American ties do have an anti-hegemony tone. However, they lack an ideological basis and are pragmatic in nature. Increased trade ties between China and the region have not affected Latin American countries’ voting behavior in the United Nations.16 [/INST] <h4><strong>No- China-Latin American relations don’t threaten US Heg</h4><p>He 08</p><p></strong>(LI, EAI Background Brief, “China’s Growing Influence in Latin America: Challenges and Opportunities,” October 30, 2008, http://www.eai.nus.edu.sg/BB411.pdf) /wyo-mm</p><p>Since the late 1970s China has largely abandoned the export of revolutionary ideology and replaced it with the economically successful model of market socialism; yet its support for anti-hegemony remains. Jorge Dominguez, <u><strong>a Latin American specialist at Harvard University, has found that Sino-Latin American ties do have an anti-hegemony tone</u></strong>. However, <u><strong>they lack an ideological basis and are pragmatic in nature. Increased trade ties between China and the region have not affected Latin American countries’ voting behavior</u></strong> in the United Nations.16</p> </s>

Economic decline causes protectionism and war – their defense doesn’t assume accompanying shifts in global power.

Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict. Political science literature has contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and defense behavior of interdependent states. Research in this vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable contributions follow. First, on the systemic level, Pollins (2008) advances Modelski and Thompson’s (1996) work on leadership cycle theory, finding that rhythms in the global economy are associated with the rise and fall of a pre-eminent power and the often bloody transition from one pre-eminent leader to the next. As such, exogenous shocks such as economic crisis could usher in a redistribution of relative power (see also Gilpin, 1981) that leads to uncertainty about power balances, increasing the risk of miscalculation (Fearon, 1995). Alternatively, even a relatively certain redistribution of power could lead to a permissive environment for conflict as a rising power may seek to challenge a declining power (Werner, 1999). Seperately, Pollins (1996) also shows that global economic cycles combined with parallel leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict among major, medium and small powers, although he suggests that the causes and connections between global economic conditions and security conditions remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic level, Copeland’s (1996, 2000) theory of trade expectations suggests that ‘future expectation of trade’ is a significant variable in understanding economic conditions and security behavious of states. He argues that interdependent states are likely to gain pacific benefits from trade so long as they have an optimistic view of future trade relations, However, if the expectations of future trade decline, particularly for difficult to replace items such as energy resources, the likelihood for conflict increases, as states will be inclined to use force to gain access to those resources. Crisis could potentially be the trigger for decreased trade expectations either on its own or because it triggers protectionist moves by interdependent states. Third, others have considered the link between economic decline and external armed conflict at a national level. Blomberg and Hess (2002) find a strong correlation between internal conflict and external conflict, particularly during periods of economic downturn. They write, The linkages between internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and mutually reinforcing. Economic conflict tends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favor. Moreover, the presence of a recession tends to amplify the extent to which international and external conflict self-reinforce each other. (Blomberg & Hess, 2002. P. 89) Economic decline has been linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blomberg, Hess, & Weerapana, 2004), which has the capacity to spill across borders and lead to external tensions. Furthermore, crises generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government. ‘Diversionary theory’ suggests that, when facing unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting governments have increase incentives to fabricate external military conflicts to create a ‘rally around the flag’ effect. Wang (1996), DeRouen (1995), and Blomberg, Hess, and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing that economic decline and use of force are at least indirectly correlated. Gelpi (1997), Miller (1999), and Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that the tendency towards diversionary tactics are greater for democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from office due to lack of domestic support. DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence showing that periods of weak economic performance in the United States, and thus weak Presidential popularity, are statistically linked to an increase in the use of force. In summary, recent economic scholarship positively correlated economic integration with an increase in the frequency of economic crises, whereas political science scholarship links economic decline with external conflict at systemic, dyadic and national levels. This implied connection between integration, crisis and armed conflict has not featured prominently in the economic-security debate and deserves more attention.

economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict redistribution of relative power leads to miscalculation future expectation of trade’ is a significant variable states are likely to gain benefits from trade as they have an optimistic view of future trade relations, if expectations of trade decline likelihood for conflict increases Crisis could trigger decreased trade expectations Blomberg and Hess find correlation between internal conflict and external conflict during economic downturn Diversionary theory’ suggests governments have incentives to fabricate military conflicts

Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict. Political science literature has contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and defense behavior of interdependent states. Research in this vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable contributions follow. First, on the systemic level, Pollins (2008) advances Modelski and Thompson’s (1996) work on leadership cycle theory, finding that rhythms in the global economy are associated with the rise and fall of a pre-eminent power and the often bloody transition from one pre-eminent leader to the next. As such, exogenous shocks such as economic crisis could usher in a redistribution of relative power (see also Gilpin, 1981) that leads to uncertainty about power balances, increasing the risk of miscalculation (Fearon, 1995). Alternatively, even a relatively certain redistribution of power could lead to a permissive environment for conflict as a rising power may seek to challenge a declining power (Werner, 1999). Seperately, Pollins (1996) also shows that global economic cycles combined with parallel leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict among major, medium and small powers, although he suggests that the causes and connections between global economic conditions and security conditions remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic level, Copeland’s (1996, 2000) theory of trade expectations suggests that ‘future expectation of trade’ is a significant variable in understanding economic conditions and security behavious of states. He argues that interdependent states are likely to gain pacific benefits from trade so long as they have an optimistic view of future trade relations, However, if the expectations of future trade decline, particularly for difficult to replace items such as energy resources, the likelihood for conflict increases, as states will be inclined to use force to gain access to those resources. Crisis could potentially be the trigger for decreased trade expectations either on its own or because it triggers protectionist moves by interdependent states. Third, others have considered the link between economic decline and external armed conflict at a national level. Blomberg and Hess (2002) find a strong correlation between internal conflict and external conflict, particularly during periods of economic downturn. They write, The linkages between internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and mutually reinforcing. Economic conflict tends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favor. Moreover, the presence of a recession tends to amplify the extent to which international and external conflict self-reinforce each other. (Blomberg & Hess, 2002. P. 89) Economic decline has been linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blomberg, Hess, & Weerapana, 2004), which has the capacity to spill across borders and lead to external tensions. Furthermore, crises generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government. ‘Diversionary theory’ suggests that, when facing unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting governments have increase incentives to fabricate external military conflicts to create a ‘rally around the flag’ effect. Wang (1996), DeRouen (1995), and Blomberg, Hess, and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing that economic decline and use of force are at least indirectly correlated. Gelpi (1997), Miller (1999), and Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that the tendency towards diversionary tactics are greater for democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from office due to lack of domestic support. DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence showing that periods of weak economic performance in the United States, and thus weak Presidential popularity, are statistically linked to an increase in the use of force. In summary, recent economic scholarship positively correlated economic integration with an increase in the frequency of economic crises, whereas political science scholarship links economic decline with external conflict at systemic, dyadic and national levels. This implied connection between integration, crisis and armed conflict has not featured prominently in the economic-security debate and deserves more attention.

<h4><strong>Economic decline causes protectionism and war – their defense doesn’t assume accompanying shifts in global power.</h4><p>Royal 10 –</p><p></strong>Jedediah Royal, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of Defense, 2010, “Economic Integration, Economic Signaling and the Problem of Economic Crises,” in Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives, ed. Goldsmith and Brauer<u><strong>, p. 213-215</p><p>Less intuitive is how periods of </strong><mark>economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict<strong></mark>. Political science literature has contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and defense behavior of interdependent states. Research in this vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable contributions follow. First, on the systemic level, Pollins (2008) advances Modelski and Thompson’s (1996) work on leadership cycle theory, finding that </strong>rhythms in the global economy are associated with the rise and fall of a pre-eminent power<strong> and the often bloody transition from one pre-eminent leader to the next. As such, exogenous shocks such as </strong>economic crisis could usher in a <mark>redistribution of relative power<strong></mark> (see also Gilpin, 1981) </strong>that <mark>leads to</mark> uncertainty about power balances, increasing the risk of <mark>miscalculation<strong></mark> (Fearon, 1995). Alternatively, even a relatively certain redistribution of power could lead to a permissive environment for conflict as a rising power may seek to challenge a declining power (Werner, 1999). Seperately, Pollins (1996) also shows that global economic cycles combined with parallel leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict among major, medium and small powers, although he suggests that the causes and connections between global economic conditions and security conditions remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic level, Copeland’s (1996, 2000) </strong>theory of trade expectations suggests that ‘<mark>future expectation of trade’ is a significant variable</mark> in understanding economic conditions and security behavious of states. He argues that interdependent <mark>states are likely to gain </mark>pacific <mark>benefits from trade</mark> so long <mark>as they have an optimistic view of future trade relations<strong>,</mark> However, </strong><mark>if<strong></mark> the </strong><mark>expectations of<strong></mark> future </strong><mark>trade decline<strong></mark>, particularly for difficult to replace items such as energy resources, </strong>the <mark>likelihood for conflict increases<strong></mark>, as states will be inclined to use force to gain access to those resources. </strong><mark>Crisis could<strong></mark> potentially </strong>be the <mark>trigger</mark> for <mark>decreased trade expectations<strong></mark> either on its own or because it triggers protectionist moves by interdependent states. Third, </strong>others<strong> have </strong>considered the link between economic decline and external armed conflict at a national level. <mark>Blomberg and Hess<strong></mark> (2002) </strong><mark>find</mark> a strong <mark>correlation between internal conflict and external conflict<strong></mark>, particularly </strong><mark>during<strong></mark> periods of </strong><mark>economic downturn<strong></mark>. They write, The linkages between internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and mutually reinforcing. Economic conflict tends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favor. Moreover, the presence of a recession tends to amplify the extent to which international and external conflict self-reinforce each other. (Blomberg & Hess, 2002. P. 89) Economic decline has been linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blomberg, Hess, & Weerapana, 2004), which has the capacity to spill across borders and lead to external tensions. Furthermore, crises generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government. ‘<mark>D</strong>iversionary theory’ suggests<strong></mark> that, </strong>when facing unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting <mark>governments have</mark> increase <mark>incentives to fabricate </mark>external <mark>military conflicts</mark> to create a ‘rally around the flag’ effect<strong>. Wang (1996), DeRouen (1995), and Blomberg, Hess, and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing that economic decline and use of force are at least indirectly correlated. Gelpi (1997), Miller (1999), and Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that </strong>the tendency towards diversionary tactics are greater for democratic states than autocratic states<strong>, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from office due to lack of domestic support. DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence showing that periods of weak economic performance in the United States, and thus weak Presidential popularity, are statistically linked to an increase in the use of force. In summary, recent economic scholarship positively correlated economic integration with an increase in the frequency of economic crises, whereas political science scholarship links economic decline with external conflict at systemic, dyadic and national levels. This implied connection between integration, crisis and armed conflict has not featured prominently in the economic-security debate and deserves more attention. </p></u></strong>

Royal 10 – Jedediah Royal, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of Defense, 2010, “Economic Integration, Economic Signaling and the Problem of Economic Crises,” in Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives, ed. Goldsmith and Brauer, p. 213-215

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Royal 10 – Jedediah Royal, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of Defense, 2010, “Economic Integration, Economic Signaling and the Problem of Economic Crises,” in Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives, ed. Goldsmith and Brauer, p. 213-215 fulltext: Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict. Political science literature has contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and defense behavior of interdependent states. Research in this vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable contributions follow. First, on the systemic level, Pollins (2008) advances Modelski and Thompson’s (1996) work on leadership cycle theory, finding that rhythms in the global economy are associated with the rise and fall of a pre-eminent power and the often bloody transition from one pre-eminent leader to the next. As such, exogenous shocks such as economic crisis could usher in a redistribution of relative power (see also Gilpin, 1981) that leads to uncertainty about power balances, increasing the risk of miscalculation (Fearon, 1995). Alternatively, even a relatively certain redistribution of power could lead to a permissive environment for conflict as a rising power may seek to challenge a declining power (Werner, 1999). Seperately, Pollins (1996) also shows that global economic cycles combined with parallel leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict among major, medium and small powers, although he suggests that the causes and connections between global economic conditions and security conditions remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic level, Copeland’s (1996, 2000) theory of trade expectations suggests that ‘future expectation of trade’ is a significant variable in understanding economic conditions and security behavious of states. He argues that interdependent states are likely to gain pacific benefits from trade so long as they have an optimistic view of future trade relations, However, if the expectations of future trade decline, particularly for difficult to replace items such as energy resources, the likelihood for conflict increases, as states will be inclined to use force to gain access to those resources. Crisis could potentially be the trigger for decreased trade expectations either on its own or because it triggers protectionist moves by interdependent states. Third, others have considered the link between economic decline and external armed conflict at a national level. Blomberg and Hess (2002) find a strong correlation between internal conflict and external conflict, particularly during periods of economic downturn. They write, The linkages between internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and mutually reinforcing. Economic conflict tends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favor. Moreover, the presence of a recession tends to amplify the extent to which international and external conflict self-reinforce each other. (Blomberg & Hess, 2002. P. 89) Economic decline has been linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blomberg, Hess, & Weerapana, 2004), which has the capacity to spill across borders and lead to external tensions. Furthermore, crises generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government. ‘Diversionary theory’ suggests that, when facing unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting governments have increase incentives to fabricate external military conflicts to create a ‘rally around the flag’ effect. Wang (1996), DeRouen (1995), and Blomberg, Hess, and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing that economic decline and use of force are at least indirectly correlated. Gelpi (1997), Miller (1999), and Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that the tendency towards diversionary tactics are greater for democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from office due to lack of domestic support. DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence showing that periods of weak economic performance in the United States, and thus weak Presidential popularity, are statistically linked to an increase in the use of force. In summary, recent economic scholarship positively correlated economic integration with an increase in the frequency of economic crises, whereas political science scholarship links economic decline with external conflict at systemic, dyadic and national levels. This implied connection between integration, crisis and armed conflict has not featured prominently in the economic-security debate and deserves more attention. [/INST] <h4><strong>Economic decline causes protectionism and war – their defense doesn’t assume accompanying shifts in global power.</h4><p>Royal 10 –</p><p></strong>Jedediah Royal, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of Defense, 2010, “Economic Integration, Economic Signaling and the Problem of Economic Crises,” in Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives, ed. Goldsmith and Brauer<u><strong>, p. 213-215</p><p>Less intuitive is how periods of </strong><mark>economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict<strong></mark>. Political science literature has contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and defense behavior of interdependent states. Research in this vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable contributions follow. First, on the systemic level, Pollins (2008) advances Modelski and Thompson’s (1996) work on leadership cycle theory, finding that </strong>rhythms in the global economy are associated with the rise and fall of a pre-eminent power<strong> and the often bloody transition from one pre-eminent leader to the next. As such, exogenous shocks such as </strong>economic crisis could usher in a <mark>redistribution of relative power<strong></mark> (see also Gilpin, 1981) </strong>that <mark>leads to</mark> uncertainty about power balances, increasing the risk of <mark>miscalculation<strong></mark> (Fearon, 1995). Alternatively, even a relatively certain redistribution of power could lead to a permissive environment for conflict as a rising power may seek to challenge a declining power (Werner, 1999). Seperately, Pollins (1996) also shows that global economic cycles combined with parallel leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict among major, medium and small powers, although he suggests that the causes and connections between global economic conditions and security conditions remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic level, Copeland’s (1996, 2000) </strong>theory of trade expectations suggests that ‘<mark>future expectation of trade’ is a significant variable</mark> in understanding economic conditions and security behavious of states. He argues that interdependent <mark>states are likely to gain </mark>pacific <mark>benefits from trade</mark> so long <mark>as they have an optimistic view of future trade relations<strong>,</mark> However, </strong><mark>if<strong></mark> the </strong><mark>expectations of<strong></mark> future </strong><mark>trade decline<strong></mark>, particularly for difficult to replace items such as energy resources, </strong>the <mark>likelihood for conflict increases<strong></mark>, as states will be inclined to use force to gain access to those resources. </strong><mark>Crisis could<strong></mark> potentially </strong>be the <mark>trigger</mark> for <mark>decreased trade expectations<strong></mark> either on its own or because it triggers protectionist moves by interdependent states. Third, </strong>others<strong> have </strong>considered the link between economic decline and external armed conflict at a national level. <mark>Blomberg and Hess<strong></mark> (2002) </strong><mark>find</mark> a strong <mark>correlation between internal conflict and external conflict<strong></mark>, particularly </strong><mark>during<strong></mark> periods of </strong><mark>economic downturn<strong></mark>. They write, The linkages between internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and mutually reinforcing. Economic conflict tends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favor. Moreover, the presence of a recession tends to amplify the extent to which international and external conflict self-reinforce each other. (Blomberg & Hess, 2002. P. 89) Economic decline has been linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blomberg, Hess, & Weerapana, 2004), which has the capacity to spill across borders and lead to external tensions. Furthermore, crises generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government. ‘<mark>D</strong>iversionary theory’ suggests<strong></mark> that, </strong>when facing unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting <mark>governments have</mark> increase <mark>incentives to fabricate </mark>external <mark>military conflicts</mark> to create a ‘rally around the flag’ effect<strong>. Wang (1996), DeRouen (1995), and Blomberg, Hess, and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing that economic decline and use of force are at least indirectly correlated. Gelpi (1997), Miller (1999), and Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that </strong>the tendency towards diversionary tactics are greater for democratic states than autocratic states<strong>, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from office due to lack of domestic support. DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence showing that periods of weak economic performance in the United States, and thus weak Presidential popularity, are statistically linked to an increase in the use of force. In summary, recent economic scholarship positively correlated economic integration with an increase in the frequency of economic crises, whereas political science scholarship links economic decline with external conflict at systemic, dyadic and national levels. This implied connection between integration, crisis and armed conflict has not featured prominently in the economic-security debate and deserves more attention. </p></u></strong> </s>

Relations set a precedent for environmental co-operation globally

* The environment has offered a promising source of study for scientists. The United States and Cuba cut off diplomatic relations and most travel 50 years ago, which makes such collaboration tricky. If Columbus were a scuba diver, he’d still recognize this beautiful place … . it’s the way an ecosystem should look,” These unique circumstances allow scientists from across the globe a chance to explore more cohesive international marine policies and practices Mexican and U.S. scientists are examining how Cuban corals could be transplanted to their diminished coasts. Those reefs offer vital habitat to fish and sea turtles roaming freely through Gulf waters. Current efforts underscore the potential for scientific advancemen She says U.S. collaboration is vital for Cubans struggling to reap the benefits of their free university studies. We Cubans are well-educated, but we don’t always have the resources we need to carry out full investigations. For example, we haven’t completed an exhaustive study on sharks since the 1960s. Our American colleagues have. That’s important because these sharks are top predators that control the order of marine life, and they’re in decline.” In addition to offering an optimal marine study environment, Aguilar affirms her people can show American researchers how to persevere in tough economic times. Our best resource is humans. We’re creative and able to get things done with practically no tools

(Julienne, "Cuban, US Scientists Work Toward a Better Gulf," Discovery News, October 15, http://news.discovery.com/earth/cuba-united-states-gulf-science.html) * Because of a lack of tourism prompted by the U.S.-Cuba trade embargo, reefs in Cuba are much less damaged than their Florida counterparts. * The environment has offered a promising source of study for scientists. * The United States and Cuba cut off diplomatic relations and most travel 50 years ago, which makes such collaboration tricky. Since 1962, the United States' embargo against communist Cuba has drastically limited travel and collaboration with the island. Click to enlarge this image. With 3,000 monitors floating through the world's oceans at once, scientists are getting a flood of information about our seas. Discovery News' James Williams dives into the story. It’s been five decades since the United States cut off ties to communist Cuba, ultimately limiting communication, trade, and travel to some research and humanitarian assistance. Ironically, that isolation helped to protect the island’s pristine ocean ecosystem, making it an ideal place for scientists to study marine restoration and conservation. Under exemptions to the 1962 U.S. embargo against Cuba, David Guggenheim, a Senior Fellow at Washington, D.C.’s Ocean Foundation, has made more than 50 trips there since 2000. He says Florida’s reefs once mirrored Cuba’s, but were damaged by decades of sediment and fertilizer from large-scale construction and farming. “If Columbus were a scuba diver, he’d still recognize this beautiful place … . it’s the way an ecosystem should look,” Guggenheim said. The island’s tourism was scarce between the 1959 revolution that brought Fidel Castro to power and the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union, Cuba’s main economic backer. To save itself from financial ruin, Cuba built it up, luring Europeans hungry for tropical vacations. Still, that industry is small compared to what it would be if American tourists could visit. These unique circumstances allow scientists from across the globe a chance to explore more cohesive international marine policies and practices, and nowhere is that more evident than in the Gulf of Mexico. For example, Mexican and U.S. scientists are examining how Cuban corals could be transplanted to their diminished coasts. Those reefs offer vital habitat to fish and sea turtles roaming freely through Gulf waters. The Obama administration has increased U.S. visas to Cuban researchers, but scientists on both shores say the embargo still hinders the extent of collaboration. “Half the effort is figuring out licensing and (political) sensitivities,” said Frank Muller-Karger, an oceangrapher at University of South Florida’s College of Marine Science in Tampa. U.S. law won’t allow American researchers to bring in high-tech equipment because the U.S. government contends it could be used for terrorism. American scientists can hire local Cubans for purposes of their visit, but not for ongoing investigations. Current efforts underscore the potential for scientific advancement, especially in light of the historic Gulf oil spill. Last month, about 60 Cuban, Mexican, and American scientists gathered for the fourth annual Trinational Initiative at the MOTE Marine Laboratory in Sarasota, Fla. The conference, organized by Guggenheim, helps all three countries streamline Gulf conservation efforts. At this one, participants pooled their data to develop a five-to-10-year plan. “The value of this network is that we’re able to mobilize quickly,” noted Guggenheim. Indeed, after the Gulf oil spill, he and his colleagues bridged communications among the U.S. State Department, the U.S. Coast Guard, NOAA and the Cuban government. That may come in handy when Cuba begins offshore oil exploration next year. Consuelo Aguilar, a lead researcher at University of Havana’s Center for Marine Investigations, and a longtime collaborator of Guggenheim, is one of 17 Cuban scientists who received a visa for the Trinational Initiative conference. She says U.S. collaboration is vital for Cubans struggling to reap the benefits of their free university studies. “We Cubans are well-educated, but we don’t always have the resources we need to carry out full investigations. For example, we haven’t completed an exhaustive study on sharks since the 1960s. Our American colleagues have. That’s important because these sharks are top predators that control the order of marine life, and they’re in decline.” Thanks to Guggenheim’s work with Cubans like Aguilar, some 20 marine biology masters and doctoral students in Havana have field projects. In addition to offering an optimal marine study environment, Aguilar affirms her people can show American researchers how to persevere in tough economic times. “Our best resource is humans. We’re creative and able to get things done with practically no tools,” she said, adding that her marine center often teaches school children about ecology so that they will be prepared to protect it.

<h4>Relations set a precedent for environmental co-operation globally</h4><p><strong>Gage 10</strong> </p><p>(Julienne, "Cuban, US Scientists Work Toward a Better Gulf," Discovery News, October 15, http://news.discovery.com/earth/cuba-united-states-gulf-science.html)</p><p>* Because of a lack of tourism prompted by the U.S.-Cuba trade embargo, reefs in Cuba are much less damaged than their Florida counterparts. <u><strong> * The environment has offered a promising source of study for scientists. </u></strong> * <u><strong>The United States and Cuba cut off diplomatic relations and most travel 50 years ago, which makes such collaboration tricky. </u></strong>Since 1962, the United States' embargo against communist Cuba has drastically limited travel and collaboration with the island. Click to enlarge this image. With 3,000 monitors floating through the world's oceans at once, scientists are getting a flood of information about our seas. Discovery News' James Williams dives into the story. It’s been five decades since the United States cut off ties to communist Cuba, ultimately limiting communication, trade, and travel to some research and humanitarian assistance. Ironically, that isolation helped to protect the island’s pristine ocean ecosystem, making it an ideal place for scientists to study marine restoration and conservation. Under exemptions to the 1962 U.S. embargo against Cuba, David Guggenheim, a Senior Fellow at Washington, D.C.’s Ocean Foundation, has made more than 50 trips there since 2000. He says Florida’s reefs once mirrored Cuba’s, but were damaged by decades of sediment and fertilizer from large-scale construction and farming. “<u><strong>If Columbus were a scuba diver, he’d still recognize this beautiful place … . it’s the way an ecosystem should look,”</u></strong> Guggenheim said. The island’s tourism was scarce between the 1959 revolution that brought Fidel Castro to power and the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union, Cuba’s main economic backer. To save itself from financial ruin, Cuba built it up, luring Europeans hungry for tropical vacations. Still, that industry is small compared to what it would be if American tourists could visit. <u><strong>These unique circumstances allow scientists from across the globe a chance to explore more cohesive international marine policies and practices</u></strong>, and nowhere is that more evident than in the Gulf of Mexico. For example, <u><strong>Mexican and U.S. scientists are examining how Cuban corals could be transplanted to their diminished coasts. Those reefs offer vital habitat to fish and sea turtles roaming freely through Gulf waters. </u></strong>The Obama administration has increased U.S. visas to Cuban researchers, but scientists on both shores say the embargo still hinders the extent of collaboration. “Half the effort is figuring out licensing and (political) sensitivities,” said Frank Muller-Karger, an oceangrapher at University of South Florida’s College of Marine Science in Tampa. U.S. law won’t allow American researchers to bring in high-tech equipment because the U.S. government contends it could be used for terrorism. American scientists can hire local Cubans for purposes of their visit, but not for ongoing investigations. <u><strong>Current efforts underscore the potential for scientific advancemen</u></strong>t, especially in light of the historic Gulf oil spill. Last month, about 60 Cuban, Mexican, and American scientists gathered for the fourth annual Trinational Initiative at the MOTE Marine Laboratory in Sarasota, Fla. The conference, organized by Guggenheim, helps all three countries streamline Gulf conservation efforts. At this one, participants pooled their data to develop a five-to-10-year plan. “The value of this network is that we’re able to mobilize quickly,” noted Guggenheim. Indeed, after the Gulf oil spill, he and his colleagues bridged communications among the U.S. State Department, the U.S. Coast Guard, NOAA and the Cuban government. That may come in handy when Cuba begins offshore oil exploration next year. Consuelo Aguilar, a lead researcher at University of Havana’s Center for Marine Investigations, and a longtime collaborator of Guggenheim, is one of 17 Cuban scientists who received a visa for the Trinational Initiative conference. <u><strong>She says U.S. collaboration is vital for Cubans struggling to reap the benefits of their free university studies. </u></strong>“<u><strong>We Cubans are well-educated, but we don’t always have the resources we need to carry out full investigations. For example, we haven’t completed an exhaustive study on sharks since the 1960s. Our American colleagues have. That’s important because these sharks are top predators that control the order of marine life, and they’re in decline.” </u></strong>Thanks to Guggenheim’s work with Cubans like Aguilar, some 20 marine biology masters and doctoral students in Havana have field projects. <u><strong>In addition to offering an optimal marine study environment, Aguilar affirms her people can show American researchers how to persevere in tough economic times. </u></strong>“<u><strong>Our best resource is humans. We’re creative and able to get things done with practically no tools</u></strong>,” she said, adding that her marine center often teaches school children about ecology so that they will be prepared to protect it.</p>

Gage 10

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Gage 10 fulltext: (Julienne, "Cuban, US Scientists Work Toward a Better Gulf," Discovery News, October 15, http://news.discovery.com/earth/cuba-united-states-gulf-science.html) * Because of a lack of tourism prompted by the U.S.-Cuba trade embargo, reefs in Cuba are much less damaged than their Florida counterparts. * The environment has offered a promising source of study for scientists. * The United States and Cuba cut off diplomatic relations and most travel 50 years ago, which makes such collaboration tricky. Since 1962, the United States' embargo against communist Cuba has drastically limited travel and collaboration with the island. Click to enlarge this image. With 3,000 monitors floating through the world's oceans at once, scientists are getting a flood of information about our seas. Discovery News' James Williams dives into the story. It’s been five decades since the United States cut off ties to communist Cuba, ultimately limiting communication, trade, and travel to some research and humanitarian assistance. Ironically, that isolation helped to protect the island’s pristine ocean ecosystem, making it an ideal place for scientists to study marine restoration and conservation. Under exemptions to the 1962 U.S. embargo against Cuba, David Guggenheim, a Senior Fellow at Washington, D.C.’s Ocean Foundation, has made more than 50 trips there since 2000. He says Florida’s reefs once mirrored Cuba’s, but were damaged by decades of sediment and fertilizer from large-scale construction and farming. “If Columbus were a scuba diver, he’d still recognize this beautiful place … . it’s the way an ecosystem should look,” Guggenheim said. The island’s tourism was scarce between the 1959 revolution that brought Fidel Castro to power and the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union, Cuba’s main economic backer. To save itself from financial ruin, Cuba built it up, luring Europeans hungry for tropical vacations. Still, that industry is small compared to what it would be if American tourists could visit. These unique circumstances allow scientists from across the globe a chance to explore more cohesive international marine policies and practices, and nowhere is that more evident than in the Gulf of Mexico. For example, Mexican and U.S. scientists are examining how Cuban corals could be transplanted to their diminished coasts. Those reefs offer vital habitat to fish and sea turtles roaming freely through Gulf waters. The Obama administration has increased U.S. visas to Cuban researchers, but scientists on both shores say the embargo still hinders the extent of collaboration. “Half the effort is figuring out licensing and (political) sensitivities,” said Frank Muller-Karger, an oceangrapher at University of South Florida’s College of Marine Science in Tampa. U.S. law won’t allow American researchers to bring in high-tech equipment because the U.S. government contends it could be used for terrorism. American scientists can hire local Cubans for purposes of their visit, but not for ongoing investigations. Current efforts underscore the potential for scientific advancement, especially in light of the historic Gulf oil spill. Last month, about 60 Cuban, Mexican, and American scientists gathered for the fourth annual Trinational Initiative at the MOTE Marine Laboratory in Sarasota, Fla. The conference, organized by Guggenheim, helps all three countries streamline Gulf conservation efforts. At this one, participants pooled their data to develop a five-to-10-year plan. “The value of this network is that we’re able to mobilize quickly,” noted Guggenheim. Indeed, after the Gulf oil spill, he and his colleagues bridged communications among the U.S. State Department, the U.S. Coast Guard, NOAA and the Cuban government. That may come in handy when Cuba begins offshore oil exploration next year. Consuelo Aguilar, a lead researcher at University of Havana’s Center for Marine Investigations, and a longtime collaborator of Guggenheim, is one of 17 Cuban scientists who received a visa for the Trinational Initiative conference. She says U.S. collaboration is vital for Cubans struggling to reap the benefits of their free university studies. “We Cubans are well-educated, but we don’t always have the resources we need to carry out full investigations. For example, we haven’t completed an exhaustive study on sharks since the 1960s. Our American colleagues have. That’s important because these sharks are top predators that control the order of marine life, and they’re in decline.” Thanks to Guggenheim’s work with Cubans like Aguilar, some 20 marine biology masters and doctoral students in Havana have field projects. In addition to offering an optimal marine study environment, Aguilar affirms her people can show American researchers how to persevere in tough economic times. “Our best resource is humans. We’re creative and able to get things done with practically no tools,” she said, adding that her marine center often teaches school children about ecology so that they will be prepared to protect it. [/INST] <h4>Relations set a precedent for environmental co-operation globally</h4><p><strong>Gage 10</strong> </p><p>(Julienne, "Cuban, US Scientists Work Toward a Better Gulf," Discovery News, October 15, http://news.discovery.com/earth/cuba-united-states-gulf-science.html)</p><p>* Because of a lack of tourism prompted by the U.S.-Cuba trade embargo, reefs in Cuba are much less damaged than their Florida counterparts. <u><strong> * The environment has offered a promising source of study for scientists. </u></strong> * <u><strong>The United States and Cuba cut off diplomatic relations and most travel 50 years ago, which makes such collaboration tricky. </u></strong>Since 1962, the United States' embargo against communist Cuba has drastically limited travel and collaboration with the island. Click to enlarge this image. With 3,000 monitors floating through the world's oceans at once, scientists are getting a flood of information about our seas. Discovery News' James Williams dives into the story. It’s been five decades since the United States cut off ties to communist Cuba, ultimately limiting communication, trade, and travel to some research and humanitarian assistance. Ironically, that isolation helped to protect the island’s pristine ocean ecosystem, making it an ideal place for scientists to study marine restoration and conservation. Under exemptions to the 1962 U.S. embargo against Cuba, David Guggenheim, a Senior Fellow at Washington, D.C.’s Ocean Foundation, has made more than 50 trips there since 2000. He says Florida’s reefs once mirrored Cuba’s, but were damaged by decades of sediment and fertilizer from large-scale construction and farming. “<u><strong>If Columbus were a scuba diver, he’d still recognize this beautiful place … . it’s the way an ecosystem should look,”</u></strong> Guggenheim said. The island’s tourism was scarce between the 1959 revolution that brought Fidel Castro to power and the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union, Cuba’s main economic backer. To save itself from financial ruin, Cuba built it up, luring Europeans hungry for tropical vacations. Still, that industry is small compared to what it would be if American tourists could visit. <u><strong>These unique circumstances allow scientists from across the globe a chance to explore more cohesive international marine policies and practices</u></strong>, and nowhere is that more evident than in the Gulf of Mexico. For example, <u><strong>Mexican and U.S. scientists are examining how Cuban corals could be transplanted to their diminished coasts. Those reefs offer vital habitat to fish and sea turtles roaming freely through Gulf waters. </u></strong>The Obama administration has increased U.S. visas to Cuban researchers, but scientists on both shores say the embargo still hinders the extent of collaboration. “Half the effort is figuring out licensing and (political) sensitivities,” said Frank Muller-Karger, an oceangrapher at University of South Florida’s College of Marine Science in Tampa. U.S. law won’t allow American researchers to bring in high-tech equipment because the U.S. government contends it could be used for terrorism. American scientists can hire local Cubans for purposes of their visit, but not for ongoing investigations. <u><strong>Current efforts underscore the potential for scientific advancemen</u></strong>t, especially in light of the historic Gulf oil spill. Last month, about 60 Cuban, Mexican, and American scientists gathered for the fourth annual Trinational Initiative at the MOTE Marine Laboratory in Sarasota, Fla. The conference, organized by Guggenheim, helps all three countries streamline Gulf conservation efforts. At this one, participants pooled their data to develop a five-to-10-year plan. “The value of this network is that we’re able to mobilize quickly,” noted Guggenheim. Indeed, after the Gulf oil spill, he and his colleagues bridged communications among the U.S. State Department, the U.S. Coast Guard, NOAA and the Cuban government. That may come in handy when Cuba begins offshore oil exploration next year. Consuelo Aguilar, a lead researcher at University of Havana’s Center for Marine Investigations, and a longtime collaborator of Guggenheim, is one of 17 Cuban scientists who received a visa for the Trinational Initiative conference. <u><strong>She says U.S. collaboration is vital for Cubans struggling to reap the benefits of their free university studies. </u></strong>“<u><strong>We Cubans are well-educated, but we don’t always have the resources we need to carry out full investigations. For example, we haven’t completed an exhaustive study on sharks since the 1960s. Our American colleagues have. That’s important because these sharks are top predators that control the order of marine life, and they’re in decline.” </u></strong>Thanks to Guggenheim’s work with Cubans like Aguilar, some 20 marine biology masters and doctoral students in Havana have field projects. <u><strong>In addition to offering an optimal marine study environment, Aguilar affirms her people can show American researchers how to persevere in tough economic times. </u></strong>“<u><strong>Our best resource is humans. We’re creative and able to get things done with practically no tools</u></strong>,” she said, adding that her marine center often teaches school children about ecology so that they will be prepared to protect it.</p> </s>

Lifting the embargo causes medical brain drain

s. 89.4 (July-August 2010): p61, Accessed online via academic onefile] /Wyo-MB a lot may change if the United States alters its policies toward Cuba once the U.S. embargo is lifted, the facility will be overwhelmed by its foreign patients. chains of private clinics catering to the elective needs of North Americans and Europeans. providing health care to wealthy foreigners would drain physicians, technicians, and nurses from Cuba's public system.¶ And any such brain drain within Cuba might be dwarfed by a brain drain out into the rest of the world, as Cuban doctors and nurses leave the country to seek incomes that cannot be matched at home Countries facing gross deficits in skilled medical talent are already scrambling to lure doctors, nurses, lab technicians, dentists, pharmacists, and health administrators from other nations. from the United States to China patients will need complex, labor-intensive medical attention the unintended consequence of further straining meager supplies of human medical resources by drawing talent away from less well-funded areas of medicine, such as basic children's health care U.S. and Canadian medical institutions are trying to fill their human-resource gaps through recruitment from Latin America.

[Laurie, LAURIE GARRETT is Senior Fellow for Global Health at the Council on Foreign Relations, Castrocare in crisis: will lifting the embargo make things worse?, Foreign Affairs. 89.4 (July-August 2010): p61, Accessed online via academic onefile] /Wyo-MB But a lot may change if the United States alters its policies toward Cuba. In 2009, a group of 30 physicians from Florida toured Cira Garcia and concluded that once the U.S. embargo is lifted, the facility will be overwhelmed by its foreign patients. It takes little imagination to envision chains of private clinics, located near five-star hotels and beach resorts, catering to the elective needs of North Americans and Europeans. Such a trend might bode well for Canadians seeking to avoid queues in Ottawa for hip replacements or for U.S. health insurance companies looking to cut costs on cataract surgery and pacemakers. But providing health care to wealthy foreigners would drain physicians, technicians, and nurses from Cuba's public system.¶ And any such brain drain within Cuba might be dwarfed by a brain drain out into the rest of the world, as Cuban doctors and nurses leave the country to seek incomes that cannot be matched at home. Countries facing gross deficits in skilled medical talent are already scrambling to lure doctors, nurses, lab technicians, dentists, pharmacists, and health administrators from other nations. In 2006, the WHO estimated that the global deficit of medical professionals was roughly 4.3 million, and the figure can only have grown since then. As the world's population ages and average life expectancies rise from the United States to China, millions more patients will need complex, labor-intensive medical attention. And in countries with falling life expectancies and high rates of HIV/AIDS, donor resources aimed at combating the disease often have the unintended consequence of further straining meager supplies of human medical resources by drawing talent away from less well-funded areas of medicine, such as basic children's health care. According to the American College of Physicians, the United States currently has approximately one doctor for every 2,500 patients and a critical shortage of nearly 17,000 doctors. The American Medical Association estimates that there is an especially grave deficit of primary-care physicians, with only 304,000 licensed--about 30,000 fewer than needed. And the recently enacted federal health-care reform law will put more than 30 million more Americans on insurance or public rolls, thereby dramatically increasing the need for physicians.¶ Primary-care physicians are the worst-paid doctors in the United States. Their average salaries have grown by less than four percent per year since 2000, compared with roughly ten percent per year for the salaries of surgeons and specialists, according to the American College of Physicians. Last year, primary-care doctors in the United States earned about $173,000 on average, compared with $344,000 for anesthesiologists and $481,000 for orthopedic surgeons. With most U.S. doctors incurring debts of $200,000 to complete their schooling, there is little hope that the acute primary-care deficit can be filled anytime soon by talent trained in the United States. Already, U.S. and Canadian medical institutions are trying to fill their human-resource gaps through recruitment from Africa, Asia, eastern Europe, and Latin America.

<h4><strong>Lifting the embargo causes medical brain drain</h4><p>Garett, 2010</p><p></strong>[Laurie, LAURIE GARRETT is Senior Fellow for Global Health at the Council on Foreign Relations, Castrocare in crisis: will lifting the embargo make things worse?, Foreign Affair<u><strong>s. 89.4 (July-August 2010): p61, Accessed online via academic onefile] /Wyo-MB</p><p></u></strong>But <u><strong>a lot may change if the United States alters its policies toward Cuba</u></strong>. In 2009, a group of 30 physicians from Florida toured Cira Garcia and concluded that <u><strong>once the U.S. embargo is lifted, the facility will be overwhelmed by its foreign patients.</u></strong> It takes little imagination to envision <u><strong>chains of private clinics</u></strong>, located near five-star hotels and beach resorts, <u><strong>catering to the elective needs of North Americans and Europeans. </u></strong>Such a trend might bode well for Canadians seeking to avoid queues in Ottawa for hip replacements or for U.S. health insurance companies looking to cut costs on cataract surgery and pacemakers. But <u><strong>providing health care to wealthy foreigners would drain physicians, technicians, and nurses from Cuba's public system.¶ And any such brain drain within Cuba might be dwarfed by a brain drain out into the rest of the world, as Cuban doctors and nurses leave the country to seek incomes that cannot be matched at home</u></strong>. <u><strong>Countries facing gross deficits in skilled medical talent are already scrambling to lure doctors, nurses, lab technicians, dentists, pharmacists, and health administrators from other nations.</u></strong> In 2006, the WHO estimated that the global deficit of medical professionals was roughly 4.3 million, and the figure can only have grown since then. As the world's population ages and average life expectancies rise <u><strong>from the United States to China</u></strong>, millions more <u><strong>patients will need complex, labor-intensive medical attention</u></strong>. And in countries with falling life expectancies and high rates of HIV/AIDS, donor resources aimed at combating the disease often have <u><strong>the unintended consequence of further straining meager supplies of human medical resources by drawing talent away from less well-funded areas of medicine, such as basic children's health care</u></strong>. According to the American College of Physicians, the United States currently has approximately one doctor for every 2,500 patients and a critical shortage of nearly 17,000 doctors. The American Medical Association estimates that there is an especially grave deficit of primary-care physicians, with only 304,000 licensed--about 30,000 fewer than needed. And the recently enacted federal health-care reform law will put more than 30 million more Americans on insurance or public rolls, thereby dramatically increasing the need for physicians.¶ Primary-care physicians are the worst-paid doctors in the United States. Their average salaries have grown by less than four percent per year since 2000, compared with roughly ten percent per year for the salaries of surgeons and specialists, according to the American College of Physicians. Last year, primary-care doctors in the United States earned about $173,000 on average, compared with $344,000 for anesthesiologists and $481,000 for orthopedic surgeons. With most U.S. doctors incurring debts of $200,000 to complete their schooling, there is little hope that the acute primary-care deficit can be filled anytime soon by talent trained in the United States. Already, <u><strong>U.S. and Canadian medical institutions are trying to fill their human-resource gaps through recruitment from</u></strong> Africa, Asia, eastern Europe, and <u><strong>Latin America.</p></u></strong>

Garett, 2010

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Garett, 2010 fulltext: [Laurie, LAURIE GARRETT is Senior Fellow for Global Health at the Council on Foreign Relations, Castrocare in crisis: will lifting the embargo make things worse?, Foreign Affairs. 89.4 (July-August 2010): p61, Accessed online via academic onefile] /Wyo-MB But a lot may change if the United States alters its policies toward Cuba. In 2009, a group of 30 physicians from Florida toured Cira Garcia and concluded that once the U.S. embargo is lifted, the facility will be overwhelmed by its foreign patients. It takes little imagination to envision chains of private clinics, located near five-star hotels and beach resorts, catering to the elective needs of North Americans and Europeans. Such a trend might bode well for Canadians seeking to avoid queues in Ottawa for hip replacements or for U.S. health insurance companies looking to cut costs on cataract surgery and pacemakers. But providing health care to wealthy foreigners would drain physicians, technicians, and nurses from Cuba's public system.¶ And any such brain drain within Cuba might be dwarfed by a brain drain out into the rest of the world, as Cuban doctors and nurses leave the country to seek incomes that cannot be matched at home. Countries facing gross deficits in skilled medical talent are already scrambling to lure doctors, nurses, lab technicians, dentists, pharmacists, and health administrators from other nations. In 2006, the WHO estimated that the global deficit of medical professionals was roughly 4.3 million, and the figure can only have grown since then. As the world's population ages and average life expectancies rise from the United States to China, millions more patients will need complex, labor-intensive medical attention. And in countries with falling life expectancies and high rates of HIV/AIDS, donor resources aimed at combating the disease often have the unintended consequence of further straining meager supplies of human medical resources by drawing talent away from less well-funded areas of medicine, such as basic children's health care. According to the American College of Physicians, the United States currently has approximately one doctor for every 2,500 patients and a critical shortage of nearly 17,000 doctors. The American Medical Association estimates that there is an especially grave deficit of primary-care physicians, with only 304,000 licensed--about 30,000 fewer than needed. And the recently enacted federal health-care reform law will put more than 30 million more Americans on insurance or public rolls, thereby dramatically increasing the need for physicians.¶ Primary-care physicians are the worst-paid doctors in the United States. Their average salaries have grown by less than four percent per year since 2000, compared with roughly ten percent per year for the salaries of surgeons and specialists, according to the American College of Physicians. Last year, primary-care doctors in the United States earned about $173,000 on average, compared with $344,000 for anesthesiologists and $481,000 for orthopedic surgeons. With most U.S. doctors incurring debts of $200,000 to complete their schooling, there is little hope that the acute primary-care deficit can be filled anytime soon by talent trained in the United States. Already, U.S. and Canadian medical institutions are trying to fill their human-resource gaps through recruitment from Africa, Asia, eastern Europe, and Latin America. [/INST] <h4><strong>Lifting the embargo causes medical brain drain</h4><p>Garett, 2010</p><p></strong>[Laurie, LAURIE GARRETT is Senior Fellow for Global Health at the Council on Foreign Relations, Castrocare in crisis: will lifting the embargo make things worse?, Foreign Affair<u><strong>s. 89.4 (July-August 2010): p61, Accessed online via academic onefile] /Wyo-MB</p><p></u></strong>But <u><strong>a lot may change if the United States alters its policies toward Cuba</u></strong>. In 2009, a group of 30 physicians from Florida toured Cira Garcia and concluded that <u><strong>once the U.S. embargo is lifted, the facility will be overwhelmed by its foreign patients.</u></strong> It takes little imagination to envision <u><strong>chains of private clinics</u></strong>, located near five-star hotels and beach resorts, <u><strong>catering to the elective needs of North Americans and Europeans. </u></strong>Such a trend might bode well for Canadians seeking to avoid queues in Ottawa for hip replacements or for U.S. health insurance companies looking to cut costs on cataract surgery and pacemakers. But <u><strong>providing health care to wealthy foreigners would drain physicians, technicians, and nurses from Cuba's public system.¶ And any such brain drain within Cuba might be dwarfed by a brain drain out into the rest of the world, as Cuban doctors and nurses leave the country to seek incomes that cannot be matched at home</u></strong>. <u><strong>Countries facing gross deficits in skilled medical talent are already scrambling to lure doctors, nurses, lab technicians, dentists, pharmacists, and health administrators from other nations.</u></strong> In 2006, the WHO estimated that the global deficit of medical professionals was roughly 4.3 million, and the figure can only have grown since then. As the world's population ages and average life expectancies rise <u><strong>from the United States to China</u></strong>, millions more <u><strong>patients will need complex, labor-intensive medical attention</u></strong>. And in countries with falling life expectancies and high rates of HIV/AIDS, donor resources aimed at combating the disease often have <u><strong>the unintended consequence of further straining meager supplies of human medical resources by drawing talent away from less well-funded areas of medicine, such as basic children's health care</u></strong>. According to the American College of Physicians, the United States currently has approximately one doctor for every 2,500 patients and a critical shortage of nearly 17,000 doctors. The American Medical Association estimates that there is an especially grave deficit of primary-care physicians, with only 304,000 licensed--about 30,000 fewer than needed. And the recently enacted federal health-care reform law will put more than 30 million more Americans on insurance or public rolls, thereby dramatically increasing the need for physicians.¶ Primary-care physicians are the worst-paid doctors in the United States. Their average salaries have grown by less than four percent per year since 2000, compared with roughly ten percent per year for the salaries of surgeons and specialists, according to the American College of Physicians. Last year, primary-care doctors in the United States earned about $173,000 on average, compared with $344,000 for anesthesiologists and $481,000 for orthopedic surgeons. With most U.S. doctors incurring debts of $200,000 to complete their schooling, there is little hope that the acute primary-care deficit can be filled anytime soon by talent trained in the United States. Already, <u><strong>U.S. and Canadian medical institutions are trying to fill their human-resource gaps through recruitment from</u></strong> Africa, Asia, eastern Europe, and <u><strong>Latin America.</p></u></strong> </s>

Turn- Weak china is worse than a strong one---destroys the US

Despite widespread unease about the implications of a more powerful China, an internally unstable China is potentially far more dangerous to American interests. Indifferent or sluggish economic performance could produce internal instability and weakness, possibly triggering a more assertive, overtly nationalistic foreign and defence policy weaker leadership would also very likely have fewer incentives to pursue accommodation with its neighbours, much less with the U S

Despite unease about a more powerful China an unstable China is more dangerous to American interests Indifferent or sluggish economic performance could produce internal instability and weakness triggering a more assertive nationalistic foreign and defence policy. weaker leadership would likely have fewer incentives to pursue accommodation with neighbours

– PROF IR @ HONG KONG U AND DEAKIN U- THE CHINA THREAT: PERCEPTIONS, MYTHS, AND REALITY, PAGE 59 American influence over internal outcomes in China, though far from decisive, could nonetheless prove significant. Despite widespread unease about the implications of a more powerful China, an internally unstable China is potentially far more dangerous to American interests. Indifferent or sluggish economic performance could produce internal instability and weakness, possibly triggering a more assertive, overtly nationalistic foreign and defence policy. A wary, weaker leadership would also very likely have fewer incentives to pursue accommodation with its neighbours, much less with the United States.

<h4>Turn- <strong>Weak china is worse than a strong one---destroys the US </h4><p>Yee and Storey 02</p><p></strong>– PROF IR @ HONG KONG U AND DEAKIN U- THE CHINA THREAT: PERCEPTIONS, MYTHS, AND REALITY, PAGE 59</p><p>American influence over internal outcomes in China, though far from decisive, could nonetheless prove significant. <u><strong><mark>Despite</mark> widespread <mark>unease about</mark> the implications of <mark>a more powerful China</mark>, <mark>an</mark> internally <mark>unstable China is</mark> potentially far <mark>more dangerous</mark> <mark>to American interests</mark>. <mark>Indifferent or sluggish economic performance</mark> <mark>could produce</mark> <mark>internal instability</mark> <mark>and weakness</mark>, possibly <mark>triggering a more assertive</mark>, overtly <mark>nationalistic foreign and defence policy</u></strong>. </mark>A wary, <u><strong><mark>weaker leadership would </mark>also very <mark>likely have fewer incentives to pursue accommodation</mark> <mark>with</mark> its <mark>neighbours</mark>, much less with the U</u></strong>nited <u><strong>S</u></strong>tates.</p>

Yee and Storey 02

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Yee and Storey 02 fulltext: – PROF IR @ HONG KONG U AND DEAKIN U- THE CHINA THREAT: PERCEPTIONS, MYTHS, AND REALITY, PAGE 59 American influence over internal outcomes in China, though far from decisive, could nonetheless prove significant. Despite widespread unease about the implications of a more powerful China, an internally unstable China is potentially far more dangerous to American interests. Indifferent or sluggish economic performance could produce internal instability and weakness, possibly triggering a more assertive, overtly nationalistic foreign and defence policy. A wary, weaker leadership would also very likely have fewer incentives to pursue accommodation with its neighbours, much less with the United States. [/INST] <h4>Turn- <strong>Weak china is worse than a strong one---destroys the US </h4><p>Yee and Storey 02</p><p></strong>– PROF IR @ HONG KONG U AND DEAKIN U- THE CHINA THREAT: PERCEPTIONS, MYTHS, AND REALITY, PAGE 59</p><p>American influence over internal outcomes in China, though far from decisive, could nonetheless prove significant. <u><strong><mark>Despite</mark> widespread <mark>unease about</mark> the implications of <mark>a more powerful China</mark>, <mark>an</mark> internally <mark>unstable China is</mark> potentially far <mark>more dangerous</mark> <mark>to American interests</mark>. <mark>Indifferent or sluggish economic performance</mark> <mark>could produce</mark> <mark>internal instability</mark> <mark>and weakness</mark>, possibly <mark>triggering a more assertive</mark>, overtly <mark>nationalistic foreign and defence policy</u></strong>. </mark>A wary, <u><strong><mark>weaker leadership would </mark>also very <mark>likely have fewer incentives to pursue accommodation</mark> <mark>with</mark> its <mark>neighbours</mark>, much less with the U</u></strong>nited <u><strong>S</u></strong>tates.</p> </s>

LA American trade is key to warming

Latin America accounts for a third of US oil imports Within a decade, Brazil and Mexico may be two of the three largest suppliers of oil to the United States . The potential for heightened energy cooperation in the Americas is huge, with wide-ranging ramifications for economic well-being and climate change.

Even a cursory examination of the numbers points to how much the United ¶ States depends on the region for oil and minerals . Latin America accounts ¶ for a third of US oil imports . Mexico is the second-biggest supplier after ¶ Canada . Venezuela, Brazil, and Colombia sit among the top dozen, and ¶ imports from Brazil are poised to rise sharply with its recent offshore discoveries . Within a decade, Brazil and Mexico may be two of the three largest suppliers of oil to the United States . The potential for heightened energy ¶ cooperation in the Americas is huge, with wide-ranging ramifications for ¶ economic well-being and climate change.

<h4><strong>LA American trade is key to warming</h4><p>Sol M . Linowitz Forum, 12</p><p></strong>Inter-American Dialogue 2012¶ “Remaking the Relationship¶ the United States and Latin America” http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD2012PolicyReportFINAL.pdf<u><strong>, accessed 6/11/13,WYO/JF</p><p></u></strong>Even a cursory examination of the numbers points to how much the United ¶ States depends on the region for oil and minerals . <u><strong>Latin America accounts </u></strong>¶<u><strong> for a third of US oil imports</u></strong> . Mexico is the second-biggest supplier after ¶ Canada . Venezuela, Brazil, and Colombia sit among the top dozen, and ¶ imports from Brazil are poised to rise sharply with its recent offshore discoveries . <u><strong>Within a decade, Brazil and Mexico may be two of the three largest suppliers of oil to the United States . The potential for heightened energy </u></strong>¶<u><strong> cooperation in the Americas is huge, with wide-ranging ramifications for </u></strong>¶<u><strong> economic well-being and climate change. </p></u></strong>

Sol M . Linowitz Forum, 12 Inter-American Dialogue 2012¶ “Remaking the Relationship¶ the United States and Latin America” http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD2012PolicyReportFINAL.pdf, accessed 6/11/13,WYO/JF

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Sol M . Linowitz Forum, 12 Inter-American Dialogue 2012¶ “Remaking the Relationship¶ the United States and Latin America” http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD2012PolicyReportFINAL.pdf, accessed 6/11/13,WYO/JF fulltext: Even a cursory examination of the numbers points to how much the United ¶ States depends on the region for oil and minerals . Latin America accounts ¶ for a third of US oil imports . Mexico is the second-biggest supplier after ¶ Canada . Venezuela, Brazil, and Colombia sit among the top dozen, and ¶ imports from Brazil are poised to rise sharply with its recent offshore discoveries . Within a decade, Brazil and Mexico may be two of the three largest suppliers of oil to the United States . The potential for heightened energy ¶ cooperation in the Americas is huge, with wide-ranging ramifications for ¶ economic well-being and climate change. [/INST] <h4><strong>LA American trade is key to warming</h4><p>Sol M . Linowitz Forum, 12</p><p></strong>Inter-American Dialogue 2012¶ “Remaking the Relationship¶ the United States and Latin America” http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD2012PolicyReportFINAL.pdf<u><strong>, accessed 6/11/13,WYO/JF</p><p></u></strong>Even a cursory examination of the numbers points to how much the United ¶ States depends on the region for oil and minerals . <u><strong>Latin America accounts </u></strong>¶<u><strong> for a third of US oil imports</u></strong> . Mexico is the second-biggest supplier after ¶ Canada . Venezuela, Brazil, and Colombia sit among the top dozen, and ¶ imports from Brazil are poised to rise sharply with its recent offshore discoveries . <u><strong>Within a decade, Brazil and Mexico may be two of the three largest suppliers of oil to the United States . The potential for heightened energy </u></strong>¶<u><strong> cooperation in the Americas is huge, with wide-ranging ramifications for </u></strong>¶<u><strong> economic well-being and climate change. </p></u></strong> </s>

the environment is at the tipping point- Collapse will be fast and catastrophic

The paper by 22 top researchers said a “tipping point” by which the biosphere goes into swift and irreversible change, with cataclysmic impacts for humans, could occur as early as this century. The study appears ahead of the June 20-22 UN Conference on Sustainable Development, The factors in today’s equation include a world population that is set to rise from seven billion to around 9.3 billion by mid-century and global warming that will outstrip the UN target of two degrees Celsius The team determined that once 50-90 percent of small-scale ecosystems become altered, the entire eco-web tips over into a new state, characterised especially by species extinction Once the shift happens, it cannot be reversed.

22 top researchers said a “tipping point” by which the biosphere goes into swift and irreversible change, with cataclysmic impacts for humans could occur this century. The factors in today’s equation include a world population that is set to rise and global warming that will outstrip the UN target of two degrees Celsius once 50-90 percent of small-scale ecosystems become altered, the entire eco-web tips over especially by species extinctions Once the shift happens, it cannot be reversed

(Agence France-Presse, citing UN study, “Environmental collapse now a serious threat: scientists,” Raw Story, http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/06/06/environmental-collapse-now-a-serious-threat-scientists/) The paper by 22 top researchers said a “tipping point” by which the biosphere goes into swift and irreversible change, with potentially cataclysmic impacts for humans, could occur as early as this century.¶ The warning contrasts with a mainstream view among scientists that environmental collapse would be gradual and take centuries.¶ The study appears ahead of the June 20-22 UN Conference on Sustainable Development, the 20-year followup to the Earth Summit that set down priorities for protecting the environment.¶ The Nature paper, written by biologists, ecologists, geologists and palaeontologists from three continents, compared the biological impact of past episodes of global change with what is happening today.¶ The factors in today’s equation include a world population that is set to rise from seven billion to around 9.3 billion by mid-century and global warming that will outstrip the UN target of two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit).¶ The team determined that once 50-90 percent of small-scale ecosystems become altered, the entire eco-web tips over into a new state, characterised especially by species extinctions.¶ Once the shift happens, it cannot be reversed.¶ To support today’s population, about 43 percent of Earth’s ice-free land surface is being used for farming or habitation, according to the study.

<h4><strong>the environment is at the tipping point- Collapse will be fast and catastrophic</h4><p>AFP, 12</p><p></strong>(Agence France-Presse, citing UN study, “Environmental collapse now a serious threat: scientists,” Raw Story, http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/06/06/environmental-collapse-now-a-serious-threat-scientists/)</p><p><u><strong>The paper by <mark>22 top researchers said a “tipping point” by which the biosphere goes into swift and irreversible change,</u></strong> <u><strong>with</u></strong> </mark>potentially <u><strong><mark>cataclysmic impacts for humans</mark>, <mark>could occur </mark>as early as <mark>this century.</u></strong></mark>¶ The warning contrasts with a mainstream view among scientists that environmental collapse would be gradual and take centuries.¶ <u><strong>The study appears ahead of the June 20-22 UN Conference on Sustainable Development,</u></strong> the 20-year followup to the Earth Summit that set down priorities for protecting the environment.¶ The Nature paper, written by biologists, ecologists, geologists and palaeontologists from three continents, compared the biological impact of past episodes of global change with what is happening today.¶ <u><strong><mark>The factors in today’s equation include a world population that is set to rise </mark>from seven billion to around 9.3 billion by mid-century <mark>and global warming that will outstrip the UN target of two degrees Celsius</u></strong> </mark>(3.6 degrees Fahrenheit).¶ <u><strong>The team determined that <mark>once 50-90 percent of small-scale ecosystems become altered, the entire eco-web tips over </mark>into a new state, characterised <mark>especially by species extinction</u></strong>s</mark>.¶ <u><strong><mark>Once the shift happens, it cannot be reversed</mark>.</u>¶ To support today’s population, about 43 percent of Earth’s ice-free land surface is being used for farming or habitation, according to the study.</p></strong>

AFP, 12

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: AFP, 12 fulltext: (Agence France-Presse, citing UN study, “Environmental collapse now a serious threat: scientists,” Raw Story, http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/06/06/environmental-collapse-now-a-serious-threat-scientists/) The paper by 22 top researchers said a “tipping point” by which the biosphere goes into swift and irreversible change, with potentially cataclysmic impacts for humans, could occur as early as this century.¶ The warning contrasts with a mainstream view among scientists that environmental collapse would be gradual and take centuries.¶ The study appears ahead of the June 20-22 UN Conference on Sustainable Development, the 20-year followup to the Earth Summit that set down priorities for protecting the environment.¶ The Nature paper, written by biologists, ecologists, geologists and palaeontologists from three continents, compared the biological impact of past episodes of global change with what is happening today.¶ The factors in today’s equation include a world population that is set to rise from seven billion to around 9.3 billion by mid-century and global warming that will outstrip the UN target of two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit).¶ The team determined that once 50-90 percent of small-scale ecosystems become altered, the entire eco-web tips over into a new state, characterised especially by species extinctions.¶ Once the shift happens, it cannot be reversed.¶ To support today’s population, about 43 percent of Earth’s ice-free land surface is being used for farming or habitation, according to the study. [/INST] <h4><strong>the environment is at the tipping point- Collapse will be fast and catastrophic</h4><p>AFP, 12</p><p></strong>(Agence France-Presse, citing UN study, “Environmental collapse now a serious threat: scientists,” Raw Story, http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/06/06/environmental-collapse-now-a-serious-threat-scientists/)</p><p><u><strong>The paper by <mark>22 top researchers said a “tipping point” by which the biosphere goes into swift and irreversible change,</u></strong> <u><strong>with</u></strong> </mark>potentially <u><strong><mark>cataclysmic impacts for humans</mark>, <mark>could occur </mark>as early as <mark>this century.</u></strong></mark>¶ The warning contrasts with a mainstream view among scientists that environmental collapse would be gradual and take centuries.¶ <u><strong>The study appears ahead of the June 20-22 UN Conference on Sustainable Development,</u></strong> the 20-year followup to the Earth Summit that set down priorities for protecting the environment.¶ The Nature paper, written by biologists, ecologists, geologists and palaeontologists from three continents, compared the biological impact of past episodes of global change with what is happening today.¶ <u><strong><mark>The factors in today’s equation include a world population that is set to rise </mark>from seven billion to around 9.3 billion by mid-century <mark>and global warming that will outstrip the UN target of two degrees Celsius</u></strong> </mark>(3.6 degrees Fahrenheit).¶ <u><strong>The team determined that <mark>once 50-90 percent of small-scale ecosystems become altered, the entire eco-web tips over </mark>into a new state, characterised <mark>especially by species extinction</u></strong>s</mark>.¶ <u><strong><mark>Once the shift happens, it cannot be reversed</mark>.</u>¶ To support today’s population, about 43 percent of Earth’s ice-free land surface is being used for farming or habitation, according to the study.</p></strong> </s>

Doctors k2 cuban economy

The second profound effect that changes in basic living conditions in Cuba have had on health relates to the medical profession. The Castro government's largest and most extensive bilateral effort is with Hugo Chavez's leftist government in Venezuela. Under an "oil-for-doctors" program initiated in 2000, Venezuela provides 100,000 barrels of petroleum products to Cuba per day in exchange for three things: 31,000 Cuban doctors and dentists, training by Cuban doctors for 40,000 Venezuelan physicians, and Operation Miracle, an initiative funded by Venezuela under which Cuban doctors provide eye surgery, in Cuba, to thousands of poor Latin Americans annually.¶ The Cuban government benefits politically from this medical diplomacy, including by demonstrating the wisdom of its approach to public health. It is widely believed that healthcare workers have become a top, if not the top, trade commodity for Cuba. Based on oil prices in February 2010, the Venezuelan oil exchange alone would have had a value of $7.5 million per day, or nearly $3 billion per year.

[Laurie, LAURIE GARRETT is Senior Fellow for Global Health at the Council on Foreign Relations, Castrocare in crisis: will lifting the embargo make things worse?, Foreign Affairs. 89.4 (July-August 2010): p61, Accessed online via academic onefile] /Wyo-MB The second profound effect that changes in basic living conditions in Cuba have had on health relates to the medical profession. Like all Cubans, health-care professionals are eager to obtain CUC, but they are paid in the worthless domestic peso, receiving an average equivalent of $25 per month. These low wages give doctors a strong incentive to participate in international missions that earn them convertible currency. Of the 73,000 physicians licensed to practice in Cuba, 37,266 are now working overseas, under special bilateral agreements between the Cuban government and the governments of 77 other countries. Since 1963, Cuba has sent 126,321 health-care workers to 103 countries, according to the Cuban Ministry of Public Health. This overseas deployment of health-care workers benefits the Cuban state, as two-thirds of the doctors' overseas income goes to the state and only one-third goes to the individual.¶ The Castro government's largest and most extensive bilateral effort is with Hugo Chavez's leftist government in Venezuela. Under an "oil-for-doctors" program initiated in 2000, Venezuela provides 100,000 barrels of petroleum products to Cuba per day in exchange for three things: 31,000 Cuban doctors and dentists, training by Cuban doctors for 40,000 Venezuelan physicians, and Operation Miracle, an initiative funded by Venezuela under which Cuban doctors provide eye surgery, in Cuba, to thousands of poor Latin Americans annually.¶ The Cuban government benefits politically from this medical diplomacy, including by demonstrating the wisdom of its approach to public health. It is widely believed that healthcare workers have become a top, if not the top, trade commodity for Cuba. Based on oil prices in February 2010, the Venezuelan oil exchange alone would have had a value of $7.5 million per day, or nearly $3 billion per year. Whatever the exact benefits of these exchanges, however, Cuba's medical diplomacy is taking a toll on the homeland.

<h4><strong>Doctors k2 cuban economy</h4><p>Garett, 2010</p><p></strong>[Laurie, LAURIE GARRETT is Senior Fellow for Global Health at the Council on Foreign Relations, Castrocare in crisis: will lifting the embargo make things worse?, Foreign Affairs. 89.4 (July-August 2010): p61, Accessed online via academic onefile] /Wyo-MB</p><p><u><strong>The second profound effect that changes in basic living conditions in Cuba have had on health relates to the medical profession. </u></strong>Like all Cubans, health-care professionals are eager to obtain CUC, but they are paid in the worthless domestic peso, receiving an average equivalent of $25 per month. These low wages give doctors a strong incentive to participate in international missions that earn them convertible currency. Of the 73,000 physicians licensed to practice in Cuba, 37,266 are now working overseas, under special bilateral agreements between the Cuban government and the governments of 77 other countries. Since 1963, Cuba has sent 126,321 health-care workers to 103 countries, according to the Cuban Ministry of Public Health. This overseas deployment of health-care workers benefits the Cuban state, as two-thirds of the doctors' overseas income goes to the state and only one-third goes to the individual.¶ <u><strong>The Castro government's largest and most extensive bilateral effort is with Hugo Chavez's leftist government in Venezuela. Under an "oil-for-doctors" program initiated in 2000, Venezuela provides 100,000 barrels of petroleum products to Cuba per day in exchange for three things: 31,000 Cuban doctors and dentists, training by Cuban doctors for 40,000 Venezuelan physicians, and Operation Miracle, an initiative funded by Venezuela under which Cuban doctors provide eye surgery, in Cuba, to thousands of poor Latin Americans annually.¶ The Cuban government benefits politically from this medical diplomacy, including by demonstrating the wisdom of its approach to public health. It is widely believed that healthcare workers have become a top, if not the top, trade commodity for Cuba. Based on oil prices in February 2010, the Venezuelan oil exchange alone would have had a value of $7.5 million per day, or nearly $3 billion per year.</u></strong> Whatever the exact benefits of these exchanges, however, Cuba's medical diplomacy is taking a toll on the homeland.</p>

Garett, 2010

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Garett, 2010 fulltext: [Laurie, LAURIE GARRETT is Senior Fellow for Global Health at the Council on Foreign Relations, Castrocare in crisis: will lifting the embargo make things worse?, Foreign Affairs. 89.4 (July-August 2010): p61, Accessed online via academic onefile] /Wyo-MB The second profound effect that changes in basic living conditions in Cuba have had on health relates to the medical profession. Like all Cubans, health-care professionals are eager to obtain CUC, but they are paid in the worthless domestic peso, receiving an average equivalent of $25 per month. These low wages give doctors a strong incentive to participate in international missions that earn them convertible currency. Of the 73,000 physicians licensed to practice in Cuba, 37,266 are now working overseas, under special bilateral agreements between the Cuban government and the governments of 77 other countries. Since 1963, Cuba has sent 126,321 health-care workers to 103 countries, according to the Cuban Ministry of Public Health. This overseas deployment of health-care workers benefits the Cuban state, as two-thirds of the doctors' overseas income goes to the state and only one-third goes to the individual.¶ The Castro government's largest and most extensive bilateral effort is with Hugo Chavez's leftist government in Venezuela. Under an "oil-for-doctors" program initiated in 2000, Venezuela provides 100,000 barrels of petroleum products to Cuba per day in exchange for three things: 31,000 Cuban doctors and dentists, training by Cuban doctors for 40,000 Venezuelan physicians, and Operation Miracle, an initiative funded by Venezuela under which Cuban doctors provide eye surgery, in Cuba, to thousands of poor Latin Americans annually.¶ The Cuban government benefits politically from this medical diplomacy, including by demonstrating the wisdom of its approach to public health. It is widely believed that healthcare workers have become a top, if not the top, trade commodity for Cuba. Based on oil prices in February 2010, the Venezuelan oil exchange alone would have had a value of $7.5 million per day, or nearly $3 billion per year. Whatever the exact benefits of these exchanges, however, Cuba's medical diplomacy is taking a toll on the homeland. [/INST] <h4><strong>Doctors k2 cuban economy</h4><p>Garett, 2010</p><p></strong>[Laurie, LAURIE GARRETT is Senior Fellow for Global Health at the Council on Foreign Relations, Castrocare in crisis: will lifting the embargo make things worse?, Foreign Affairs. 89.4 (July-August 2010): p61, Accessed online via academic onefile] /Wyo-MB</p><p><u><strong>The second profound effect that changes in basic living conditions in Cuba have had on health relates to the medical profession. </u></strong>Like all Cubans, health-care professionals are eager to obtain CUC, but they are paid in the worthless domestic peso, receiving an average equivalent of $25 per month. These low wages give doctors a strong incentive to participate in international missions that earn them convertible currency. Of the 73,000 physicians licensed to practice in Cuba, 37,266 are now working overseas, under special bilateral agreements between the Cuban government and the governments of 77 other countries. Since 1963, Cuba has sent 126,321 health-care workers to 103 countries, according to the Cuban Ministry of Public Health. This overseas deployment of health-care workers benefits the Cuban state, as two-thirds of the doctors' overseas income goes to the state and only one-third goes to the individual.¶ <u><strong>The Castro government's largest and most extensive bilateral effort is with Hugo Chavez's leftist government in Venezuela. Under an "oil-for-doctors" program initiated in 2000, Venezuela provides 100,000 barrels of petroleum products to Cuba per day in exchange for three things: 31,000 Cuban doctors and dentists, training by Cuban doctors for 40,000 Venezuelan physicians, and Operation Miracle, an initiative funded by Venezuela under which Cuban doctors provide eye surgery, in Cuba, to thousands of poor Latin Americans annually.¶ The Cuban government benefits politically from this medical diplomacy, including by demonstrating the wisdom of its approach to public health. It is widely believed that healthcare workers have become a top, if not the top, trade commodity for Cuba. Based on oil prices in February 2010, the Venezuelan oil exchange alone would have had a value of $7.5 million per day, or nearly $3 billion per year.</u></strong> Whatever the exact benefits of these exchanges, however, Cuba's medical diplomacy is taking a toll on the homeland.</p> </s>

Heg not key to solve war

there is no evidence to support a direct relationship between U.S. activism and international stability the limited data we do have suggest the opposite may be true . By 1998, the United States was spending $100 billion less on defense in real terms than it had in 1990 if trends were not based upon U.S. hegemony but a strengthening norm against interstate war, one would not have expected an increase in global instability and violence. The world grew more peaceful while the U S cut its forces. No state seemed to believe that its security was endangered by a less-capable U S military none took any action that would suggest such a belief No militaries were enhanced to address power vacuums, no security dilemmas drove insecurity or arms races, and no regional balancing occurred once the stabilizing presence of the U.S. military was diminished even if it is true that either U.S. commitments account for global trends there is in fact a level of engagement below which the U S cannot drop without increasing international disorder, a rational grand strategist would still recommend cutting back on engagement and spending until that level is determined Grand strategic decisions are never final adjustments can be made . If increases in conflict would have been interpreted as proof of the wisdom of internationalist strategies, then logical consistency demands that the lack thereof should pose a problem the only evidence we have regarding the likely systemic reaction to a more restrained United States suggests that the current peaceful trends are unrelated to U.S. military spending the rest of the world can operate effectively without the presence of a global policeman. Those who think otherwise base their view

there is no evidence to support a relationship between U.S. activism and international stability The world grew more peaceful while the U S cut its forces. No state took any action No militaries enhanced no arms races no regional balancing the only evidence regarding systemic reaction to a restrained U S suggests peaceful trends are unrelated to a global policeman.

It is perhaps worth noting that there is no evidence to support a direct relationship between the relative level of U.S. activism and international stability. In fact, the limited data we do have suggest the opposite may be true. During the 1990s, the United States cut back on its defense spending fairly substantially. By 1998, the United States was spending $100 billion less on defense in real terms than it had in 1990.51 To internationalists, defense hawks and believers in hegemonic stability, this irresponsible “peace dividend” endangered both national and global security. “No serious analyst of American military capabilities,” argued Kristol and Kagan, “doubts that the defense budget has been cut much too far to meet America’s responsibilities to itself and to world peace.”52 On the other hand, if the pacific trends were not based upon U.S. hegemony but a strengthening norm against interstate war, one would not have expected an increase in global instability and violence. The verdict from the past two decades is fairly plain: The world grew more peaceful while the United States cut its forces. No state seemed to believe that its security was endangered by a less-capable United States military, or at least none took any action that would suggest such a belief. No militaries were enhanced to address power vacuums, no security dilemmas drove insecurity or arms races, and no regional balancing occurred once the stabilizing presence of the U.S. military was diminished. The rest of the world acted as if the threat of international war was not a pressing concern, despite the reduction in U.S. capabilities. Most of all, the United States and its allies were no less safe. The incidence and magnitude of global conflict declined while the United States cut its military spending under President Clinton, and kept declining as the Bush Administration ramped the spending back up. No complex statistical analysis should be necessary to reach the conclusion that the two are unrelated. Military spending figures by themselves are insufficient to disprove a connection between overall U.S. actions and international stability. Once again, one could presumably argue that spending is not the only or even the best indication of hegemony, and that it is instead U.S. foreign political and security commitments that maintain stability. Since neither was significantly altered during this period, instability should not have been expected. Alternately, advocates of hegemonic stability could believe that relative rather than absolute spending is decisive in bringing peace. Although the United States cut back on its spending during the 1990s, its relative advantage never wavered. However, even if it is true that either U.S. commitments or relative spending account for global pacific trends, then at the very least stability can evidently be maintained at drastically lower levels of both. In other words, even if one can be allowed to argue in the alternative for a moment and suppose that there is in fact a level of engagement below which the United States cannot drop without increasing international disorder, a rational grand strategist would still recommend cutting back on engagement and spending until that level is determined. Grand strategic decisions are never final; continual adjustments can and must be made as time goes on. Basic logic suggests that the United States ought to spend the minimum amount of its blood and treasure while seeking the maximum return on its investment. And if the current era of stability is as stable as many believe it to be, no increase in conflict would ever occur irrespective of U.S. spending, which would save untold trillions for an increasingly debt-ridden nation. It is also perhaps worth noting that if opposite trends had unfolded, if other states had reacted to news of cuts in U.S. defense spending with more aggressive or insecure behavior, then internationalists would surely argue that their expectations had been fulfilled. If increases in conflict would have been interpreted as proof of the wisdom of internationalist strategies, then logical consistency demands that the lack thereof should at least pose a problem. As it stands, the only evidence we have regarding the likely systemic reaction to a more restrained United States suggests that the current peaceful trends are unrelated to U.S. military spending. Evidently the rest of the world can operate quite effectively without the presence of a global policeman. Those who think otherwise base their view

<h4><strong>Heg not key to solve war</h4><p>Fettweis, 11</p><p></strong>Christopher J. Fettweis, Department of Political Science, Tulane University, 9/26/11, Free Riding or Restraint? Examining European Grand Strategy, Comparative Strategy, 30:316–332, EBSCO</p><p>It is perhaps worth noting that <u><strong><mark>there is no evidence to support a</mark> direct <mark>relationship between</u></strong></mark> the relative level of <u><strong><mark>U.S. activism and international stability</u></strong></mark>. In fact, <u><strong>the limited data we do have suggest the opposite may be true</u></strong>. During the 1990s, the United States cut back on its defense spending fairly substantially<u><strong>. By 1998, the United States was spending $100 billion less on defense in real terms than it had in 1990</u></strong>.51 To internationalists, defense hawks and believers in hegemonic stability, this irresponsible “peace dividend” endangered both national and global security. “No serious analyst of American military capabilities,” argued Kristol and Kagan, “doubts that the defense budget has been cut much too far to meet America’s responsibilities to itself and to world peace.”52 On the other hand, <u><strong>if</u></strong> the pacific <u><strong>trends were not based upon U.S. hegemony but</u></strong> <u><strong>a strengthening norm against interstate war, one would not have expected an increase in global instability and violence. </u></strong>The verdict from the past two decades is fairly plain: <u><strong><mark>The world grew more peaceful while the U</u></strong></mark>nited <u><strong><mark>S</u></strong></mark>tates <u><strong><mark>cut its forces. No state</mark> seemed to believe that its security was endangered by a less-capable U</u></strong>nited <u><strong>S</u></strong>tates <u><strong>military</u></strong>, or at least <u><strong>none <mark>took any action</mark> that would suggest</u></strong> <u><strong>such a belief</u></strong>. <u><strong><mark>No militaries</mark> were <mark>enhanced</mark> to address power vacuums, <mark>no</mark> security dilemmas drove insecurity or <mark>arms races</mark>, and <mark>no</mark> <mark>regional balancing</mark> occurred once the stabilizing presence of the U.S. military was diminished</u></strong>. The rest of the world acted as if the threat of international war was not a pressing concern, despite the reduction in U.S. capabilities. Most of all, the United States and its allies were no less safe. The incidence and magnitude of global conflict declined while the United States cut its military spending under President Clinton, and kept declining as the Bush Administration ramped the spending back up. No complex statistical analysis should be necessary to reach the conclusion that the two are unrelated. Military spending figures by themselves are insufficient to disprove a connection between overall U.S. actions and international stability. Once again, one could presumably argue that spending is not the only or even the best indication of hegemony, and that it is instead U.S. foreign political and security commitments that maintain stability. Since neither was significantly altered during this period, instability should not have been expected. Alternately, advocates of hegemonic stability could believe that relative rather than absolute spending is decisive in bringing peace. Although the United States cut back on its spending during the 1990s, its relative advantage never wavered. However, <u><strong>even if it is true that either U.S. commitments</u></strong> or relative spending <u><strong>account for global</u></strong> pacific <u><strong>trends</u></strong>, then at the very least stability can evidently be maintained at drastically lower levels of both. In other words, even if one can be allowed to argue in the alternative for a moment and suppose that <u><strong>there is in fact a level of engagement below which the U</u></strong>nited <u><strong>S</u></strong>tates <u><strong>cannot drop without increasing international disorder, a rational grand strategist would still recommend cutting back on engagement and spending until that level is determined</u></strong>. <u><strong>Grand strategic decisions are never final</u></strong>; continual <u><strong>adjustments can</u></strong> and must <u><strong>be made</u></strong> as time goes on. Basic logic suggests that the United States ought to spend the minimum amount of its blood and treasure while seeking the maximum return on its investment. And if the current era of stability is as stable as many believe it to be, no increase in conflict would ever occur irrespective of U.S. spending, which would save untold trillions for an increasingly debt-ridden nation. It is also perhaps worth noting that if opposite trends had unfolded, if other states had reacted to news of cuts in U.S. defense spending with more aggressive or insecure behavior, then internationalists would surely argue that their expectations had been fulfilled<u><strong>. If increases in conflict would have been interpreted as proof of the wisdom of internationalist strategies, then logical consistency demands that the lack thereof should</u></strong> at least <u><strong>pose a problem</u></strong>. As it stands, <u><strong><mark>the only evidence</mark> we have <mark>regarding</mark> the likely <mark>systemic reaction to a</mark> more <mark>restrained U</mark>nited <mark>S</mark>tates <mark>suggests</mark> that the current <mark>peaceful trends are unrelated to</mark> U.S. military spending</u></strong>. Evidently <u><strong>the rest of the world can operate</u></strong> quite <u><strong>effectively without the presence of <mark>a global policeman.</mark> Those who think otherwise base their view</p></u></strong>

Fettweis, 11 Christopher J. Fettweis, Department of Political Science, Tulane University, 9/26/11, Free Riding or Restraint? Examining European Grand Strategy, Comparative Strategy, 30:316–332, EBSCO

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Fettweis, 11 Christopher J. Fettweis, Department of Political Science, Tulane University, 9/26/11, Free Riding or Restraint? Examining European Grand Strategy, Comparative Strategy, 30:316–332, EBSCO fulltext: It is perhaps worth noting that there is no evidence to support a direct relationship between the relative level of U.S. activism and international stability. In fact, the limited data we do have suggest the opposite may be true. During the 1990s, the United States cut back on its defense spending fairly substantially. By 1998, the United States was spending $100 billion less on defense in real terms than it had in 1990.51 To internationalists, defense hawks and believers in hegemonic stability, this irresponsible “peace dividend” endangered both national and global security. “No serious analyst of American military capabilities,” argued Kristol and Kagan, “doubts that the defense budget has been cut much too far to meet America’s responsibilities to itself and to world peace.”52 On the other hand, if the pacific trends were not based upon U.S. hegemony but a strengthening norm against interstate war, one would not have expected an increase in global instability and violence. The verdict from the past two decades is fairly plain: The world grew more peaceful while the United States cut its forces. No state seemed to believe that its security was endangered by a less-capable United States military, or at least none took any action that would suggest such a belief. No militaries were enhanced to address power vacuums, no security dilemmas drove insecurity or arms races, and no regional balancing occurred once the stabilizing presence of the U.S. military was diminished. The rest of the world acted as if the threat of international war was not a pressing concern, despite the reduction in U.S. capabilities. Most of all, the United States and its allies were no less safe. The incidence and magnitude of global conflict declined while the United States cut its military spending under President Clinton, and kept declining as the Bush Administration ramped the spending back up. No complex statistical analysis should be necessary to reach the conclusion that the two are unrelated. Military spending figures by themselves are insufficient to disprove a connection between overall U.S. actions and international stability. Once again, one could presumably argue that spending is not the only or even the best indication of hegemony, and that it is instead U.S. foreign political and security commitments that maintain stability. Since neither was significantly altered during this period, instability should not have been expected. Alternately, advocates of hegemonic stability could believe that relative rather than absolute spending is decisive in bringing peace. Although the United States cut back on its spending during the 1990s, its relative advantage never wavered. However, even if it is true that either U.S. commitments or relative spending account for global pacific trends, then at the very least stability can evidently be maintained at drastically lower levels of both. In other words, even if one can be allowed to argue in the alternative for a moment and suppose that there is in fact a level of engagement below which the United States cannot drop without increasing international disorder, a rational grand strategist would still recommend cutting back on engagement and spending until that level is determined. Grand strategic decisions are never final; continual adjustments can and must be made as time goes on. Basic logic suggests that the United States ought to spend the minimum amount of its blood and treasure while seeking the maximum return on its investment. And if the current era of stability is as stable as many believe it to be, no increase in conflict would ever occur irrespective of U.S. spending, which would save untold trillions for an increasingly debt-ridden nation. It is also perhaps worth noting that if opposite trends had unfolded, if other states had reacted to news of cuts in U.S. defense spending with more aggressive or insecure behavior, then internationalists would surely argue that their expectations had been fulfilled. If increases in conflict would have been interpreted as proof of the wisdom of internationalist strategies, then logical consistency demands that the lack thereof should at least pose a problem. As it stands, the only evidence we have regarding the likely systemic reaction to a more restrained United States suggests that the current peaceful trends are unrelated to U.S. military spending. Evidently the rest of the world can operate quite effectively without the presence of a global policeman. Those who think otherwise base their view [/INST] <h4><strong>Heg not key to solve war</h4><p>Fettweis, 11</p><p></strong>Christopher J. Fettweis, Department of Political Science, Tulane University, 9/26/11, Free Riding or Restraint? Examining European Grand Strategy, Comparative Strategy, 30:316–332, EBSCO</p><p>It is perhaps worth noting that <u><strong><mark>there is no evidence to support a</mark> direct <mark>relationship between</u></strong></mark> the relative level of <u><strong><mark>U.S. activism and international stability</u></strong></mark>. In fact, <u><strong>the limited data we do have suggest the opposite may be true</u></strong>. During the 1990s, the United States cut back on its defense spending fairly substantially<u><strong>. By 1998, the United States was spending $100 billion less on defense in real terms than it had in 1990</u></strong>.51 To internationalists, defense hawks and believers in hegemonic stability, this irresponsible “peace dividend” endangered both national and global security. “No serious analyst of American military capabilities,” argued Kristol and Kagan, “doubts that the defense budget has been cut much too far to meet America’s responsibilities to itself and to world peace.”52 On the other hand, <u><strong>if</u></strong> the pacific <u><strong>trends were not based upon U.S. hegemony but</u></strong> <u><strong>a strengthening norm against interstate war, one would not have expected an increase in global instability and violence. </u></strong>The verdict from the past two decades is fairly plain: <u><strong><mark>The world grew more peaceful while the U</u></strong></mark>nited <u><strong><mark>S</u></strong></mark>tates <u><strong><mark>cut its forces. No state</mark> seemed to believe that its security was endangered by a less-capable U</u></strong>nited <u><strong>S</u></strong>tates <u><strong>military</u></strong>, or at least <u><strong>none <mark>took any action</mark> that would suggest</u></strong> <u><strong>such a belief</u></strong>. <u><strong><mark>No militaries</mark> were <mark>enhanced</mark> to address power vacuums, <mark>no</mark> security dilemmas drove insecurity or <mark>arms races</mark>, and <mark>no</mark> <mark>regional balancing</mark> occurred once the stabilizing presence of the U.S. military was diminished</u></strong>. The rest of the world acted as if the threat of international war was not a pressing concern, despite the reduction in U.S. capabilities. Most of all, the United States and its allies were no less safe. The incidence and magnitude of global conflict declined while the United States cut its military spending under President Clinton, and kept declining as the Bush Administration ramped the spending back up. No complex statistical analysis should be necessary to reach the conclusion that the two are unrelated. Military spending figures by themselves are insufficient to disprove a connection between overall U.S. actions and international stability. Once again, one could presumably argue that spending is not the only or even the best indication of hegemony, and that it is instead U.S. foreign political and security commitments that maintain stability. Since neither was significantly altered during this period, instability should not have been expected. Alternately, advocates of hegemonic stability could believe that relative rather than absolute spending is decisive in bringing peace. Although the United States cut back on its spending during the 1990s, its relative advantage never wavered. However, <u><strong>even if it is true that either U.S. commitments</u></strong> or relative spending <u><strong>account for global</u></strong> pacific <u><strong>trends</u></strong>, then at the very least stability can evidently be maintained at drastically lower levels of both. In other words, even if one can be allowed to argue in the alternative for a moment and suppose that <u><strong>there is in fact a level of engagement below which the U</u></strong>nited <u><strong>S</u></strong>tates <u><strong>cannot drop without increasing international disorder, a rational grand strategist would still recommend cutting back on engagement and spending until that level is determined</u></strong>. <u><strong>Grand strategic decisions are never final</u></strong>; continual <u><strong>adjustments can</u></strong> and must <u><strong>be made</u></strong> as time goes on. Basic logic suggests that the United States ought to spend the minimum amount of its blood and treasure while seeking the maximum return on its investment. And if the current era of stability is as stable as many believe it to be, no increase in conflict would ever occur irrespective of U.S. spending, which would save untold trillions for an increasingly debt-ridden nation. It is also perhaps worth noting that if opposite trends had unfolded, if other states had reacted to news of cuts in U.S. defense spending with more aggressive or insecure behavior, then internationalists would surely argue that their expectations had been fulfilled<u><strong>. If increases in conflict would have been interpreted as proof of the wisdom of internationalist strategies, then logical consistency demands that the lack thereof should</u></strong> at least <u><strong>pose a problem</u></strong>. As it stands, <u><strong><mark>the only evidence</mark> we have <mark>regarding</mark> the likely <mark>systemic reaction to a</mark> more <mark>restrained U</mark>nited <mark>S</mark>tates <mark>suggests</mark> that the current <mark>peaceful trends are unrelated to</mark> U.S. military spending</u></strong>. Evidently <u><strong>the rest of the world can operate</u></strong> quite <u><strong>effectively without the presence of <mark>a global policeman.</mark> Those who think otherwise base their view</p></u></strong> </s>

Lifting Embargo solves damage from Oil Spills

Some are concerned about the possible en- vironmental costs of drilling an oil spill or other drilling accident would desecrate part of Flor- ida's unique environ- ment and possibly dev- astate its $50 billion tourism-driven economy The best way to ensure that such an event does not occur would be for the U.S. itself to take part in, or monitor the extraction process. The problem is that Washington has no power over Havana's extractive practices as long as Cuba is drilling only within its own territorial waters, so cooperation and joint projects would be the best way to promote the safety of the drilling process. If Washington truly wants to help, normalization of relations could lead to immediate improvements

[Lily, Research Associate The council on hemispheric relations, Cuban Oil: Havana's Potential Geo-Political Bombshell, Washington Report on the Hemisphere29. 11. (Jun 18, 2009), Accessed online via Proquest] Wyo-MB Some are concerned about the possible en- vironmental costs of drilling. Florida Senator Bill Nelson has warned that "an oil spill or other drilling accident would desecrate part of Flor- ida's unique environ- ment and possibly dev- astate its $50 billion tourism-driven economy." The best way to ensure that such an event does not occur would be for the U.S. itself to take part in, or monitor the extraction process. The problem is that Washington has no power over Havana's extractive practices as long as Cuba is drilling only within its own territorial waters, so cooperation and joint projects would be the best way to promote the safety of the drilling process. U.S. oil companies can be expected to take part in the excavation process as soon as the outdated embargo is superseded.¶ The Ob ama administration has said its recent modest opening of relations with Cuba was intended to "extend a hand to the Cuban people, in support of their desire to determine their own future." If Washington truly wants to help, normalization of relations could lead to immediate improvements in the dismal economic situation on the island. Cuba has received over 1 15,000 barrels a day of generously subsidized oil from Venezuela in 2008, and that number has since increased. Otherwise unable to afford oil, Havana profoundly needs this discount along with the docto rs-for-oil swap; this points out Cuba's inability to avoid its past mistakes and history. The disastrous economic fallout in Cuba after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the consequent sudden loss of over $5 billion worth of yearly subsidies, should have taught Havana to be wary of overdependence on other countries' generosity. Havana's relationship with Caracas proves otherwise: Hugo Chavez yearly provides the Castros with well over an estimated $2 billion worth of oil subsidies each year.

<h4><strong>Lifting Embargo solves damage from Oil Spills</h4><p>Fesler, 2009</p><p></strong>[Lily, Research Associate The council on hemispheric relations, Cuban Oil: Havana's Potential Geo-Political Bombshell, Washington Report on the Hemisphere29. 11. (Jun 18, 2009), Accessed online via Proquest] Wyo-MB</p><p><u><strong>Some are concerned about the possible en- vironmental costs of drilling</u></strong>. Florida Senator Bill Nelson has warned that "<u><strong>an oil spill or other drilling accident would desecrate part of Flor- ida's unique environ- ment and possibly dev- astate its $50 billion tourism-driven economy</u></strong>." <u><strong>The best way to ensure that such an event does not occur would be for the U.S. itself to take part in, or monitor the extraction process. The problem is that Washington has no power over Havana's extractive practices as long as Cuba is drilling only within its own territorial waters, so cooperation and joint projects would be the best way to promote the safety of the drilling process.</u></strong> U.S. oil companies can be expected to take part in the excavation process as soon as the outdated embargo is superseded.¶ The Ob ama administration has said its recent modest opening of relations with Cuba was intended to "extend a hand to the Cuban people, in support of their desire to determine their own future." <u><strong>If Washington truly wants to help, normalization of relations could lead to immediate improvements</u></strong> in the dismal economic situation on the island. Cuba has received over 1 15,000 barrels a day of generously subsidized oil from Venezuela in 2008, and that number has since increased. Otherwise unable to afford oil, Havana profoundly needs this discount along with the docto rs-for-oil swap; this points out Cuba's inability to avoid its past mistakes and history. The disastrous economic fallout in Cuba after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the consequent sudden loss of over $5 billion worth of yearly subsidies, should have taught Havana to be wary of overdependence on other countries' generosity. Havana's relationship with Caracas proves otherwise: Hugo Chavez yearly provides the Castros with well over an estimated $2 billion worth of oil subsidies each year.</p>

Fesler, 2009

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Fesler, 2009 fulltext: [Lily, Research Associate The council on hemispheric relations, Cuban Oil: Havana's Potential Geo-Political Bombshell, Washington Report on the Hemisphere29. 11. (Jun 18, 2009), Accessed online via Proquest] Wyo-MB Some are concerned about the possible en- vironmental costs of drilling. Florida Senator Bill Nelson has warned that "an oil spill or other drilling accident would desecrate part of Flor- ida's unique environ- ment and possibly dev- astate its $50 billion tourism-driven economy." The best way to ensure that such an event does not occur would be for the U.S. itself to take part in, or monitor the extraction process. The problem is that Washington has no power over Havana's extractive practices as long as Cuba is drilling only within its own territorial waters, so cooperation and joint projects would be the best way to promote the safety of the drilling process. U.S. oil companies can be expected to take part in the excavation process as soon as the outdated embargo is superseded.¶ The Ob ama administration has said its recent modest opening of relations with Cuba was intended to "extend a hand to the Cuban people, in support of their desire to determine their own future." If Washington truly wants to help, normalization of relations could lead to immediate improvements in the dismal economic situation on the island. Cuba has received over 1 15,000 barrels a day of generously subsidized oil from Venezuela in 2008, and that number has since increased. Otherwise unable to afford oil, Havana profoundly needs this discount along with the docto rs-for-oil swap; this points out Cuba's inability to avoid its past mistakes and history. The disastrous economic fallout in Cuba after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the consequent sudden loss of over $5 billion worth of yearly subsidies, should have taught Havana to be wary of overdependence on other countries' generosity. Havana's relationship with Caracas proves otherwise: Hugo Chavez yearly provides the Castros with well over an estimated $2 billion worth of oil subsidies each year. [/INST] <h4><strong>Lifting Embargo solves damage from Oil Spills</h4><p>Fesler, 2009</p><p></strong>[Lily, Research Associate The council on hemispheric relations, Cuban Oil: Havana's Potential Geo-Political Bombshell, Washington Report on the Hemisphere29. 11. (Jun 18, 2009), Accessed online via Proquest] Wyo-MB</p><p><u><strong>Some are concerned about the possible en- vironmental costs of drilling</u></strong>. Florida Senator Bill Nelson has warned that "<u><strong>an oil spill or other drilling accident would desecrate part of Flor- ida's unique environ- ment and possibly dev- astate its $50 billion tourism-driven economy</u></strong>." <u><strong>The best way to ensure that such an event does not occur would be for the U.S. itself to take part in, or monitor the extraction process. The problem is that Washington has no power over Havana's extractive practices as long as Cuba is drilling only within its own territorial waters, so cooperation and joint projects would be the best way to promote the safety of the drilling process.</u></strong> U.S. oil companies can be expected to take part in the excavation process as soon as the outdated embargo is superseded.¶ The Ob ama administration has said its recent modest opening of relations with Cuba was intended to "extend a hand to the Cuban people, in support of their desire to determine their own future." <u><strong>If Washington truly wants to help, normalization of relations could lead to immediate improvements</u></strong> in the dismal economic situation on the island. Cuba has received over 1 15,000 barrels a day of generously subsidized oil from Venezuela in 2008, and that number has since increased. Otherwise unable to afford oil, Havana profoundly needs this discount along with the docto rs-for-oil swap; this points out Cuba's inability to avoid its past mistakes and history. The disastrous economic fallout in Cuba after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the consequent sudden loss of over $5 billion worth of yearly subsidies, should have taught Havana to be wary of overdependence on other countries' generosity. Havana's relationship with Caracas proves otherwise: Hugo Chavez yearly provides the Castros with well over an estimated $2 billion worth of oil subsidies each year.</p> </s>

Cuba is a key model for global health care – key to disease prevention

health care in the US is irrelevant to charting a path for poor countries Poor countries simply cannot afford such a health system. Well over 100 countries are looking to the example of Cuba, Cubans programs focus on preventing people from getting diseases and treating them as rapidly as possible. This has made Cuba extremely effective in control of health issues. Cuba has a record unmatched in dealing with chronic and infectious diseases with amazingly limited resources. At the time when New York (roughly the same population as Cuba) had 43,000 cases of AIDS, Cuba had 200 AIDS patients outbreaks are quickly followed by national mobilizations.

Furious though it may be, the current debate over health care in the US is largely irrelevant to charting a path for poor countries of Africa, Latin America, Asia, and the Pacific Islands. That is because the US squanders perhaps 10 to 20 times what is needed for a good, affordable medical system. The waste is far more than 30% overhead by private insurance companies. It includes an enormous amount of over-treatment, creation of illnesses, exposure to contagion through over-hospitalization, disease-focused instead of prevention-focused research, and making the poor sicker by refusing them treatment.1 Poor countries simply cannot afford such a health system. Well over 100 countries are looking to the example of Cuba, which has the same 78-year life expectancy of the US while spending 4% per person annually of what the US does.2 The most revolutionary idea of the Cuban system is doctors living in the neighborhoods they serve. A doctor-nurse team are part of the community and know their patients well because they live at (or near) the consultorio (doctor's office) where they work. Consultorios are backed up by policlínicos which provide services during off-hours and offer a wide variety of specialists. Policlínicos coordinate community health delivery and link nationally-designed health initiatives with their local implementation. Cubans call their system medicina general integral (MGI, comprehensive general medicine). Its programs focus on preventing people from getting diseases and treating them as rapidly as possible. This has made Cuba extremely effective in control of everyday health issues. Having doctors' offices in every neighborhood has brought the Cuban infant mortality rate below that of the US and less than half that of US Blacks.3 Cuba has a record unmatched in dealing with chronic and infectious diseases with amazingly limited resources. These include (with date eradicated): polio (1962), malaria (1967), neonatal tetanus (1972), diphtheria (1979), congenital rubella syndrome (1989), post-mumps meningitis (1989), measles (1993), rubella (1995), and TB meningitis (1997).4 The MGI integration of neighborhood doctors' offices with area clinics and a national hospital system also means the country responds well to emergencies. It has the ability to evacuate entire cities during a hurricane largely because consultorio staff know everyone in their neighborhood and know who to call for help getting disabled residents out of harm's way. At the time when New York City (roughly the same population as Cuba) had 43,000 cases of AIDS, Cuba had 200 AIDS patients.5 More recent emergencies such as outbreaks of dengue fever are quickly followed by national mobilizations.6

<h4>Cuba is a key model for global health care – key to disease prevention </h4><p><strong>Monthly Review</strong> 7/12/<strong>2012</strong> “Why Is Cuba's Health Care System the Best Model for Poor Countries?” http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2012/fitz071212.html</p><p>Furious though it may be, the current debate over <u><strong>health care in the US is</u></strong> largely <u><strong>irrelevant to charting a path for poor countries</u></strong> of Africa, Latin America, Asia, and the Pacific Islands. That is because the US squanders perhaps 10 to 20 times what is needed for a good, affordable medical system. The waste is far more than 30% overhead by private insurance companies. It includes an enormous amount of over-treatment, creation of illnesses, exposure to contagion through over-hospitalization, disease-focused instead of prevention-focused research, and making the poor sicker by refusing them treatment.1</p><p><u><strong>Poor countries simply cannot afford such a health system. Well over 100 countries are looking to the example of Cuba,</u></strong> which has the same 78-year life expectancy of the US while spending 4% per person annually of what the US does.2</p><p>The most revolutionary idea of the Cuban system is doctors living in the neighborhoods they serve. A doctor-nurse team are part of the community and know their patients well because they live at (or near) the consultorio (doctor's office) where they work. Consultorios are backed up by policlínicos which provide services during off-hours and offer a wide variety of specialists. Policlínicos coordinate community health delivery and link nationally-designed health initiatives with their local implementation.</p><p><u><strong>Cubans</u></strong> call their system medicina general integral (MGI, comprehensive general medicine). Its <u><strong>programs focus on preventing people from getting diseases and treating them as rapidly as possible.</p><p>This has made Cuba extremely effective in control of</u></strong> everyday <u><strong>health issues.</u></strong> Having doctors' offices in every neighborhood has brought the Cuban infant mortality rate below that of the US and less than half that of US Blacks.3 <u><strong>Cuba has a record unmatched in dealing with chronic and infectious diseases with amazingly limited resources.</u></strong> These include (with date eradicated): polio (1962), malaria (1967), neonatal tetanus (1972), diphtheria (1979), congenital rubella syndrome (1989), post-mumps meningitis (1989), measles (1993), rubella (1995), and TB meningitis (1997).4</p><p>The MGI integration of neighborhood doctors' offices with area clinics and a national hospital system also means the country responds well to emergencies. It has the ability to evacuate entire cities during a hurricane largely because consultorio staff know everyone in their neighborhood and know who to call for help getting disabled residents out of harm's way. <u><strong>At the time when New York</u></strong> City <u><strong>(roughly the same population as Cuba) had 43,000 cases of AIDS, Cuba had 200 AIDS patients</u></strong>.5 More recent emergencies such as <u><strong>outbreaks</u></strong> of dengue fever <u><strong>are quickly followed by national mobilizations.</u></strong>6</p>

Monthly Review 7/12/2012 “Why Is Cuba's Health Care System the Best Model for Poor Countries?” http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2012/fitz071212.html

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Monthly Review 7/12/2012 “Why Is Cuba's Health Care System the Best Model for Poor Countries?” http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2012/fitz071212.html fulltext: Furious though it may be, the current debate over health care in the US is largely irrelevant to charting a path for poor countries of Africa, Latin America, Asia, and the Pacific Islands. That is because the US squanders perhaps 10 to 20 times what is needed for a good, affordable medical system. The waste is far more than 30% overhead by private insurance companies. It includes an enormous amount of over-treatment, creation of illnesses, exposure to contagion through over-hospitalization, disease-focused instead of prevention-focused research, and making the poor sicker by refusing them treatment.1 Poor countries simply cannot afford such a health system. Well over 100 countries are looking to the example of Cuba, which has the same 78-year life expectancy of the US while spending 4% per person annually of what the US does.2 The most revolutionary idea of the Cuban system is doctors living in the neighborhoods they serve. A doctor-nurse team are part of the community and know their patients well because they live at (or near) the consultorio (doctor's office) where they work. Consultorios are backed up by policlínicos which provide services during off-hours and offer a wide variety of specialists. Policlínicos coordinate community health delivery and link nationally-designed health initiatives with their local implementation. Cubans call their system medicina general integral (MGI, comprehensive general medicine). Its programs focus on preventing people from getting diseases and treating them as rapidly as possible. This has made Cuba extremely effective in control of everyday health issues. Having doctors' offices in every neighborhood has brought the Cuban infant mortality rate below that of the US and less than half that of US Blacks.3 Cuba has a record unmatched in dealing with chronic and infectious diseases with amazingly limited resources. These include (with date eradicated): polio (1962), malaria (1967), neonatal tetanus (1972), diphtheria (1979), congenital rubella syndrome (1989), post-mumps meningitis (1989), measles (1993), rubella (1995), and TB meningitis (1997).4 The MGI integration of neighborhood doctors' offices with area clinics and a national hospital system also means the country responds well to emergencies. It has the ability to evacuate entire cities during a hurricane largely because consultorio staff know everyone in their neighborhood and know who to call for help getting disabled residents out of harm's way. At the time when New York City (roughly the same population as Cuba) had 43,000 cases of AIDS, Cuba had 200 AIDS patients.5 More recent emergencies such as outbreaks of dengue fever are quickly followed by national mobilizations.6 [/INST] <h4>Cuba is a key model for global health care – key to disease prevention </h4><p><strong>Monthly Review</strong> 7/12/<strong>2012</strong> “Why Is Cuba's Health Care System the Best Model for Poor Countries?” http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2012/fitz071212.html</p><p>Furious though it may be, the current debate over <u><strong>health care in the US is</u></strong> largely <u><strong>irrelevant to charting a path for poor countries</u></strong> of Africa, Latin America, Asia, and the Pacific Islands. That is because the US squanders perhaps 10 to 20 times what is needed for a good, affordable medical system. The waste is far more than 30% overhead by private insurance companies. It includes an enormous amount of over-treatment, creation of illnesses, exposure to contagion through over-hospitalization, disease-focused instead of prevention-focused research, and making the poor sicker by refusing them treatment.1</p><p><u><strong>Poor countries simply cannot afford such a health system. Well over 100 countries are looking to the example of Cuba,</u></strong> which has the same 78-year life expectancy of the US while spending 4% per person annually of what the US does.2</p><p>The most revolutionary idea of the Cuban system is doctors living in the neighborhoods they serve. A doctor-nurse team are part of the community and know their patients well because they live at (or near) the consultorio (doctor's office) where they work. Consultorios are backed up by policlínicos which provide services during off-hours and offer a wide variety of specialists. Policlínicos coordinate community health delivery and link nationally-designed health initiatives with their local implementation.</p><p><u><strong>Cubans</u></strong> call their system medicina general integral (MGI, comprehensive general medicine). Its <u><strong>programs focus on preventing people from getting diseases and treating them as rapidly as possible.</p><p>This has made Cuba extremely effective in control of</u></strong> everyday <u><strong>health issues.</u></strong> Having doctors' offices in every neighborhood has brought the Cuban infant mortality rate below that of the US and less than half that of US Blacks.3 <u><strong>Cuba has a record unmatched in dealing with chronic and infectious diseases with amazingly limited resources.</u></strong> These include (with date eradicated): polio (1962), malaria (1967), neonatal tetanus (1972), diphtheria (1979), congenital rubella syndrome (1989), post-mumps meningitis (1989), measles (1993), rubella (1995), and TB meningitis (1997).4</p><p>The MGI integration of neighborhood doctors' offices with area clinics and a national hospital system also means the country responds well to emergencies. It has the ability to evacuate entire cities during a hurricane largely because consultorio staff know everyone in their neighborhood and know who to call for help getting disabled residents out of harm's way. <u><strong>At the time when New York</u></strong> City <u><strong>(roughly the same population as Cuba) had 43,000 cases of AIDS, Cuba had 200 AIDS patients</u></strong>.5 More recent emergencies such as <u><strong>outbreaks</u></strong> of dengue fever <u><strong>are quickly followed by national mobilizations.</u></strong>6</p> </s>

Climate change results in multiple scenarios for extinction – it’s try or die

As early as 1988 scientists cautioned that human tinkering with the Earth's climate amounted to uncontrolled globally pervasive experiment whose consequences could be second only to a global nuclear war." hundreds of scientific studies have documented ever-mounting evidence that human activities are altering the climate climate change is the most severe problem that we are facing today—more serious even than the threat of terrorism. Climate change will likely trigger severe disruptions with ever-widening consequences for local, regional, and global security Droughts, famines, and weather-related disasters could claim thousands or even millions of lives and exacerbate existing tensions within and among nations, fomenting diplomatic and trade disputes further warming will reduce the capacities of Earth's natural systems elevate rising sea levels threaten destabilize the global economy and geopolitical balance, and incite violent conflict these impacts are arriving faster than many climate scientists predicted. Recent studies have revealed changes in the breeding and migratory patterns of animals worldwide, from sea turtles to polar bears glaciers are shrinking threatening water supplies for millions sea level has risen 20-25 centimeters A recent report by the International Climate Change Taskforce concludes that climate change is the "single most important long term issue that the planet faces if average global temperatures increase more than two degrees Celsius which will occur if we continue with business-as-usual—the world will reach the "point of no return where societies may be unable to cope with the accelerating rates of change threats to security will be amplified as climate change has increasing impacts on regional water supplies agricultural productivity, human and ecosystem health, infrastructure, financial flows and economies, and patterns of international migration. Not only could this impede development, it might also increase national and regional instability and intensify income disparities between rich and poor. This, could lead to military confrontations over distribution of the world's wealth, or could feed terrorism or transnational crime Rising temperatures, increasing acidity of ocean waters, coupled with an expanding human population, could further stress an already limited global food supply Even modest warming has affected fisheries and agricultural productivity Altered rainfall patterns could heighten tensions over the use of shared water bodies and increase the likelihood of violent conflict over water resources. Widespread impacts of climate change could lead to waves of migration, threatening international stability The parallels with terrorism are compelling By the time the world experiences the climate equivalent of September 11th it could be too late to respond.

As early as 1988, scientists cautioned that tinkering with the Earth's climate amounted to uncontrolled consequences second only to a global nuclear war scientific studies have documented that human activities are altering the climate Climate change will likely trigger severe disruptions with ever-widening consequences for local, regional, and global security Droughts, famines, and weather-related disaster claim millions of lives and exacerbate existing tensions among nations fomenting diplomatic and trade disputes further warming will reduce the capacities of Earth's natural systems elevate rising sea levels threaten destabilize the global economy and geopolitical balance, and incite violent conflict these impacts are arriving faster than many climate scientists predicted. Recent studies have revealed changes in the breeding and migratory patterns of animals worldwide, from sea turtles to polar bears glaciers are shrinking threatening water supplies for millions sea level has risen 20-25 centimeters if temperatures increase which will occur if we continue with business-as-usual—the world will reach the "point of no return threats to security will be amplified climate change has increasing impacts on water supplies, agricultural productivity infrastructure, financial flows and economies This, could lead to military confrontations Even modest warming has affected fisheries and agricultural productivity Altered rainfall patterns could heighten tensions over the use of shared water bodies and increase the likelihood of violent conflict over water resources. The parallels with terrorism are compelling By the time the world experiences the climate equivalent of September 11th it could be too late to respond.

Senior Director of the Energy and Climate Change Program at the WorldWatch Institute Aug. ’12 ¶ (Janet, “Climate Change Poses Greater Security Threat than Terrorism,” http://www.worldwatch.org/node/77, accessed 9/30/12,WYO/JF As early as 1988, scientists cautioned that human tinkering with the Earth's climate amounted to "an unintended, uncontrolled globally pervasive experiment whose ultimate consequences could be second only to a global nuclear war." Since then, hundreds of scientific studies have documented ever-mounting evidence that human activities are altering the climate around the world. A growing number of international leaders now warn that climate change is, in the words of U.K. Chief Scientific Advisor David King, "the most severe problem that we are facing today—more serious even than the threat of terrorism." Climate change will likely trigger severe disruptions with ever-widening consequences for local, regional, and global security. Droughts, famines, and weather-related disasters could claim thousands or even millions of lives and exacerbate existing tensions within and among nations, fomenting diplomatic and trade disputes. In the worst case, further warming will reduce the capacities of Earth's natural systems and elevate already-rising sea levels, which could threaten the very survival of low-lying island nations, destabilize the global economy and geopolitical balance, and incite violent conflict. Already, there is growing evidence that climate change is affecting the life-support systems on which humans and other species depend. And these impacts are arriving faster than many climate scientists predicted. Recent studies have revealed changes in the breeding and migratory patterns of animals worldwide, from sea turtles to polar bears. Mountain glaciers are shrinking at ever-faster rates, threatening water supplies for millions of people and plant and animal species. Average global sea level has risen 20-25 centimeters (8-10 inches) since 1901, due mainly to thermal expansion; more than 2.5 centimeters (one inch) of this rise occurred over the past decade. A recent report by the International Climate Change Taskforce, co-chaired by Republican U.S. Senator Olympia Snowe, concludes that climate change is the "single most important long term issue that the planet faces." It warns that if average global temperatures increase more than two degrees Celsius—which will likely occur in a matter of decades if we continue with business-as-usual—the world will reach the "point of no return," where societies may be unable to cope with the accelerating rates of change. Existing threats to security will be amplified as climate change has increasing impacts on regional water supplies, agricultural productivity, human and ecosystem health, infrastructure, financial flows and economies, and patterns of international migration. Specific threats to human welfare and global security include: ► Climate change will undermine efforts to mitigate world poverty, directly threatening people's homes and livelihoods through increased storms, droughts, disease, and other stressors. Not only could this impede development, it might also increase national and regional instability and intensify income disparities between rich and poor. This, in turn, could lead to military confrontations over distribution of the world's wealth, or could feed terrorism or transnational crime. ► Rising temperatures, droughts, and floods, and the increasing acidity of ocean waters, coupled with an expanding human population, could further stress an already limited global food supply, dramatically increasing food prices and potentially triggering internal unrest or the use of food as a weapon. Even the modest warming experienced to date has affected fisheries and agricultural productivity, with a 10 percent decrease in corn yields across the U.S. Midwest seen per degree of warming. ► Altered rainfall patterns could heighten tensions over the use of shared water bodies and increase the likelihood of violent conflict over water resources. It is estimated that about 1.4 billion people already live in areas that are water-stressed. Up to 5 billion people (most of the world's current population) could be living in such regions by 2025. ► Widespread impacts of climate change could lead to waves of migration, threatening international stability. One study estimates that by 2050, as many as 150 million people may have fled coastlines vulnerable to rising sea levels, storms or floods, or agricultural land too arid to cultivate. Historically, migration to urban areas has stressed limited services and infrastructure, inciting crime or insurgency movements, while migration across borders has frequently led to violent clashes over land and resources. The parallels with terrorism are compelling. Traditional responses to security threats cannot address the root of such problems, and related impacts could persist even if global emissions are cut dramatically over coming decades because of the significant lag time between cause and effect. As with terrorism, we know that changes will occur, but not when or where they will strike, nor how damaging and costly they will be. Climate change already claims more lives than does terrorism: according to the World Health Organization, global climate change now accounts for more than 160,000 deaths annually. By the time the world experiences the climate equivalent of September 11th, or the 2004 Madrid bombings, it could be too late to respond.

<h4><strong>Climate change results in multiple scenarios for extinction – it’s try or die </h4><p>Sawin, 12</p><p></strong>Senior Director of the Energy and Climate Change Program at the WorldWatch Institute Aug. ’12 ¶ (Janet, “Climate Change Poses Greater Security Threat than Terrorism,” http://www.worldwatch.org/node/77, accessed 9/30/12,WYO/JF</p><p><u><strong><mark>As early as 1988</u></strong>, <u><strong>scientists cautioned that </mark>human <mark>tinkering with the Earth's climate amounted to </u></strong></mark>"an unintended, <u><strong><mark>uncontrolled </mark>globally pervasive experiment whose </u></strong>ultimate <u><strong><mark>consequences</mark> could be <mark>second only to a global nuclear war</mark>."</u></strong> Since then, <u><strong>hundreds of <mark>scientific studies have documented </mark>ever-mounting evidence <mark>that human activities are altering the climate</u></strong> </mark>around the world. A growing number of international leaders now warn that <u><strong>climate change is</u></strong>, in the words of U.K. Chief Scientific Advisor David King, "<u><strong>the most severe problem that we are facing today—more serious even than the threat of terrorism.</u></strong>" <u><strong><mark>Climate change will likely trigger severe disruptions with ever-widening consequences for local, regional, and global security</u></strong></mark>. <u><strong><mark>Droughts, famines, and weather-related disaster</mark>s could <mark>claim</mark> thousands or even <mark>millions of lives and exacerbate existing tensions </mark>within and <mark>among nations</mark>, <mark>fomenting diplomatic and trade disputes</u></strong></mark>. In the worst case, <u><strong><mark>further warming will reduce the capacities of Earth's natural systems </u></strong></mark>and <u><strong><mark>elevate</u></strong></mark> already-<u><strong><mark>rising sea levels</u></strong></mark>, which could <u><strong><mark>threaten</u></strong></mark> the very survival of low-lying island nations, <u><strong><mark>destabilize the global economy and geopolitical balance, and incite violent conflict</u></strong></mark>. Already, there is growing evidence that climate change is affecting the life-support systems on which humans and other species depend. And <u><strong><mark>these impacts are arriving faster than many climate scientists predicted.</u></strong></mark> <u><strong><mark>Recent studies have revealed changes in the breeding and migratory patterns of animals worldwide, from sea turtles to polar bears</u></strong></mark>. Mountain <u><strong><mark>glaciers are shrinking</u></strong> </mark>at ever-faster rates, <u><strong><mark>threatening water supplies for millions</u></strong> </mark>of people and plant and animal species. Average global <u><strong><mark>sea level has risen 20-25 centimeters</u></strong> </mark>(8-10 inches) since 1901, due mainly to thermal expansion; more than 2.5 centimeters (one inch) of this rise occurred over the past decade. <u><strong>A recent report by the International Climate Change Taskforce</u></strong>, co-chaired by Republican U.S. Senator Olympia Snowe, <u><strong>concludes that climate change is the "single most important long term issue that the planet faces</u></strong>." It warns that <u><strong><mark>if </mark>average global <mark>temperatures increase </mark>more than two degrees Celsius</u></strong>—<u><strong><mark>which will</u></strong> </mark>likely <u><strong><mark>occur</u></strong> </mark>in a matter of decades <u><strong><mark>if we continue with business-as-usual—the world will reach the "point of no return</u></strong></mark>," <u><strong>where societies may be unable to cope with the accelerating rates of change</u></strong>. Existing <u><strong><mark>threats to security will be amplified</mark> as <mark>climate change has increasing impacts on</mark> regional <mark>water supplies</u></strong>, <u><strong>agricultural productivity</mark>, human and ecosystem health, <mark>infrastructure, financial flows and economies</mark>, and patterns of international migration.</u></strong> Specific threats to human welfare and global security include: ► Climate change will undermine efforts to mitigate world poverty, directly threatening people's homes and livelihoods through increased storms, droughts, disease, and other stressors. <u><strong>Not only could this impede development, it might also increase national and regional instability and intensify income disparities between rich and poor.</u></strong> <u><strong><mark>This,</u></strong> </mark>in turn, <u><strong><mark>could lead to military confrontations </mark>over distribution of the world's wealth, or could feed terrorism or transnational crime</u></strong>. ► <u><strong>Rising temperatures,</u></strong> droughts, and floods, and the <u><strong>increasing acidity of ocean waters, coupled with an expanding human population, could further stress an already limited global food supply</u></strong>, dramatically increasing food prices and potentially triggering internal unrest or the use of food as a weapon. <u><strong><mark>Even</u></strong></mark> the <u><strong><mark>modest warming</u></strong> </mark>experienced to date <u><strong><mark>has affected fisheries and agricultural productivity</u></strong></mark>, with a 10 percent decrease in corn yields across the U.S. Midwest seen per degree of warming. ► <u><strong><mark>Altered rainfall patterns could heighten tensions over the use of shared water bodies and increase the likelihood of violent conflict over water resources.</u></strong></mark> It is estimated that about 1.4 billion people already live in areas that are water-stressed. Up to 5 billion people (most of the world's current population) could be living in such regions by 2025. ► <u><strong>Widespread impacts of climate change could lead to waves of migration, threatening international stability</u></strong>. One study estimates that by 2050, as many as 150 million people may have fled coastlines vulnerable to rising sea levels, storms or floods, or agricultural land too arid to cultivate. Historically, migration to urban areas has stressed limited services and infrastructure, inciting crime or insurgency movements, while migration across borders has frequently led to violent clashes over land and resources. <u><strong><mark>The parallels with terrorism are compelling</u></strong></mark>. Traditional responses to security threats cannot address the root of such problems, and related impacts could persist even if global emissions are cut dramatically over coming decades because of the significant lag time between cause and effect. As with terrorism, we know that changes will occur, but not when or where they will strike, nor how damaging and costly they will be. Climate change already claims more lives than does terrorism: according to the World Health Organization, global climate change now accounts for more than 160,000 deaths annually. <u><strong><mark>By the time the world experiences the climate equivalent of September 11th</u></strong></mark>, or the 2004 Madrid bombings, <u><strong><mark>it could be too late to respond.</u></strong></mark> </p>

Sawin, 12

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Sawin, 12 fulltext: Senior Director of the Energy and Climate Change Program at the WorldWatch Institute Aug. ’12 ¶ (Janet, “Climate Change Poses Greater Security Threat than Terrorism,” http://www.worldwatch.org/node/77, accessed 9/30/12,WYO/JF As early as 1988, scientists cautioned that human tinkering with the Earth's climate amounted to "an unintended, uncontrolled globally pervasive experiment whose ultimate consequences could be second only to a global nuclear war." Since then, hundreds of scientific studies have documented ever-mounting evidence that human activities are altering the climate around the world. A growing number of international leaders now warn that climate change is, in the words of U.K. Chief Scientific Advisor David King, "the most severe problem that we are facing today—more serious even than the threat of terrorism." Climate change will likely trigger severe disruptions with ever-widening consequences for local, regional, and global security. Droughts, famines, and weather-related disasters could claim thousands or even millions of lives and exacerbate existing tensions within and among nations, fomenting diplomatic and trade disputes. In the worst case, further warming will reduce the capacities of Earth's natural systems and elevate already-rising sea levels, which could threaten the very survival of low-lying island nations, destabilize the global economy and geopolitical balance, and incite violent conflict. Already, there is growing evidence that climate change is affecting the life-support systems on which humans and other species depend. And these impacts are arriving faster than many climate scientists predicted. Recent studies have revealed changes in the breeding and migratory patterns of animals worldwide, from sea turtles to polar bears. Mountain glaciers are shrinking at ever-faster rates, threatening water supplies for millions of people and plant and animal species. Average global sea level has risen 20-25 centimeters (8-10 inches) since 1901, due mainly to thermal expansion; more than 2.5 centimeters (one inch) of this rise occurred over the past decade. A recent report by the International Climate Change Taskforce, co-chaired by Republican U.S. Senator Olympia Snowe, concludes that climate change is the "single most important long term issue that the planet faces." It warns that if average global temperatures increase more than two degrees Celsius—which will likely occur in a matter of decades if we continue with business-as-usual—the world will reach the "point of no return," where societies may be unable to cope with the accelerating rates of change. Existing threats to security will be amplified as climate change has increasing impacts on regional water supplies, agricultural productivity, human and ecosystem health, infrastructure, financial flows and economies, and patterns of international migration. Specific threats to human welfare and global security include: ► Climate change will undermine efforts to mitigate world poverty, directly threatening people's homes and livelihoods through increased storms, droughts, disease, and other stressors. Not only could this impede development, it might also increase national and regional instability and intensify income disparities between rich and poor. This, in turn, could lead to military confrontations over distribution of the world's wealth, or could feed terrorism or transnational crime. ► Rising temperatures, droughts, and floods, and the increasing acidity of ocean waters, coupled with an expanding human population, could further stress an already limited global food supply, dramatically increasing food prices and potentially triggering internal unrest or the use of food as a weapon. Even the modest warming experienced to date has affected fisheries and agricultural productivity, with a 10 percent decrease in corn yields across the U.S. Midwest seen per degree of warming. ► Altered rainfall patterns could heighten tensions over the use of shared water bodies and increase the likelihood of violent conflict over water resources. It is estimated that about 1.4 billion people already live in areas that are water-stressed. Up to 5 billion people (most of the world's current population) could be living in such regions by 2025. ► Widespread impacts of climate change could lead to waves of migration, threatening international stability. One study estimates that by 2050, as many as 150 million people may have fled coastlines vulnerable to rising sea levels, storms or floods, or agricultural land too arid to cultivate. Historically, migration to urban areas has stressed limited services and infrastructure, inciting crime or insurgency movements, while migration across borders has frequently led to violent clashes over land and resources. The parallels with terrorism are compelling. Traditional responses to security threats cannot address the root of such problems, and related impacts could persist even if global emissions are cut dramatically over coming decades because of the significant lag time between cause and effect. As with terrorism, we know that changes will occur, but not when or where they will strike, nor how damaging and costly they will be. Climate change already claims more lives than does terrorism: according to the World Health Organization, global climate change now accounts for more than 160,000 deaths annually. By the time the world experiences the climate equivalent of September 11th, or the 2004 Madrid bombings, it could be too late to respond. [/INST] <h4><strong>Climate change results in multiple scenarios for extinction – it’s try or die </h4><p>Sawin, 12</p><p></strong>Senior Director of the Energy and Climate Change Program at the WorldWatch Institute Aug. ’12 ¶ (Janet, “Climate Change Poses Greater Security Threat than Terrorism,” http://www.worldwatch.org/node/77, accessed 9/30/12,WYO/JF</p><p><u><strong><mark>As early as 1988</u></strong>, <u><strong>scientists cautioned that </mark>human <mark>tinkering with the Earth's climate amounted to </u></strong></mark>"an unintended, <u><strong><mark>uncontrolled </mark>globally pervasive experiment whose </u></strong>ultimate <u><strong><mark>consequences</mark> could be <mark>second only to a global nuclear war</mark>."</u></strong> Since then, <u><strong>hundreds of <mark>scientific studies have documented </mark>ever-mounting evidence <mark>that human activities are altering the climate</u></strong> </mark>around the world. A growing number of international leaders now warn that <u><strong>climate change is</u></strong>, in the words of U.K. Chief Scientific Advisor David King, "<u><strong>the most severe problem that we are facing today—more serious even than the threat of terrorism.</u></strong>" <u><strong><mark>Climate change will likely trigger severe disruptions with ever-widening consequences for local, regional, and global security</u></strong></mark>. <u><strong><mark>Droughts, famines, and weather-related disaster</mark>s could <mark>claim</mark> thousands or even <mark>millions of lives and exacerbate existing tensions </mark>within and <mark>among nations</mark>, <mark>fomenting diplomatic and trade disputes</u></strong></mark>. In the worst case, <u><strong><mark>further warming will reduce the capacities of Earth's natural systems </u></strong></mark>and <u><strong><mark>elevate</u></strong></mark> already-<u><strong><mark>rising sea levels</u></strong></mark>, which could <u><strong><mark>threaten</u></strong></mark> the very survival of low-lying island nations, <u><strong><mark>destabilize the global economy and geopolitical balance, and incite violent conflict</u></strong></mark>. Already, there is growing evidence that climate change is affecting the life-support systems on which humans and other species depend. And <u><strong><mark>these impacts are arriving faster than many climate scientists predicted.</u></strong></mark> <u><strong><mark>Recent studies have revealed changes in the breeding and migratory patterns of animals worldwide, from sea turtles to polar bears</u></strong></mark>. Mountain <u><strong><mark>glaciers are shrinking</u></strong> </mark>at ever-faster rates, <u><strong><mark>threatening water supplies for millions</u></strong> </mark>of people and plant and animal species. Average global <u><strong><mark>sea level has risen 20-25 centimeters</u></strong> </mark>(8-10 inches) since 1901, due mainly to thermal expansion; more than 2.5 centimeters (one inch) of this rise occurred over the past decade. <u><strong>A recent report by the International Climate Change Taskforce</u></strong>, co-chaired by Republican U.S. Senator Olympia Snowe, <u><strong>concludes that climate change is the "single most important long term issue that the planet faces</u></strong>." It warns that <u><strong><mark>if </mark>average global <mark>temperatures increase </mark>more than two degrees Celsius</u></strong>—<u><strong><mark>which will</u></strong> </mark>likely <u><strong><mark>occur</u></strong> </mark>in a matter of decades <u><strong><mark>if we continue with business-as-usual—the world will reach the "point of no return</u></strong></mark>," <u><strong>where societies may be unable to cope with the accelerating rates of change</u></strong>. Existing <u><strong><mark>threats to security will be amplified</mark> as <mark>climate change has increasing impacts on</mark> regional <mark>water supplies</u></strong>, <u><strong>agricultural productivity</mark>, human and ecosystem health, <mark>infrastructure, financial flows and economies</mark>, and patterns of international migration.</u></strong> Specific threats to human welfare and global security include: ► Climate change will undermine efforts to mitigate world poverty, directly threatening people's homes and livelihoods through increased storms, droughts, disease, and other stressors. <u><strong>Not only could this impede development, it might also increase national and regional instability and intensify income disparities between rich and poor.</u></strong> <u><strong><mark>This,</u></strong> </mark>in turn, <u><strong><mark>could lead to military confrontations </mark>over distribution of the world's wealth, or could feed terrorism or transnational crime</u></strong>. ► <u><strong>Rising temperatures,</u></strong> droughts, and floods, and the <u><strong>increasing acidity of ocean waters, coupled with an expanding human population, could further stress an already limited global food supply</u></strong>, dramatically increasing food prices and potentially triggering internal unrest or the use of food as a weapon. <u><strong><mark>Even</u></strong></mark> the <u><strong><mark>modest warming</u></strong> </mark>experienced to date <u><strong><mark>has affected fisheries and agricultural productivity</u></strong></mark>, with a 10 percent decrease in corn yields across the U.S. Midwest seen per degree of warming. ► <u><strong><mark>Altered rainfall patterns could heighten tensions over the use of shared water bodies and increase the likelihood of violent conflict over water resources.</u></strong></mark> It is estimated that about 1.4 billion people already live in areas that are water-stressed. Up to 5 billion people (most of the world's current population) could be living in such regions by 2025. ► <u><strong>Widespread impacts of climate change could lead to waves of migration, threatening international stability</u></strong>. One study estimates that by 2050, as many as 150 million people may have fled coastlines vulnerable to rising sea levels, storms or floods, or agricultural land too arid to cultivate. Historically, migration to urban areas has stressed limited services and infrastructure, inciting crime or insurgency movements, while migration across borders has frequently led to violent clashes over land and resources. <u><strong><mark>The parallels with terrorism are compelling</u></strong></mark>. Traditional responses to security threats cannot address the root of such problems, and related impacts could persist even if global emissions are cut dramatically over coming decades because of the significant lag time between cause and effect. As with terrorism, we know that changes will occur, but not when or where they will strike, nor how damaging and costly they will be. Climate change already claims more lives than does terrorism: according to the World Health Organization, global climate change now accounts for more than 160,000 deaths annually. <u><strong><mark>By the time the world experiences the climate equivalent of September 11th</u></strong></mark>, or the 2004 Madrid bombings, <u><strong><mark>it could be too late to respond.</u></strong></mark> </p> </s>

Democracy doesn’t solve war

there has been aburgeoning discussion about the connection between democracy and war democracies have almost never, gotten into war with each other This relationship seems more correlative than causal, While democracy and war aversion have taken the sametrajectory they have been substantially out of synchronization with each other: the movement toward democracy began about 200 years ago,but the movement against war began 100 years ago ( it is often asserted democracies are peaceful because they apply their domestic penchant for compromise to the international arena But authoritarian regimes also develop compromise developed democracies have not adopted a pacifist approach, particularly after a version of that approach failed so to prevent World War II they were willing to subvertor threatenand apply military force when threats appeared to loom during the Cold War developed democracies hardly needed democracy to decide that war among them was a bad idea Thus, while democracy and war aversion have often been promoted by the same advocates, the relationship does not seem to be a causal one. democracies will fight one another various warlike sentiments could be found in Yugoslavia or in India and then-democratic Pakistan The important consideration does not seem to be "whether a country is democratic but whether its ruling coalition is committed to conflict resolution countries of Latin America have engaged in very few wars without being democratic the long peace enjoyed by developed countries since World War II includes not only democracies, but the more important one between authoritarian east Associated with speculations has been a tendency to emboss the grubby gimmick with something of a mystique. the correlation between democracy and war aversion has also been elevated into a causal relationship.

democracy began 200 years ago,but the movement against war began 100 years ago authoritarian regimes also develop compromise democracies apply force when threats appear democracies hardly needed democracy to decide war was a bad idea the relationship does not seem causal warlike sentiments could be found in Yugoslavia India and Pakistan The consideration is whether its ruling coalition is committed to conflict resolution Latin America engaged in few wars without being democratic

In the last couple of decades there has been aburgeoning and intriguing discussion about the connection between democracy and war aversion.7 Most notable has been the empirical observation that democracies have never, or almost never, gotten into a war with each other. This relationship seems more correlative than causal,however. Like many important ideas over the last few centuries, the idea that war is undesirable and inefficacious and the idea that democracy is a good form of government have largely followed the same trajectory: they were embraced first in northern Europe and North America and then gradually, with a number of traumatic setbacks, became more accepted elsewhere. In this view, the rise of democracy not only is associated with the rise of war aversion, but also with the decline of slavery, religion, capital punishment, and cigarette smoking, and with the growing acceptance of capitalism, scientific methodology, women's rights, environmentalism, abortion, and rock music.8While democracy and war aversion have taken much the sametrajectory, however, they have been substantially out of synchronization with each other: the movement toward democracy began about 200 years ago,but the movement against war really began only about 100 years ago (Mueller 1989, 2004). Critics of the democracy/peace connection often cite examples of wars or near-wars between democracies. Most of these took place before World War I--that is, before war aversion had caught on.9 A necessary, logical connection between democracy and war aversion, accordingly, is far from clear. Thus, it is often asserted that democracies are peaceful because they apply their domestic penchant for peaceful compromise (something, obviously, that broke down in the United States in 1861) to the international arena or because the structure of democracy requires decision-makers to obtain domestic approval.10 But authoritarian regimes must also necessarily develop skills at compromisein order to survive, and they all have domestic constituencies that must be serviced such as the church, the landed gentry, potential urban rioters, the nomenklatura, the aristocracy, party members, the military, prominent business interests, the police or secret police, lenders of money to the exchequer, potential rivals for the throne, the sullen peasantry.11 Since World War I, the democracies in the developed world have been in the lead in rejecting war as a methodology. Some proponents of the democracy-peace connection suggest that this is because the democratic norm of non-violent conflict resolution has been externalized to the international arena. However,developed democracies have not necessarily adopted a pacifist approach, particularly after a version of that approach failed so spectacularly to prevent World War II from being forced upon them. In addition, they were willing actively to subvertor to threatenand sometimes apply military force when threats appeared to loom during the Cold War contest. At times this approach was used even against regimes that had some democratic credentials such as in Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954, Chile in 1973, and perhaps Nicaragua in the 1980s (Rosato 2003, 590-91). And, they have also sometimes used military force in their intermittent efforts to police the post-Cold War world (Mueller 2004, chs. 7, 8). It is true that they have warred little or not at all against each other--and, since there were few democracies outside the developed world until the last quarter of the twentieth century, it is this statistical regularity that most prominently informs the supposed connection between democracy and peace. However, thedeveloped democracies hardly needed democracy to decide that war among them was a bad idea.12 In addition, they also adopted a live-and-let-live approach toward a huge number of dictatorships and other non-democracies that did not seem threatening during the Cold War--in fact, they often aided and embraced such regimes if they seemed to be on the right side in the conflict with Communism. Moreover, the supposed penchant for peaceful compromise of democracies has not always served them well when confronted with civil war situations, particularly ones involving secessionist demands. The process broke down into civil warfare in democratic Switzerland in 1847 and savagely so in the United States in 1861. Democracies have also fought a considerable number of wars to retain colonial possessions--six by France alone since World War II--and these, as James Fearon and David Laitin suggest, can in many respects be considered essentially to be civil wars (2003, 76). To be sure, democracies have often managed to deal with colonial problems peacefully, mostly by letting the colonies go. But authoritarian governments have also done so: the Soviet Union, for example, withdrew from his empire in Eastern Europe and then dissolved itself, all almost entirely without violence. Thus, while democracy and war aversion have often been promoted by the same advocates, the relationship does not seem to be a causal one. And when the two trends are substantially out of step today, democracies will fight one another. Thus, it is not at all clear that telling the elected hawks in the Jordanian parliament that Israel is a democracy will dampen their hostility in the slightest. And various warlike sentiments could be found in the elected parliaments in the former Yugoslavia in the early 1990s or in India and then-democratic Pakistan when these two countries engaged in armed conflict in 1999. If Argentina had been a democracy in 1982 when it seized the Falkland Islands (a very popular undertaking), it is unlikely that British opposition to the venture would have been much less severe. "The important consideration," observes Miriam Fendius Elman after surveying the literature on the subject, does not seem to be "whether a country is democratic or not, but whether its ruling coalition is committed to peaceful methods of conflict resolution." As she further points out, the countries of Latin America and most of Africa have engaged in very few international wars even without the benefit of being democratic (for a century before its 1982 adventure, Argentina, for example, fought none at all) (1997, 484, 496). (Interestingly, although there has also been scarcely any warfare between Latin American states for over 100 years or among Arab ones or European ones for more that 50--in all cases whether democratic or not--this impressive phenomenon has inspired remarkably few calls for worldwide Arab colonialism or for the systematic transplant of remaining warlike states to Latin America or Europe.) And, of course, the long peace enjoyed by developed countries since World War II includes not only the one that has prevailed between democracies, but also the even more important one between the authoritarian east and the democratic west. Even if there is some connection, whether causal or atmospheric, between democracy and peace, it cannot explain this latter phenomenon. Democracy and the democratic peace become mystiques: the role of philosophers and divines Democracy has been a matter of debate for several millennia as philosophers and divines have speculated about what it is, what it might become, and what it ought to be. Associated with these speculations has been a tendency to emboss the grubby gimmick with something of a mystique. Of particular interest for present purposes is the fanciful notion that democracy does not simply express and aggregate preferences, but actually somehow creates (or should create) them. In addition, the (rough) correlation between democracy and war aversion has also been elevated into a causal relationship.

<h4><strong>Democracy doesn’t solve war </h4><p>Mueller 9<u>—pol sci prof and IR, Ohio State.Widely-recognized expert on terrorism threats in foreign policy. AB from U Chicago, MA in pol sci from UCLA and PhD in pol sci from UCLA (John, Faulty Correlation, Foolish Consistency, Fatal Consequence: Democracy, Peace, and Theory in the Middle East, 15 June 2007, http://psweb.sbs.ohio-state.edu/faculty/jmueller/KENT2.PDF)</p><p></u></strong>In the last couple of decades <u>there has been aburgeoning</u> and intriguing <u>discussion about the connection between democracy and war</u> aversion.7 Most notable has been the empirical observation that <u>democracies have </u>never, or <u>almost never, gotten into</u> a <u>war with each other</u>. <u>This relationship seems more correlative than causal,</u>however. Like many important ideas over the last few centuries, the idea that war is undesirable and inefficacious and the idea that democracy is a good form of government have largely followed the same trajectory: they were embraced first in northern Europe and North America and then gradually, with a number of traumatic setbacks, became more accepted elsewhere. In this view, the rise of democracy not only is associated with the rise of war aversion, but also with the decline of slavery, religion, capital punishment, and cigarette smoking, and with the growing acceptance of capitalism, scientific methodology, women's rights, environmentalism, abortion, and rock music.8<u>While democracy and war aversion have taken </u>much <u>the sametrajectory</u>, however, <u>they have been substantially out of synchronization with each other: the movement toward <mark>democracy began </mark>about <mark>200 years ago,but the movement against war</u></mark> really <u><mark>began</u></mark> only about <u><mark>100 years ago</mark> (</u>Mueller 1989, 2004). Critics of the democracy/peace connection often cite examples of wars or near-wars between democracies. Most of these took place before World War I--that is, before war aversion had caught on.9 A necessary, logical connection between democracy and war aversion, accordingly, is far from clear. Thus, <u>it is often asserted</u> that <u>democracies are peaceful because they apply their domestic penchant for</u> peaceful <u>compromise</u> (something, obviously, that broke down in the United States in 1861) <u>to the international arena</u> or because the structure of democracy requires decision-makers to obtain domestic approval.10 <u>But <mark>authoritarian regimes</u></mark> must <u><mark>also</u></mark> necessarily <u><mark>develop</u></mark> skills at <u><mark>compromise</u></mark>in order to survive, and they all have domestic constituencies that must be serviced such as the church, the landed gentry, potential urban rioters, the nomenklatura, the aristocracy, party members, the military, prominent business interests, the police or secret police, lenders of money to the exchequer, potential rivals for the throne, the sullen peasantry.11 Since World War I, the democracies in the developed world have been in the lead in rejecting war as a methodology. Some proponents of the democracy-peace connection suggest that this is because the democratic norm of non-violent conflict resolution has been externalized to the international arena. However,<u>developed <mark>democracies </mark>have not</u> necessarily <u>adopted a pacifist approach, particularly after a version of that approach failed so</u> spectacularly <u>to prevent World War II</u> from being forced upon them. In addition, <u>they were willing </u>actively <u>to subvertor</u> to <u>threatenand</u> sometimes <u><mark>apply </mark>military <mark>force when threats appear</mark>ed to loom during the Cold War </u>contest. At times this approach was used even against regimes that had some democratic credentials such as in Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954, Chile in 1973, and perhaps Nicaragua in the 1980s (Rosato 2003, 590-91). And, they have also sometimes used military force in their intermittent efforts to police the post-Cold War world (Mueller 2004, chs. 7, 8). It is true that they have warred little or not at all against each other--and, since there were few democracies outside the developed world until the last quarter of the twentieth century, it is this statistical regularity that most prominently informs the supposed connection between democracy and peace. However, the<u>developed <mark>democracies hardly needed democracy to decide</mark> that <mark>war</mark> among them <mark>was a bad idea</u></mark>.12 In addition, they also adopted a live-and-let-live approach toward a huge number of dictatorships and other non-democracies that did not seem threatening during the Cold War--in fact, they often aided and embraced such regimes if they seemed to be on the right side in the conflict with Communism. Moreover, the supposed penchant for peaceful compromise of democracies has not always served them well when confronted with civil war situations, particularly ones involving secessionist demands. The process broke down into civil warfare in democratic Switzerland in 1847 and savagely so in the United States in 1861. Democracies have also fought a considerable number of wars to retain colonial possessions--six by France alone since World War II--and these, as James Fearon and David Laitin suggest, can in many respects be considered essentially to be civil wars (2003, 76). To be sure, democracies have often managed to deal with colonial problems peacefully, mostly by letting the colonies go. But authoritarian governments have also done so: the Soviet Union, for example, withdrew from his empire in Eastern Europe and then dissolved itself, all almost entirely without violence. <u>Thus, while democracy and war aversion have often been promoted by the same advocates, <strong><mark>the relationship does not seem </mark>to be a <mark>causal </mark>one</strong>.</u> And when the two trends are substantially out of step today, <u>democracies will fight one another</u>. Thus, it is not at all clear that telling the elected hawks in the Jordanian parliament that Israel is a democracy will dampen their hostility in the slightest. And <u>various <mark>warlike sentiments could be found in</u></mark> the elected parliaments in the former <u><mark>Yugoslavia</u></mark> in the early 1990s <u>or in <mark>India and </mark>then-democratic <mark>Pakistan</u></mark> when these two countries engaged in armed conflict in 1999. If Argentina had been a democracy in 1982 when it seized the Falkland Islands (a very popular undertaking), it is unlikely that British opposition to the venture would have been much less severe. "<u><mark>The </mark>important <mark>consideration</u></mark>," observes Miriam Fendius Elman after surveying the literature on the subject, <u>does not seem to be "whether a country <mark>is</mark> democratic</u> or not, <u>but <mark>whether its ruling coalition is committed to</u></mark> peaceful methods of <u><mark>conflict resolution</u></mark>." As she further points out, the <u>countries of<mark> Latin America</u></mark> and most of Africa <u>have <mark>engaged in </mark>very <mark>few</u></mark> international <u><mark>wars </u></mark>even <u><mark>without</u></mark> the benefit of <u><mark>being democratic</u></mark> (for a century before its 1982 adventure, Argentina, for example, fought none at all) (1997, 484, 496). (Interestingly, although there has also been scarcely any warfare between Latin American states for over 100 years or among Arab ones or European ones for more that 50--in all cases whether democratic or not--this impressive phenomenon has inspired remarkably few calls for worldwide Arab colonialism or for the systematic transplant of remaining warlike states to Latin America or Europe.) And, of course, <u>the long peace enjoyed by developed countries since World War II includes not only</u> the one that has prevailed between <u>democracies, but</u> also <u>the</u> even <u>more important one between</u> the <u>authoritarian east</u> and the democratic west. Even if there is some connection, whether causal or atmospheric, between democracy and peace, it cannot explain this latter phenomenon. Democracy and the democratic peace become mystiques: the role of philosophers and divines Democracy has been a matter of debate for several millennia as philosophers and divines have speculated about what it is, what it might become, and what it ought to be. <u>Associated with </u>these <u>speculations has been a tendency to emboss the grubby gimmick with something of a mystique.</u> Of particular interest for present purposes is the fanciful notion that democracy does not simply express and aggregate preferences, but actually somehow creates (or should create) them. In addition, <u>the</u> (rough) <u><strong>correlation between democracy and war aversion has also been elevated into a causal relationship.</p></u></strong>

Mueller 9—pol sci prof and IR, Ohio State.Widely-recognized expert on terrorism threats in foreign policy. AB from U Chicago, MA in pol sci from UCLA and PhD in pol sci from UCLA (John, Faulty Correlation, Foolish Consistency, Fatal Consequence: Democracy, Peace, and Theory in the Middle East, 15 June 2007, http://psweb.sbs.ohio-state.edu/faculty/jmueller/KENT2.PDF)

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Mueller 9—pol sci prof and IR, Ohio State.Widely-recognized expert on terrorism threats in foreign policy. AB from U Chicago, MA in pol sci from UCLA and PhD in pol sci from UCLA (John, Faulty Correlation, Foolish Consistency, Fatal Consequence: Democracy, Peace, and Theory in the Middle East, 15 June 2007, http://psweb.sbs.ohio-state.edu/faculty/jmueller/KENT2.PDF) fulltext: In the last couple of decades there has been aburgeoning and intriguing discussion about the connection between democracy and war aversion.7 Most notable has been the empirical observation that democracies have never, or almost never, gotten into a war with each other. This relationship seems more correlative than causal,however. Like many important ideas over the last few centuries, the idea that war is undesirable and inefficacious and the idea that democracy is a good form of government have largely followed the same trajectory: they were embraced first in northern Europe and North America and then gradually, with a number of traumatic setbacks, became more accepted elsewhere. In this view, the rise of democracy not only is associated with the rise of war aversion, but also with the decline of slavery, religion, capital punishment, and cigarette smoking, and with the growing acceptance of capitalism, scientific methodology, women's rights, environmentalism, abortion, and rock music.8While democracy and war aversion have taken much the sametrajectory, however, they have been substantially out of synchronization with each other: the movement toward democracy began about 200 years ago,but the movement against war really began only about 100 years ago (Mueller 1989, 2004). Critics of the democracy/peace connection often cite examples of wars or near-wars between democracies. Most of these took place before World War I--that is, before war aversion had caught on.9 A necessary, logical connection between democracy and war aversion, accordingly, is far from clear. Thus, it is often asserted that democracies are peaceful because they apply their domestic penchant for peaceful compromise (something, obviously, that broke down in the United States in 1861) to the international arena or because the structure of democracy requires decision-makers to obtain domestic approval.10 But authoritarian regimes must also necessarily develop skills at compromisein order to survive, and they all have domestic constituencies that must be serviced such as the church, the landed gentry, potential urban rioters, the nomenklatura, the aristocracy, party members, the military, prominent business interests, the police or secret police, lenders of money to the exchequer, potential rivals for the throne, the sullen peasantry.11 Since World War I, the democracies in the developed world have been in the lead in rejecting war as a methodology. Some proponents of the democracy-peace connection suggest that this is because the democratic norm of non-violent conflict resolution has been externalized to the international arena. However,developed democracies have not necessarily adopted a pacifist approach, particularly after a version of that approach failed so spectacularly to prevent World War II from being forced upon them. In addition, they were willing actively to subvertor to threatenand sometimes apply military force when threats appeared to loom during the Cold War contest. At times this approach was used even against regimes that had some democratic credentials such as in Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954, Chile in 1973, and perhaps Nicaragua in the 1980s (Rosato 2003, 590-91). And, they have also sometimes used military force in their intermittent efforts to police the post-Cold War world (Mueller 2004, chs. 7, 8). It is true that they have warred little or not at all against each other--and, since there were few democracies outside the developed world until the last quarter of the twentieth century, it is this statistical regularity that most prominently informs the supposed connection between democracy and peace. However, thedeveloped democracies hardly needed democracy to decide that war among them was a bad idea.12 In addition, they also adopted a live-and-let-live approach toward a huge number of dictatorships and other non-democracies that did not seem threatening during the Cold War--in fact, they often aided and embraced such regimes if they seemed to be on the right side in the conflict with Communism. Moreover, the supposed penchant for peaceful compromise of democracies has not always served them well when confronted with civil war situations, particularly ones involving secessionist demands. The process broke down into civil warfare in democratic Switzerland in 1847 and savagely so in the United States in 1861. Democracies have also fought a considerable number of wars to retain colonial possessions--six by France alone since World War II--and these, as James Fearon and David Laitin suggest, can in many respects be considered essentially to be civil wars (2003, 76). To be sure, democracies have often managed to deal with colonial problems peacefully, mostly by letting the colonies go. But authoritarian governments have also done so: the Soviet Union, for example, withdrew from his empire in Eastern Europe and then dissolved itself, all almost entirely without violence. Thus, while democracy and war aversion have often been promoted by the same advocates, the relationship does not seem to be a causal one. And when the two trends are substantially out of step today, democracies will fight one another. Thus, it is not at all clear that telling the elected hawks in the Jordanian parliament that Israel is a democracy will dampen their hostility in the slightest. And various warlike sentiments could be found in the elected parliaments in the former Yugoslavia in the early 1990s or in India and then-democratic Pakistan when these two countries engaged in armed conflict in 1999. If Argentina had been a democracy in 1982 when it seized the Falkland Islands (a very popular undertaking), it is unlikely that British opposition to the venture would have been much less severe. "The important consideration," observes Miriam Fendius Elman after surveying the literature on the subject, does not seem to be "whether a country is democratic or not, but whether its ruling coalition is committed to peaceful methods of conflict resolution." As she further points out, the countries of Latin America and most of Africa have engaged in very few international wars even without the benefit of being democratic (for a century before its 1982 adventure, Argentina, for example, fought none at all) (1997, 484, 496). (Interestingly, although there has also been scarcely any warfare between Latin American states for over 100 years or among Arab ones or European ones for more that 50--in all cases whether democratic or not--this impressive phenomenon has inspired remarkably few calls for worldwide Arab colonialism or for the systematic transplant of remaining warlike states to Latin America or Europe.) And, of course, the long peace enjoyed by developed countries since World War II includes not only the one that has prevailed between democracies, but also the even more important one between the authoritarian east and the democratic west. Even if there is some connection, whether causal or atmospheric, between democracy and peace, it cannot explain this latter phenomenon. Democracy and the democratic peace become mystiques: the role of philosophers and divines Democracy has been a matter of debate for several millennia as philosophers and divines have speculated about what it is, what it might become, and what it ought to be. Associated with these speculations has been a tendency to emboss the grubby gimmick with something of a mystique. Of particular interest for present purposes is the fanciful notion that democracy does not simply express and aggregate preferences, but actually somehow creates (or should create) them. In addition, the (rough) correlation between democracy and war aversion has also been elevated into a causal relationship. [/INST] <h4><strong>Democracy doesn’t solve war </h4><p>Mueller 9<u>—pol sci prof and IR, Ohio State.Widely-recognized expert on terrorism threats in foreign policy. AB from U Chicago, MA in pol sci from UCLA and PhD in pol sci from UCLA (John, Faulty Correlation, Foolish Consistency, Fatal Consequence: Democracy, Peace, and Theory in the Middle East, 15 June 2007, http://psweb.sbs.ohio-state.edu/faculty/jmueller/KENT2.PDF)</p><p></u></strong>In the last couple of decades <u>there has been aburgeoning</u> and intriguing <u>discussion about the connection between democracy and war</u> aversion.7 Most notable has been the empirical observation that <u>democracies have </u>never, or <u>almost never, gotten into</u> a <u>war with each other</u>. <u>This relationship seems more correlative than causal,</u>however. Like many important ideas over the last few centuries, the idea that war is undesirable and inefficacious and the idea that democracy is a good form of government have largely followed the same trajectory: they were embraced first in northern Europe and North America and then gradually, with a number of traumatic setbacks, became more accepted elsewhere. In this view, the rise of democracy not only is associated with the rise of war aversion, but also with the decline of slavery, religion, capital punishment, and cigarette smoking, and with the growing acceptance of capitalism, scientific methodology, women's rights, environmentalism, abortion, and rock music.8<u>While democracy and war aversion have taken </u>much <u>the sametrajectory</u>, however, <u>they have been substantially out of synchronization with each other: the movement toward <mark>democracy began </mark>about <mark>200 years ago,but the movement against war</u></mark> really <u><mark>began</u></mark> only about <u><mark>100 years ago</mark> (</u>Mueller 1989, 2004). Critics of the democracy/peace connection often cite examples of wars or near-wars between democracies. Most of these took place before World War I--that is, before war aversion had caught on.9 A necessary, logical connection between democracy and war aversion, accordingly, is far from clear. Thus, <u>it is often asserted</u> that <u>democracies are peaceful because they apply their domestic penchant for</u> peaceful <u>compromise</u> (something, obviously, that broke down in the United States in 1861) <u>to the international arena</u> or because the structure of democracy requires decision-makers to obtain domestic approval.10 <u>But <mark>authoritarian regimes</u></mark> must <u><mark>also</u></mark> necessarily <u><mark>develop</u></mark> skills at <u><mark>compromise</u></mark>in order to survive, and they all have domestic constituencies that must be serviced such as the church, the landed gentry, potential urban rioters, the nomenklatura, the aristocracy, party members, the military, prominent business interests, the police or secret police, lenders of money to the exchequer, potential rivals for the throne, the sullen peasantry.11 Since World War I, the democracies in the developed world have been in the lead in rejecting war as a methodology. Some proponents of the democracy-peace connection suggest that this is because the democratic norm of non-violent conflict resolution has been externalized to the international arena. However,<u>developed <mark>democracies </mark>have not</u> necessarily <u>adopted a pacifist approach, particularly after a version of that approach failed so</u> spectacularly <u>to prevent World War II</u> from being forced upon them. In addition, <u>they were willing </u>actively <u>to subvertor</u> to <u>threatenand</u> sometimes <u><mark>apply </mark>military <mark>force when threats appear</mark>ed to loom during the Cold War </u>contest. At times this approach was used even against regimes that had some democratic credentials such as in Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954, Chile in 1973, and perhaps Nicaragua in the 1980s (Rosato 2003, 590-91). And, they have also sometimes used military force in their intermittent efforts to police the post-Cold War world (Mueller 2004, chs. 7, 8). It is true that they have warred little or not at all against each other--and, since there were few democracies outside the developed world until the last quarter of the twentieth century, it is this statistical regularity that most prominently informs the supposed connection between democracy and peace. However, the<u>developed <mark>democracies hardly needed democracy to decide</mark> that <mark>war</mark> among them <mark>was a bad idea</u></mark>.12 In addition, they also adopted a live-and-let-live approach toward a huge number of dictatorships and other non-democracies that did not seem threatening during the Cold War--in fact, they often aided and embraced such regimes if they seemed to be on the right side in the conflict with Communism. Moreover, the supposed penchant for peaceful compromise of democracies has not always served them well when confronted with civil war situations, particularly ones involving secessionist demands. The process broke down into civil warfare in democratic Switzerland in 1847 and savagely so in the United States in 1861. Democracies have also fought a considerable number of wars to retain colonial possessions--six by France alone since World War II--and these, as James Fearon and David Laitin suggest, can in many respects be considered essentially to be civil wars (2003, 76). To be sure, democracies have often managed to deal with colonial problems peacefully, mostly by letting the colonies go. But authoritarian governments have also done so: the Soviet Union, for example, withdrew from his empire in Eastern Europe and then dissolved itself, all almost entirely without violence. <u>Thus, while democracy and war aversion have often been promoted by the same advocates, <strong><mark>the relationship does not seem </mark>to be a <mark>causal </mark>one</strong>.</u> And when the two trends are substantially out of step today, <u>democracies will fight one another</u>. Thus, it is not at all clear that telling the elected hawks in the Jordanian parliament that Israel is a democracy will dampen their hostility in the slightest. And <u>various <mark>warlike sentiments could be found in</u></mark> the elected parliaments in the former <u><mark>Yugoslavia</u></mark> in the early 1990s <u>or in <mark>India and </mark>then-democratic <mark>Pakistan</u></mark> when these two countries engaged in armed conflict in 1999. If Argentina had been a democracy in 1982 when it seized the Falkland Islands (a very popular undertaking), it is unlikely that British opposition to the venture would have been much less severe. "<u><mark>The </mark>important <mark>consideration</u></mark>," observes Miriam Fendius Elman after surveying the literature on the subject, <u>does not seem to be "whether a country <mark>is</mark> democratic</u> or not, <u>but <mark>whether its ruling coalition is committed to</u></mark> peaceful methods of <u><mark>conflict resolution</u></mark>." As she further points out, the <u>countries of<mark> Latin America</u></mark> and most of Africa <u>have <mark>engaged in </mark>very <mark>few</u></mark> international <u><mark>wars </u></mark>even <u><mark>without</u></mark> the benefit of <u><mark>being democratic</u></mark> (for a century before its 1982 adventure, Argentina, for example, fought none at all) (1997, 484, 496). (Interestingly, although there has also been scarcely any warfare between Latin American states for over 100 years or among Arab ones or European ones for more that 50--in all cases whether democratic or not--this impressive phenomenon has inspired remarkably few calls for worldwide Arab colonialism or for the systematic transplant of remaining warlike states to Latin America or Europe.) And, of course, <u>the long peace enjoyed by developed countries since World War II includes not only</u> the one that has prevailed between <u>democracies, but</u> also <u>the</u> even <u>more important one between</u> the <u>authoritarian east</u> and the democratic west. Even if there is some connection, whether causal or atmospheric, between democracy and peace, it cannot explain this latter phenomenon. Democracy and the democratic peace become mystiques: the role of philosophers and divines Democracy has been a matter of debate for several millennia as philosophers and divines have speculated about what it is, what it might become, and what it ought to be. <u>Associated with </u>these <u>speculations has been a tendency to emboss the grubby gimmick with something of a mystique.</u> Of particular interest for present purposes is the fanciful notion that democracy does not simply express and aggregate preferences, but actually somehow creates (or should create) them. In addition, <u>the</u> (rough) <u><strong>correlation between democracy and war aversion has also been elevated into a causal relationship.</p></u></strong> </s>

That spills over globally

Cuba is also in thrall to unsustainable oil which places the Gulf of Mexico in environmental peril. Cuba has unfortunately sought to lure foreign investment to develop offshore oil deposit investment could add to the region’s already worrying ecological profile. Cuba’s authorities estimate that its offshore basins could contain more than 20 billion barrels of undiscovered reserves The deposits are reportedly located in Cuba’s part of the Gulf of Mexico, which abuts the U.S. and Mexican areas of the gulf If Repsol drills that second well it could unleash an ominous Pandora’s Box it "will open the door to full-scale exploitation of Cuba's offshore." the island nation lacks needed oil infrastructure, technology and skilled labo : the authorities are already planning a deep sea terminal for supertankers in the northern port of Matanzas and seek to upgrade a long pipeline which stretches across the island to an old, Soviet-built refinery. the prospect of offshore oil development going forward is not something to be taken lightly. Cuba is the most biologically diverse of all Caribbean islands and sports spectacular white sand beaches, vast coral reefs, and a wide range of fish populations. Cuba’s coastline and mangroves serve as breeding grounds for hundreds of species of fish as well as other marine organisms. Ocean currents carry important fish larvae from Cuba into U.S. waters, The U.S. and Cuba share an ancient deepwater coral system stretching all the way up to North Carolina. In addition, Cuba has more than 4,000 islets which support important reef fish such as grouper. The islets also support sea turtles, dolphins and manatees [ Crucially important, the islets serve as refuges for endangered species. If oil production reaches Cuba we could have further disasters since important populations of North American migratory birds spend much of the year on the Caribbean island.

Castro is right on the money in his criticisms. However, the fact is that Cuba, just like Venezuela, is also in thrall to unsustainable oil which places the Gulf of Mexico in environmental peril. Heavily energy dependent on other countries, Cuba has unfortunately sought to lure foreign investment to develop offshore oil deposits. Such investment could add to the region’s already worrying ecological profile. At this point, the last thing the region needs is more offshore oil operations going up just 50 miles off the Florida coast. Currently, Cuba produces approximately half its energy needs from onshore wells while receiving the remainder from Venezuela at favorable prices. Naturally, Cuba would like to develop more energy sovereignty and sees offshore development as crucial towards that effort. Indeed, according to a recent report issued by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (E.I.A.), "there has been considerable interest in exploration activities in Cuba's offshore basins, especially in the Gulf of Mexico." Cuba’s authorities estimate that its offshore basins could contain more than 20 billion barrels of undiscovered reserves, though that figure is somewhat disputed. The deposits are reportedly located in Cuba’s part of the Gulf of Mexico, which abuts the U.S. and Mexican areas of the gulf. "However," remarks the E.I.A. report, "actual exploratory drilling in the area has been, to date, quite limited." That scenario looks likely to change. Just this month, Reuters reported that Spanish oil giant Repsol YPF had contracted an Italian firm to construct an oil rig which could be bound for Cuban offshore oil operations. Back in 2004, Repsol drilled the only exploration well in Cuban waters and subsequently declared that it had found hydrocarbons. Later, other foreign oil companies joined the fray with Norwegian Statoil and a unit of India’s Oil and Natural Gas Corp establishing a partnership with Repsol. Ever since that first well was drilled, the oil industry has been chafing at the bit to enter Cuban waters full force. Reportedly, Repsol is moving ahead at long last towards drilling a second and maybe even a third exploration well. The work could start as early as the fall, and one source close to the project told Reuters "Things are moving forward, there will be no more delays." If Repsol drills that second well it could unleash an ominous Pandora’s Box. In the event the company is successful, Reuters writes that it "will open the door to full-scale exploitation of Cuba's offshore." Already, Cuba’s section of the Gulf of Mexico has been divided up into 59 blocks and 17 of those have been leased to Repsol and its partners. One of those partners is Venezuela’s state-owned oil company PdVSA. President Hugo Chávez says he is horrified by BP’s mess and recently declared he would send oil experts to Cuba to advise the island nation on how best to handle the spill. "This is very, very bad," Chávez said. On the other hand, Venezuela hardly inspires confidence: earlier this month the country had its own rig accident when a natural gas exploration rig leased by PdVSA nearly sank. Hopefully, the BP disaster will lead Cuba to permanently and irrevocably shelve its plans for offshore oil development. Yet, in order to do so the island nation will have to drastically reverse course from the past few years. In addition to Venezuela, Norway and India there are other significant players who have inked offshore oil agreements including big Russian and Brazilian energy companies. In the event that Cuba fails to heed the warning of the BP spill and goes ahead with offshore oil exploration in the long-term, it could be years before new wells are developed and significant oil is recovered. Simply put, the island nation lacks needed oil infrastructure, technology and skilled labor. That could be a boon to the environment, but don’t count Cuba out just yet: the authorities are already planning a deep sea terminal for supertankers in the northern port of Matanzas and seek to upgrade a long pipeline which stretches across the island to an old, Soviet-built refinery. From an environmental point of view, the prospect of offshore oil development going forward is not something to be taken lightly. Cuba is the most biologically diverse of all Caribbean islands and sports spectacular white sand beaches, vast coral reefs, and a wide range of fish populations. Cuba’s coastline and mangroves serve as breeding grounds for hundreds of species of fish as well as other marine organisms. Ocean currents carry important fish larvae from Cuba into U.S. waters, which in turn help to replenish ailing American fisheries. The U.S. and Cuba share an ancient deepwater coral system stretching all the way up to North Carolina. In addition, Cuba has more than 4,000 islets which support important reef fish such as grouper. The islets also support sea turtles, dolphins and manatees [the latter already in danger as a result of BP’s oil spill as I recently pointed out]. Crucially important, the islets serve as refuges for endangered species. If that was not enough reason to press the pause button on offshore oil, consider the plight of Caribbean birds. In recent days, the U.S. public has been subjected to the tragic spectacle of oiled pelicans in the Gulf. If oil production reaches Cuba we could have further disasters since important populations of North American migratory birds spend much of the year on the Caribbean island.

<h4>That spills over globally </h4><p><u><strong>Kozloff 10</u></strong> (Nikolas, "Left Must Fine Tune its Position on Cuba Embargo in Light of Oil Spill," Mongabay, May 26, http://news.mongabay.com/2010/0526-kozloff_cuba.html)</p><p>Castro is right on the money in his criticisms. However, the fact is that <u><strong>Cuba</u></strong>, just like Venezuela, <u><strong>is also in thrall to unsustainable oil which places the Gulf of Mexico in environmental peril.</u></strong> Heavily energy dependent on other countries, <u><strong>Cuba has unfortunately sought to lure foreign investment to develop offshore oil deposit</u></strong>s. Such <u><strong>investment could add to the region’s already worrying ecological profile.</u></strong> At this point, the last thing the region needs is more offshore oil operations going up just 50 miles off the Florida coast. Currently, Cuba produces approximately half its energy needs from onshore wells while receiving the remainder from Venezuela at favorable prices. Naturally, Cuba would like to develop more energy sovereignty and sees offshore development as crucial towards that effort. Indeed, according to a recent report issued by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (E.I.A.), "there has been considerable interest in exploration activities in Cuba's offshore basins, especially in the Gulf of Mexico." <u><strong>Cuba’s authorities estimate that its offshore basins could contain more than 20 billion barrels of undiscovered reserves</u></strong>, though that figure is somewhat disputed. <u><strong>The deposits are reportedly located in Cuba’s part of the Gulf of Mexico, which abuts the U.S. and Mexican areas of the gulf</u></strong>. "However," remarks the E.I.A. report, "actual exploratory drilling in the area has been, to date, quite limited." That scenario looks likely to change. Just this month, Reuters reported that Spanish oil giant Repsol YPF had contracted an Italian firm to construct an oil rig which could be bound for Cuban offshore oil operations. Back in 2004, Repsol drilled the only exploration well in Cuban waters and subsequently declared that it had found hydrocarbons. Later, other foreign oil companies joined the fray with Norwegian Statoil and a unit of India’s Oil and Natural Gas Corp establishing a partnership with Repsol. Ever since that first well was drilled, the oil industry has been chafing at the bit to enter Cuban waters full force. Reportedly, Repsol is moving ahead at long last towards drilling a second and maybe even a third exploration well. The work could start as early as the fall, and one source close to the project told Reuters "Things are moving forward, there will be no more delays." <u><strong>If Repsol drills that second well it could unleash an ominous Pandora’s Box</u></strong>. In the event the company is successful, Reuters writes that <u><strong>it "will open the door to full-scale exploitation of Cuba's offshore."</u></strong> Already, Cuba’s section of the Gulf of Mexico has been divided up into 59 blocks and 17 of those have been leased to Repsol and its partners. One of those partners is Venezuela’s state-owned oil company PdVSA. President Hugo Chávez says he is horrified by BP’s mess and recently declared he would send oil experts to Cuba to advise the island nation on how best to handle the spill. "This is very, very bad," Chávez said. On the other hand, Venezuela hardly inspires confidence: earlier this month the country had its own rig accident when a natural gas exploration rig leased by PdVSA nearly sank. Hopefully, the BP disaster will lead Cuba to permanently and irrevocably shelve its plans for offshore oil development. Yet, in order to do so the island nation will have to drastically reverse course from the past few years. In addition to Venezuela, Norway and India there are other significant players who have inked offshore oil agreements including big Russian and Brazilian energy companies. In the event that Cuba fails to heed the warning of the BP spill and goes ahead with offshore oil exploration in the long-term, it could be years before new wells are developed and significant oil is recovered. Simply put, <u><strong>the island nation lacks needed oil infrastructure, technology and skilled labo</u></strong>r. That could be a boon to the environment, but don’t count Cuba out just yet<u><strong>: the authorities are already planning a deep sea terminal for supertankers in the northern port of Matanzas and seek to upgrade a long pipeline which stretches across the island to an old, Soviet-built refinery. </u></strong>From an environmental point of view, <u><strong>the prospect of offshore oil development going forward is not something to be taken lightly. Cuba is the most biologically diverse of all Caribbean islands and sports spectacular white sand beaches, vast coral reefs, and a wide range of fish populations. Cuba’s coastline and mangroves serve as breeding grounds for hundreds of species of fish as well as other marine organisms. Ocean currents carry important fish larvae from Cuba into U.S. waters,</u></strong> which in turn help to replenish ailing American fisheries. <u><strong>The U.S. and Cuba share an ancient deepwater coral system stretching all the way up to North Carolina. In addition, Cuba has more than 4,000 islets which support important reef fish such as grouper. The islets also support sea turtles, dolphins and manatees [</u></strong>the latter already in danger as a result of BP’s oil spill as I recently pointed out]. <u><strong>Crucially important, the islets serve as refuges for endangered species.</u></strong> If that was not enough reason to press the pause button on offshore oil, consider the plight of Caribbean birds. In recent days, the U.S. public has been subjected to the tragic spectacle of oiled pelicans in the Gulf. <u><strong>If oil production reaches Cuba we could have further disasters since important populations of North American migratory birds spend much of the year on the Caribbean island.</p></u></strong>

Kozloff 10 (Nikolas, "Left Must Fine Tune its Position on Cuba Embargo in Light of Oil Spill," Mongabay, May 26, http://news.mongabay.com/2010/0526-kozloff_cuba.html)

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Kozloff 10 (Nikolas, "Left Must Fine Tune its Position on Cuba Embargo in Light of Oil Spill," Mongabay, May 26, http://news.mongabay.com/2010/0526-kozloff_cuba.html) fulltext: Castro is right on the money in his criticisms. However, the fact is that Cuba, just like Venezuela, is also in thrall to unsustainable oil which places the Gulf of Mexico in environmental peril. Heavily energy dependent on other countries, Cuba has unfortunately sought to lure foreign investment to develop offshore oil deposits. Such investment could add to the region’s already worrying ecological profile. At this point, the last thing the region needs is more offshore oil operations going up just 50 miles off the Florida coast. Currently, Cuba produces approximately half its energy needs from onshore wells while receiving the remainder from Venezuela at favorable prices. Naturally, Cuba would like to develop more energy sovereignty and sees offshore development as crucial towards that effort. Indeed, according to a recent report issued by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (E.I.A.), "there has been considerable interest in exploration activities in Cuba's offshore basins, especially in the Gulf of Mexico." Cuba’s authorities estimate that its offshore basins could contain more than 20 billion barrels of undiscovered reserves, though that figure is somewhat disputed. The deposits are reportedly located in Cuba’s part of the Gulf of Mexico, which abuts the U.S. and Mexican areas of the gulf. "However," remarks the E.I.A. report, "actual exploratory drilling in the area has been, to date, quite limited." That scenario looks likely to change. Just this month, Reuters reported that Spanish oil giant Repsol YPF had contracted an Italian firm to construct an oil rig which could be bound for Cuban offshore oil operations. Back in 2004, Repsol drilled the only exploration well in Cuban waters and subsequently declared that it had found hydrocarbons. Later, other foreign oil companies joined the fray with Norwegian Statoil and a unit of India’s Oil and Natural Gas Corp establishing a partnership with Repsol. Ever since that first well was drilled, the oil industry has been chafing at the bit to enter Cuban waters full force. Reportedly, Repsol is moving ahead at long last towards drilling a second and maybe even a third exploration well. The work could start as early as the fall, and one source close to the project told Reuters "Things are moving forward, there will be no more delays." If Repsol drills that second well it could unleash an ominous Pandora’s Box. In the event the company is successful, Reuters writes that it "will open the door to full-scale exploitation of Cuba's offshore." Already, Cuba’s section of the Gulf of Mexico has been divided up into 59 blocks and 17 of those have been leased to Repsol and its partners. One of those partners is Venezuela’s state-owned oil company PdVSA. President Hugo Chávez says he is horrified by BP’s mess and recently declared he would send oil experts to Cuba to advise the island nation on how best to handle the spill. "This is very, very bad," Chávez said. On the other hand, Venezuela hardly inspires confidence: earlier this month the country had its own rig accident when a natural gas exploration rig leased by PdVSA nearly sank. Hopefully, the BP disaster will lead Cuba to permanently and irrevocably shelve its plans for offshore oil development. Yet, in order to do so the island nation will have to drastically reverse course from the past few years. In addition to Venezuela, Norway and India there are other significant players who have inked offshore oil agreements including big Russian and Brazilian energy companies. In the event that Cuba fails to heed the warning of the BP spill and goes ahead with offshore oil exploration in the long-term, it could be years before new wells are developed and significant oil is recovered. Simply put, the island nation lacks needed oil infrastructure, technology and skilled labor. That could be a boon to the environment, but don’t count Cuba out just yet: the authorities are already planning a deep sea terminal for supertankers in the northern port of Matanzas and seek to upgrade a long pipeline which stretches across the island to an old, Soviet-built refinery. From an environmental point of view, the prospect of offshore oil development going forward is not something to be taken lightly. Cuba is the most biologically diverse of all Caribbean islands and sports spectacular white sand beaches, vast coral reefs, and a wide range of fish populations. Cuba’s coastline and mangroves serve as breeding grounds for hundreds of species of fish as well as other marine organisms. Ocean currents carry important fish larvae from Cuba into U.S. waters, which in turn help to replenish ailing American fisheries. The U.S. and Cuba share an ancient deepwater coral system stretching all the way up to North Carolina. In addition, Cuba has more than 4,000 islets which support important reef fish such as grouper. The islets also support sea turtles, dolphins and manatees [the latter already in danger as a result of BP’s oil spill as I recently pointed out]. Crucially important, the islets serve as refuges for endangered species. If that was not enough reason to press the pause button on offshore oil, consider the plight of Caribbean birds. In recent days, the U.S. public has been subjected to the tragic spectacle of oiled pelicans in the Gulf. If oil production reaches Cuba we could have further disasters since important populations of North American migratory birds spend much of the year on the Caribbean island. [/INST] <h4>That spills over globally </h4><p><u><strong>Kozloff 10</u></strong> (Nikolas, "Left Must Fine Tune its Position on Cuba Embargo in Light of Oil Spill," Mongabay, May 26, http://news.mongabay.com/2010/0526-kozloff_cuba.html)</p><p>Castro is right on the money in his criticisms. However, the fact is that <u><strong>Cuba</u></strong>, just like Venezuela, <u><strong>is also in thrall to unsustainable oil which places the Gulf of Mexico in environmental peril.</u></strong> Heavily energy dependent on other countries, <u><strong>Cuba has unfortunately sought to lure foreign investment to develop offshore oil deposit</u></strong>s. Such <u><strong>investment could add to the region’s already worrying ecological profile.</u></strong> At this point, the last thing the region needs is more offshore oil operations going up just 50 miles off the Florida coast. Currently, Cuba produces approximately half its energy needs from onshore wells while receiving the remainder from Venezuela at favorable prices. Naturally, Cuba would like to develop more energy sovereignty and sees offshore development as crucial towards that effort. Indeed, according to a recent report issued by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (E.I.A.), "there has been considerable interest in exploration activities in Cuba's offshore basins, especially in the Gulf of Mexico." <u><strong>Cuba’s authorities estimate that its offshore basins could contain more than 20 billion barrels of undiscovered reserves</u></strong>, though that figure is somewhat disputed. <u><strong>The deposits are reportedly located in Cuba’s part of the Gulf of Mexico, which abuts the U.S. and Mexican areas of the gulf</u></strong>. "However," remarks the E.I.A. report, "actual exploratory drilling in the area has been, to date, quite limited." That scenario looks likely to change. Just this month, Reuters reported that Spanish oil giant Repsol YPF had contracted an Italian firm to construct an oil rig which could be bound for Cuban offshore oil operations. Back in 2004, Repsol drilled the only exploration well in Cuban waters and subsequently declared that it had found hydrocarbons. Later, other foreign oil companies joined the fray with Norwegian Statoil and a unit of India’s Oil and Natural Gas Corp establishing a partnership with Repsol. Ever since that first well was drilled, the oil industry has been chafing at the bit to enter Cuban waters full force. Reportedly, Repsol is moving ahead at long last towards drilling a second and maybe even a third exploration well. The work could start as early as the fall, and one source close to the project told Reuters "Things are moving forward, there will be no more delays." <u><strong>If Repsol drills that second well it could unleash an ominous Pandora’s Box</u></strong>. In the event the company is successful, Reuters writes that <u><strong>it "will open the door to full-scale exploitation of Cuba's offshore."</u></strong> Already, Cuba’s section of the Gulf of Mexico has been divided up into 59 blocks and 17 of those have been leased to Repsol and its partners. One of those partners is Venezuela’s state-owned oil company PdVSA. President Hugo Chávez says he is horrified by BP’s mess and recently declared he would send oil experts to Cuba to advise the island nation on how best to handle the spill. "This is very, very bad," Chávez said. On the other hand, Venezuela hardly inspires confidence: earlier this month the country had its own rig accident when a natural gas exploration rig leased by PdVSA nearly sank. Hopefully, the BP disaster will lead Cuba to permanently and irrevocably shelve its plans for offshore oil development. Yet, in order to do so the island nation will have to drastically reverse course from the past few years. In addition to Venezuela, Norway and India there are other significant players who have inked offshore oil agreements including big Russian and Brazilian energy companies. In the event that Cuba fails to heed the warning of the BP spill and goes ahead with offshore oil exploration in the long-term, it could be years before new wells are developed and significant oil is recovered. Simply put, <u><strong>the island nation lacks needed oil infrastructure, technology and skilled labo</u></strong>r. That could be a boon to the environment, but don’t count Cuba out just yet<u><strong>: the authorities are already planning a deep sea terminal for supertankers in the northern port of Matanzas and seek to upgrade a long pipeline which stretches across the island to an old, Soviet-built refinery. </u></strong>From an environmental point of view, <u><strong>the prospect of offshore oil development going forward is not something to be taken lightly. Cuba is the most biologically diverse of all Caribbean islands and sports spectacular white sand beaches, vast coral reefs, and a wide range of fish populations. Cuba’s coastline and mangroves serve as breeding grounds for hundreds of species of fish as well as other marine organisms. Ocean currents carry important fish larvae from Cuba into U.S. waters,</u></strong> which in turn help to replenish ailing American fisheries. <u><strong>The U.S. and Cuba share an ancient deepwater coral system stretching all the way up to North Carolina. In addition, Cuba has more than 4,000 islets which support important reef fish such as grouper. The islets also support sea turtles, dolphins and manatees [</u></strong>the latter already in danger as a result of BP’s oil spill as I recently pointed out]. <u><strong>Crucially important, the islets serve as refuges for endangered species.</u></strong> If that was not enough reason to press the pause button on offshore oil, consider the plight of Caribbean birds. In recent days, the U.S. public has been subjected to the tragic spectacle of oiled pelicans in the Gulf. <u><strong>If oil production reaches Cuba we could have further disasters since important populations of North American migratory birds spend much of the year on the Caribbean island.</p></u></strong> </s>

Doesn’t solve democracy- at best leads to semi-democracies: increased special interests reduces individual voices.

At best what we have achieved in the U.S. system is semi-democracy The bigger die system's operating scale, the greater the influence and persuasive powers of large-scale special interests will likely be, making it far more difficult to approach a true democracy where individual and community voices, and alternative values, can be heard and heeded

(Interview with Jerry Mander, founder of the International Forum on Globalization and program director for the Foundation for Deep Ecology and a senior fellow at Public Media Center, The Multinational Monitor, “A Bias to the Local,” March 1, 2009, accessed via Academic Search Premier//wyo-mm) Mander: At best what we have achieved in the U.S. system of corporate-driven representative democracy is semi-democracy, and of course the scale of the system is also a major factor. The bigger die system's operating scale, the greater the influence and persuasive powers of large-scale special interests will likely be, making it far more difficult to approach a true democracy where individual and community voices, and alternative values, can be heard and heeded. Size matters.

<h4><strong>Doesn’t solve democracy- at best leads to semi-democracies: increased special interests reduces individual voices.</h4><p>The Multinational Monitor 09</p><p></strong>(Interview with Jerry Mander, founder of the International Forum on Globalization and program director for the Foundation for Deep Ecology and a senior fellow at Public Media Center, The Multinational Monitor, “A Bias to the Local,” March 1, 2009, accessed via Academic Search Premier//wyo-mm)</p><p>Mander: <u><strong>At best what we have achieved in the U.S. system</u></strong> of corporate-driven representative democracy <u><strong>is semi-democracy</u></strong>, and of course the scale of the system is also a major factor. <u><strong>The bigger die system's operating scale, the greater the influence and persuasive powers of large-scale special interests will likely be, making it far more difficult to approach a true democracy where individual and community voices, and alternative values, can be heard and heeded</u></strong>. Size matters.</p>

The Multinational Monitor 09

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: The Multinational Monitor 09 fulltext: (Interview with Jerry Mander, founder of the International Forum on Globalization and program director for the Foundation for Deep Ecology and a senior fellow at Public Media Center, The Multinational Monitor, “A Bias to the Local,” March 1, 2009, accessed via Academic Search Premier//wyo-mm) Mander: At best what we have achieved in the U.S. system of corporate-driven representative democracy is semi-democracy, and of course the scale of the system is also a major factor. The bigger die system's operating scale, the greater the influence and persuasive powers of large-scale special interests will likely be, making it far more difficult to approach a true democracy where individual and community voices, and alternative values, can be heard and heeded. Size matters. [/INST] <h4><strong>Doesn’t solve democracy- at best leads to semi-democracies: increased special interests reduces individual voices.</h4><p>The Multinational Monitor 09</p><p></strong>(Interview with Jerry Mander, founder of the International Forum on Globalization and program director for the Foundation for Deep Ecology and a senior fellow at Public Media Center, The Multinational Monitor, “A Bias to the Local,” March 1, 2009, accessed via Academic Search Premier//wyo-mm)</p><p>Mander: <u><strong>At best what we have achieved in the U.S. system</u></strong> of corporate-driven representative democracy <u><strong>is semi-democracy</u></strong>, and of course the scale of the system is also a major factor. <u><strong>The bigger die system's operating scale, the greater the influence and persuasive powers of large-scale special interests will likely be, making it far more difficult to approach a true democracy where individual and community voices, and alternative values, can be heard and heeded</u></strong>. Size matters.</p> </s>

Cuba is a critical biodiversity hot spot

Cuba sits at the convergence of the Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico. Its coastal waters are dense with islets, keys and reefs that provide critical habitats and spawning grounds for a rich array of fish, endangered sea turtles, manatees and other marine life. Preserving Cuba’s biodiversity is critically important to the natural resources and economies of coastal communities in the United States and other neighboring countries. Greater communication and collaboration could benefit both the United States and Cuba, as well as the shared ecosystems that link both nations.

Cuba sits at the convergence of the Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico. Its coastal waters are dense with islets, keys and reefs that provide critical habitats and spawning grounds for a rich array of fish, endangered sea turtles, manatees and other marine life. Preserving Cuba’s biodiversity is critically important to the natural resources and economies of coastal communities in the United States and other neighboring countries. Active scientific and management cooperation is needed to address the growing threats to Cuba’s biodiversity including coral reefs, migratory bird habitats, marine mammals and turtles, and biodiversity shared throughout the region. Greater communication and collaboration among scientists, conservation professionals and government agencies could benefit both the United States and Cuba, as well as the shared ecosystems that link both nations.

<h4>Cuba is a critical biodiversity hot spot</h4><p><strong>Brookings Institute 9</strong> ("A New Era for US-Cuba Relations on Marine and Coastal REsources Conservation," April 28, http://www.brookings.edu/events/2009/0428_cuba_environment.aspx)</p><p><u><strong>Cuba sits at the convergence of the Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico. Its coastal waters are dense with islets, keys and reefs that provide critical habitats and spawning grounds for a rich array of fish, endangered sea turtles, manatees and other marine life. Preserving Cuba’s biodiversity is critically important to the natural resources and economies of coastal communities in the United States and other neighboring countries.</p><p></u></strong>Active scientific and management cooperation is needed to address the growing threats to Cuba’s biodiversity including coral reefs, migratory bird habitats, marine mammals and turtles, and biodiversity shared throughout the region. <u><strong>Greater communication and collaboration</u></strong> among scientists, conservation professionals and government agencies <u><strong>could benefit both the United States and Cuba, as well as the shared ecosystems that link both nations.</p></u></strong>

Brookings Institute 9 ("A New Era for US-Cuba Relations on Marine and Coastal REsources Conservation," April 28, http://www.brookings.edu/events/2009/0428_cuba_environment.aspx)

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Brookings Institute 9 ("A New Era for US-Cuba Relations on Marine and Coastal REsources Conservation," April 28, http://www.brookings.edu/events/2009/0428_cuba_environment.aspx) fulltext: Cuba sits at the convergence of the Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico. Its coastal waters are dense with islets, keys and reefs that provide critical habitats and spawning grounds for a rich array of fish, endangered sea turtles, manatees and other marine life. Preserving Cuba’s biodiversity is critically important to the natural resources and economies of coastal communities in the United States and other neighboring countries. Active scientific and management cooperation is needed to address the growing threats to Cuba’s biodiversity including coral reefs, migratory bird habitats, marine mammals and turtles, and biodiversity shared throughout the region. Greater communication and collaboration among scientists, conservation professionals and government agencies could benefit both the United States and Cuba, as well as the shared ecosystems that link both nations. [/INST] <h4>Cuba is a critical biodiversity hot spot</h4><p><strong>Brookings Institute 9</strong> ("A New Era for US-Cuba Relations on Marine and Coastal REsources Conservation," April 28, http://www.brookings.edu/events/2009/0428_cuba_environment.aspx)</p><p><u><strong>Cuba sits at the convergence of the Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico. Its coastal waters are dense with islets, keys and reefs that provide critical habitats and spawning grounds for a rich array of fish, endangered sea turtles, manatees and other marine life. Preserving Cuba’s biodiversity is critically important to the natural resources and economies of coastal communities in the United States and other neighboring countries.</p><p></u></strong>Active scientific and management cooperation is needed to address the growing threats to Cuba’s biodiversity including coral reefs, migratory bird habitats, marine mammals and turtles, and biodiversity shared throughout the region. <u><strong>Greater communication and collaboration</u></strong> among scientists, conservation professionals and government agencies <u><strong>could benefit both the United States and Cuba, as well as the shared ecosystems that link both nations.</p></u></strong> </s>

Global democracy inevitable

Democracy is evolving at a rapid rate. A number of indicators are pointing to a major leap forward, encompassing a more participatory democratic model By the middle of the 21st century, such a global version of the democratic process will be largely in place. According to the Freedom House Report the world has made great strides towards democracyin the 21st centuries. at the end of the 20th century 119 of the world’s 192 nations were declared electoral democracies. In the current century, democracy continues to spread through Africa Asia and the MiddleEast with 130 states in stages of democratic evolution. two thirds of sub-Saharan countries have staged elections in the past ten years, with coups becoming less common and internal wars gradually waning. African nations are also starting to police human rights The global spread of democracy is irreversibly linked to the new cooperative globalisation model. The global spread of new technology and knowledge also provides the opportunity for developing countries to gain a quantum leap in material wellbeing; an essential prerequisite for a stable democracy. cyber-based advances presage a much more interactive public form of democracy and mark the next phase in its ongoing evolution allowing the public to deliver requests to Government and receive a committed response. By 2040 more democratic outcomes for all populations on the planet will be the norm Implementation of the democratic process itself will continue to evolve with new forms of e-voting and governance supervision, which will include the active participation of advocacy groups supported by a consensus of expert knowledge via the Intelligent Web democracy will evolve to best suit the needs of its environment

By the middle of the century a global democratic process will be in place. democracy continues to spread through Africa Asia and the MiddleEast with 130 states in democratic evolution. Africa are starting to police human rights The spread of democracy is irreversibly linked to globalisation The spread of technology provides the opportunity for developing countries to gain a quantum leap in wellbeing; a prerequisite for a democracy By 2040 more democratic outcomes for all populations will be the norm.

Democracy, as with all other processes engineered by human civilisation, is evolving at a rapid rate. A number of indicators are pointing to a major leap forward, encompassing a more public participatory form of democratic model and the harnessing of the expert intelligence of the Web. By the middle of the 21st century, such a global version of the democratic process will be largely in place.Democracy has a long evolutionary history. The concept of democracy - the notion that men and women have the right to govern themselves, was practised at around 2,500 BP in Athens. The Athenian polity or political body, granted all citizens the right to be heard and to participate in the major decisions affecting their rights and well-being. The City State demanded services and loyalty from the individual in return. There is evidence however that the role of popular assembly actually arose earlier in some Phoenician cities such as Sidon and Babylon in the ancient assemblies of Syria- Mesopotamia, as an organ of local government and justice. As demonstrated in these early periods, democracy, although imperfect, offered each individual a stake in the nation’s collective decision-making processes. It therefore provided a greater incentive for each individual to cooperate to increase group productivity. Through a more open decision process, improved innovation and consequently additional wealth was generated and distributed more equitably. An increase in overall economic wellbeing in turn generated more possibilities and potential to acquire knowledge, education and employment, coupled with greater individual choice and freedom. According to the Freedom House Report, an independent survey of political and civil liberties around the globe, the world has made great strides towards democracyin the 20th and 21st centuries. In 1900 there were 25 restricted democracies in existence covering an eighth of the world’s population, but none that could be judged as based on universal suffrage. The US and Britain denied voting rights to women and in the case of the US, also to African Americans. But at the end of the 20th century 119 of the world’s 192 nations were declared electoral democracies. In the current century, democracy continues to spread through Africa and Asia andsignificantly also the MiddleEast,withover 130 states invarious stages of democratic evolution.Dictatorships or quasi democratic one party states still exist in Africa, Asia and the middle east with regimes such as China, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Burma, the Sudan, Belarus and Saudi Arabia, seeking to maintain total control over their populations. However two thirds of sub-Saharan countries have staged elections in the past ten years, with coups becoming less common and internal wars gradually waning. African nations are also starting to police human rights in their own region. African Union peacekeepers are now deployed in Darfur and are working with UN peacekeepers in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The evolution of democracy can also be seen in terms of improved human rights. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and several ensuing legal treaties, define political, cultural and economic rights as well as the rights of women, children, ethnic groups and religions. This declaration is intended to create a global safety net of rights applicable to all peoples everywhere, with no exceptions. It also recognises the principle of the subordination of national sovereignty to the universality of human rights; the dignity and worth of human life beyond the jurisdiction of any State. The global spread of democracy isnow alsoirreversibly linked to the new cooperative globalisation model. The EU, despite its growing pains, provides a compelling template; complementing national decisions in the supra-national interest at the commercial, financial, legal, health and research sharing level. The global spread of new technology and knowledge also provides the opportunity for developing countries to gain a quantum leap in material wellbeing; an essential prerequisite for a stable democracy. The current cyber-based advances therefore presage a much more interactive public form of democracy and mark the next phase in its ongoing evolution. Web 2.0’s social networking, blogging, messaging and video services have already significantly changed the way people discuss political issues and exchange ideas beyond national boundaries. In addition a number of popular sites exist as forums to actively harness individual opinions and encourage debate about contentious topics, funnelling them to political processes. These are often coupled to online petitions, allowing the public to deliver requests to Government and receive a committed response. In addition there are a plethora of specialized smart search engines and analytical tools aimed at locating and interpreting information about divisive and complex topics such as global warming and medical stem cell advances. These are increasingly linked to Argumentation frameworks and Game theory, aimed at supporting the logical basis of arguments, negotiation and other structured forms of group decision-making. New logic and statistical tools can also provide inference and evaluation mechanisms to better assess the evidence for a particular hypothesis. By 2030 it is likely that such ‘intelligence-based’ algorithms will be capable of automating the analysis and advice provided to politicians, at a similar level of quality and expertise as that offered by the best human advisers. It might be argued that there is still a need for the role of politicians and leaders in assessing and prioritising such expert advice in the overriding national interest. But a moment’s reflection leads to the opposite conclusion. Politicians have party allegiances and internal obligations that can and do create serious conflicts of interest and skew the best advice. History is replete with such disastrous decisions based on false premises, driven by party political bias and populist fads predicated on flawed knowledge. One needs to look no further in recent times than the patently inadequate evidential basis for the US’s war in Iraq which has cost at least half a million civilian lives and is still unresolved. However there remains a disjunction between the developed west and those developing countries only now recovering from colonisation, the subsequent domination by dictators and fascist regimes and ongoing natural disasters. There is in fact a time gap of several hundred years between the democratic trajectory of the west and east, which these countries are endeavouring to bridge within a generation; often creating serious short-term challenges and cultural dislocations. A very powerful enabler for the spread of democracy as mentioned is the Internet/Web- today’s storehouse of the world’s information and expertise. By increasing the flow of essential intelligence it facilitates transparency, reduces corruption, empowers dissidents and ensures governments are more responsive to their citizen’s needs. Ii is already providing the infrastructure for the emergence of a more democratic society; empowering all people to have direct input into critical decision processes affecting their lives, without the distortion of political intermediaries. By 2040 more democratic outcomes for all populations on the planet will be the norm. Critical and urgent decisions relating to global warming, financial regulation, economic allocation of scarce resources such as food and water, humanitarian rights and refugee migration etc, will to be sifted through community knowledge, resulting in truly representative and equitable global governance. Implementation of the democratic process itself will continue to evolve with new forms of e-voting and governance supervision, which will include the active participation of advocacy groups supported by a consensus of expert knowledge via the Intelligent Web 4.0. Over time democracy as with all other social processes, will evolve to best suit the needs of its human environment. It will emerge as a networked model- a non-hierarchical, resilient protocol, responsive to rapid social change. Such distributed forms of government will involve local communities, operating with the best expert advice from the ground up; the opposite of political party self-interested power and superficial focus-group decision-making, as implemented by many current political systems. These are frequently unresponsive to legitimate minority group needs and can be easily corrupted by powerful lobby groups, such as those employed by the heavy carbon emitters in the global warming debate.

<h4><strong>Global democracy inevitable </h4><p>Tow 10<u></strong>—Director of the Future Planet Research Centre (David, Future Society- The Future of Democracy, 26 August 2010, http://www.australia.to/2010/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4280:future-society-the-future-of-democracy&catid=76:david-tow&Itemid=230)</p><p>Democracy</u>, as with all other processes engineered by human civilisation, <u>is evolving at a rapid rate. A number of indicators are pointing to a major leap forward, encompassing a more </u>public <u>participatory </u>form of <u>democratic model </u>and the harnessing of the expert intelligence of the Web. <u><mark>By the middle of the</mark> 21st <mark>century</mark>, such <mark>a global</mark> version of the <mark>democratic process will be</mark> largely <mark>in place.</u></mark>Democracy has a long evolutionary history. The concept of democracy - the notion that men and women have the right to govern themselves, was practised at around 2,500 BP in Athens. The Athenian polity or political body, granted all citizens the right to be heard and to participate in the major decisions affecting their rights and well-being. The City State demanded services and loyalty from the individual in return. There is evidence however that the role of popular assembly actually arose earlier in some Phoenician cities such as Sidon and Babylon in the ancient assemblies of Syria- Mesopotamia, as an organ of local government and justice. As demonstrated in these early periods, democracy, although imperfect, offered each individual a stake in the nation’s collective decision-making processes. It therefore provided a greater incentive for each individual to cooperate to increase group productivity. Through a more open decision process, improved innovation and consequently additional wealth was generated and distributed more equitably. An increase in overall economic wellbeing in turn generated more possibilities and potential to acquire knowledge, education and employment, coupled with greater individual choice and freedom. <u>According to the Freedom House Report</u>, an independent survey of political and civil liberties around the globe, <u>the world has made great strides towards democracyin the </u>20th and <u>21st centuries. </u>In 1900 there were 25 restricted democracies in existence covering an eighth of the world’s population, but none that could be judged as based on universal suffrage. The US and Britain denied voting rights to women and in the case of the US, also to African Americans. But <u>at the end of the 20th century 119 of the world’s 192 nations were declared electoral democracies. In the current century, <mark>democracy continues to spread through Africa</u></mark> and <u><mark>Asia and</u></mark>significantly also <u><mark>the MiddleEast</u></mark>,<u><mark>with</u></mark>over <u><mark>130 states in</u></mark>various <u>stages of <mark>democratic evolution.</u></mark>Dictatorships or quasi democratic one party states still exist in Africa, Asia and the middle east with regimes such as China, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Burma, the Sudan, Belarus and Saudi Arabia, seeking to maintain total control over their populations. However <u>two thirds of sub-Saharan countries have staged elections in the past ten years, with coups becoming less common and internal wars gradually waning. <mark>Africa</mark>n nations <mark>are</mark> also <mark>starting to police human rights</u></mark> in their own region. African Union peacekeepers are now deployed in Darfur and are working with UN peacekeepers in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The evolution of democracy can also be seen in terms of improved human rights. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and several ensuing legal treaties, define political, cultural and economic rights as well as the rights of women, children, ethnic groups and religions. This declaration is intended to create a global safety net of rights applicable to all peoples everywhere, with no exceptions. It also recognises the principle of the subordination of national sovereignty to the universality of human rights; the dignity and worth of human life beyond the jurisdiction of any State. <u><mark>The </mark>global <mark>spread of democracy is</u></mark>now also<u><mark>irreversibly linked to</mark> the new cooperative <mark>globalisation</mark> model. </u>The EU, despite its growing pains, provides a compelling template; complementing national decisions in the supra-national interest at the commercial, financial, legal, health and research sharing level. <u><mark>The</mark> global <mark>spread of </mark>new <mark>technology</mark> and knowledge also <mark>provides the opportunity for developing countries to gain a quantum leap in</mark> material <mark>wellbeing; a</mark>n essential <mark>prerequisite for a </mark>stable <mark>democracy</mark>. </u>The current <u>cyber-based advances</u> therefore <u>presage a much more interactive public form of democracy and mark the next phase in its ongoing evolution</u>. Web 2.0’s social networking, blogging, messaging and video services have already significantly changed the way people discuss political issues and exchange ideas beyond national boundaries. In addition a number of popular sites exist as forums to actively harness individual opinions and encourage debate about contentious topics, funnelling them to political processes. These are often coupled to online petitions, <u>allowing the public to deliver requests to Government and receive a committed response. </u>In addition there are a plethora of specialized smart search engines and analytical tools aimed at locating and interpreting information about divisive and complex topics such as global warming and medical stem cell advances. These are increasingly linked to Argumentation frameworks and Game theory, aimed at supporting the logical basis of arguments, negotiation and other structured forms of group decision-making. New logic and statistical tools can also provide inference and evaluation mechanisms to better assess the evidence for a particular hypothesis. By 2030 it is likely that such ‘intelligence-based’ algorithms will be capable of automating the analysis and advice provided to politicians, at a similar level of quality and expertise as that offered by the best human advisers. It might be argued that there is still a need for the role of politicians and leaders in assessing and prioritising such expert advice in the overriding national interest. But a moment’s reflection leads to the opposite conclusion. Politicians have party allegiances and internal obligations that can and do create serious conflicts of interest and skew the best advice. History is replete with such disastrous decisions based on false premises, driven by party political bias and populist fads predicated on flawed knowledge. One needs to look no further in recent times than the patently inadequate evidential basis for the US’s war in Iraq which has cost at least half a million civilian lives and is still unresolved. However there remains a disjunction between the developed west and those developing countries only now recovering from colonisation, the subsequent domination by dictators and fascist regimes and ongoing natural disasters. There is in fact a time gap of several hundred years between the democratic trajectory of the west and east, which these countries are endeavouring to bridge within a generation; often creating serious short-term challenges and cultural dislocations. A very powerful enabler for the spread of democracy as mentioned is the Internet/Web- today’s storehouse of the world’s information and expertise. By increasing the flow of essential intelligence it facilitates transparency, reduces corruption, empowers dissidents and ensures governments are more responsive to their citizen’s needs. Ii is already providing the infrastructure for the emergence of a more democratic society; empowering all people to have direct input into critical decision processes affecting their lives, without the distortion of political intermediaries. <u><mark>By 2040 more democratic outcomes for all populations </mark>on the planet <mark>will be the norm</u>.</mark> Critical and urgent decisions relating to global warming, financial regulation, economic allocation of scarce resources such as food and water, humanitarian rights and refugee migration etc, will to be sifted through community knowledge, resulting in truly representative and equitable global governance. <u>Implementation of the democratic process itself will continue to evolve with new forms of e-voting and governance supervision, which will include the active participation of advocacy groups supported by a consensus of expert knowledge via the Intelligent Web</u> 4.0. Over time <u>democracy </u>as with all other social processes, <u>will evolve to best suit the needs of its </u>human <u>environment</u>. It will emerge as a networked model- a non-hierarchical, resilient protocol, responsive to rapid social change. Such distributed forms of government will involve local communities, operating with the best expert advice from the ground up; the opposite of political party self-interested power and superficial focus-group decision-making, as implemented by many current political systems. These are frequently unresponsive to legitimate minority group needs and can be easily corrupted by powerful lobby groups, such as those employed by the heavy carbon emitters in the global warming debate.</p>

Tow 10—Director of the Future Planet Research Centre (David, Future Society- The Future of Democracy, 26 August 2010, http://www.australia.to/2010/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4280:future-society-the-future-of-democracy&catid=76:david-tow&Itemid=230)

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Tow 10—Director of the Future Planet Research Centre (David, Future Society- The Future of Democracy, 26 August 2010, http://www.australia.to/2010/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4280:future-society-the-future-of-democracy&catid=76:david-tow&Itemid=230) fulltext: Democracy, as with all other processes engineered by human civilisation, is evolving at a rapid rate. A number of indicators are pointing to a major leap forward, encompassing a more public participatory form of democratic model and the harnessing of the expert intelligence of the Web. By the middle of the 21st century, such a global version of the democratic process will be largely in place.Democracy has a long evolutionary history. The concept of democracy - the notion that men and women have the right to govern themselves, was practised at around 2,500 BP in Athens. The Athenian polity or political body, granted all citizens the right to be heard and to participate in the major decisions affecting their rights and well-being. The City State demanded services and loyalty from the individual in return. There is evidence however that the role of popular assembly actually arose earlier in some Phoenician cities such as Sidon and Babylon in the ancient assemblies of Syria- Mesopotamia, as an organ of local government and justice. As demonstrated in these early periods, democracy, although imperfect, offered each individual a stake in the nation’s collective decision-making processes. It therefore provided a greater incentive for each individual to cooperate to increase group productivity. Through a more open decision process, improved innovation and consequently additional wealth was generated and distributed more equitably. An increase in overall economic wellbeing in turn generated more possibilities and potential to acquire knowledge, education and employment, coupled with greater individual choice and freedom. According to the Freedom House Report, an independent survey of political and civil liberties around the globe, the world has made great strides towards democracyin the 20th and 21st centuries. In 1900 there were 25 restricted democracies in existence covering an eighth of the world’s population, but none that could be judged as based on universal suffrage. The US and Britain denied voting rights to women and in the case of the US, also to African Americans. But at the end of the 20th century 119 of the world’s 192 nations were declared electoral democracies. In the current century, democracy continues to spread through Africa and Asia andsignificantly also the MiddleEast,withover 130 states invarious stages of democratic evolution.Dictatorships or quasi democratic one party states still exist in Africa, Asia and the middle east with regimes such as China, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Burma, the Sudan, Belarus and Saudi Arabia, seeking to maintain total control over their populations. However two thirds of sub-Saharan countries have staged elections in the past ten years, with coups becoming less common and internal wars gradually waning. African nations are also starting to police human rights in their own region. African Union peacekeepers are now deployed in Darfur and are working with UN peacekeepers in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The evolution of democracy can also be seen in terms of improved human rights. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and several ensuing legal treaties, define political, cultural and economic rights as well as the rights of women, children, ethnic groups and religions. This declaration is intended to create a global safety net of rights applicable to all peoples everywhere, with no exceptions. It also recognises the principle of the subordination of national sovereignty to the universality of human rights; the dignity and worth of human life beyond the jurisdiction of any State. The global spread of democracy isnow alsoirreversibly linked to the new cooperative globalisation model. The EU, despite its growing pains, provides a compelling template; complementing national decisions in the supra-national interest at the commercial, financial, legal, health and research sharing level. The global spread of new technology and knowledge also provides the opportunity for developing countries to gain a quantum leap in material wellbeing; an essential prerequisite for a stable democracy. The current cyber-based advances therefore presage a much more interactive public form of democracy and mark the next phase in its ongoing evolution. Web 2.0’s social networking, blogging, messaging and video services have already significantly changed the way people discuss political issues and exchange ideas beyond national boundaries. In addition a number of popular sites exist as forums to actively harness individual opinions and encourage debate about contentious topics, funnelling them to political processes. These are often coupled to online petitions, allowing the public to deliver requests to Government and receive a committed response. In addition there are a plethora of specialized smart search engines and analytical tools aimed at locating and interpreting information about divisive and complex topics such as global warming and medical stem cell advances. These are increasingly linked to Argumentation frameworks and Game theory, aimed at supporting the logical basis of arguments, negotiation and other structured forms of group decision-making. New logic and statistical tools can also provide inference and evaluation mechanisms to better assess the evidence for a particular hypothesis. By 2030 it is likely that such ‘intelligence-based’ algorithms will be capable of automating the analysis and advice provided to politicians, at a similar level of quality and expertise as that offered by the best human advisers. It might be argued that there is still a need for the role of politicians and leaders in assessing and prioritising such expert advice in the overriding national interest. But a moment’s reflection leads to the opposite conclusion. Politicians have party allegiances and internal obligations that can and do create serious conflicts of interest and skew the best advice. History is replete with such disastrous decisions based on false premises, driven by party political bias and populist fads predicated on flawed knowledge. One needs to look no further in recent times than the patently inadequate evidential basis for the US’s war in Iraq which has cost at least half a million civilian lives and is still unresolved. However there remains a disjunction between the developed west and those developing countries only now recovering from colonisation, the subsequent domination by dictators and fascist regimes and ongoing natural disasters. There is in fact a time gap of several hundred years between the democratic trajectory of the west and east, which these countries are endeavouring to bridge within a generation; often creating serious short-term challenges and cultural dislocations. A very powerful enabler for the spread of democracy as mentioned is the Internet/Web- today’s storehouse of the world’s information and expertise. By increasing the flow of essential intelligence it facilitates transparency, reduces corruption, empowers dissidents and ensures governments are more responsive to their citizen’s needs. Ii is already providing the infrastructure for the emergence of a more democratic society; empowering all people to have direct input into critical decision processes affecting their lives, without the distortion of political intermediaries. By 2040 more democratic outcomes for all populations on the planet will be the norm. Critical and urgent decisions relating to global warming, financial regulation, economic allocation of scarce resources such as food and water, humanitarian rights and refugee migration etc, will to be sifted through community knowledge, resulting in truly representative and equitable global governance. Implementation of the democratic process itself will continue to evolve with new forms of e-voting and governance supervision, which will include the active participation of advocacy groups supported by a consensus of expert knowledge via the Intelligent Web 4.0. Over time democracy as with all other social processes, will evolve to best suit the needs of its human environment. It will emerge as a networked model- a non-hierarchical, resilient protocol, responsive to rapid social change. Such distributed forms of government will involve local communities, operating with the best expert advice from the ground up; the opposite of political party self-interested power and superficial focus-group decision-making, as implemented by many current political systems. These are frequently unresponsive to legitimate minority group needs and can be easily corrupted by powerful lobby groups, such as those employed by the heavy carbon emitters in the global warming debate. [/INST] <h4><strong>Global democracy inevitable </h4><p>Tow 10<u></strong>—Director of the Future Planet Research Centre (David, Future Society- The Future of Democracy, 26 August 2010, http://www.australia.to/2010/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4280:future-society-the-future-of-democracy&catid=76:david-tow&Itemid=230)</p><p>Democracy</u>, as with all other processes engineered by human civilisation, <u>is evolving at a rapid rate. A number of indicators are pointing to a major leap forward, encompassing a more </u>public <u>participatory </u>form of <u>democratic model </u>and the harnessing of the expert intelligence of the Web. <u><mark>By the middle of the</mark> 21st <mark>century</mark>, such <mark>a global</mark> version of the <mark>democratic process will be</mark> largely <mark>in place.</u></mark>Democracy has a long evolutionary history. The concept of democracy - the notion that men and women have the right to govern themselves, was practised at around 2,500 BP in Athens. The Athenian polity or political body, granted all citizens the right to be heard and to participate in the major decisions affecting their rights and well-being. The City State demanded services and loyalty from the individual in return. There is evidence however that the role of popular assembly actually arose earlier in some Phoenician cities such as Sidon and Babylon in the ancient assemblies of Syria- Mesopotamia, as an organ of local government and justice. As demonstrated in these early periods, democracy, although imperfect, offered each individual a stake in the nation’s collective decision-making processes. It therefore provided a greater incentive for each individual to cooperate to increase group productivity. Through a more open decision process, improved innovation and consequently additional wealth was generated and distributed more equitably. An increase in overall economic wellbeing in turn generated more possibilities and potential to acquire knowledge, education and employment, coupled with greater individual choice and freedom. <u>According to the Freedom House Report</u>, an independent survey of political and civil liberties around the globe, <u>the world has made great strides towards democracyin the </u>20th and <u>21st centuries. </u>In 1900 there were 25 restricted democracies in existence covering an eighth of the world’s population, but none that could be judged as based on universal suffrage. The US and Britain denied voting rights to women and in the case of the US, also to African Americans. But <u>at the end of the 20th century 119 of the world’s 192 nations were declared electoral democracies. In the current century, <mark>democracy continues to spread through Africa</u></mark> and <u><mark>Asia and</u></mark>significantly also <u><mark>the MiddleEast</u></mark>,<u><mark>with</u></mark>over <u><mark>130 states in</u></mark>various <u>stages of <mark>democratic evolution.</u></mark>Dictatorships or quasi democratic one party states still exist in Africa, Asia and the middle east with regimes such as China, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Burma, the Sudan, Belarus and Saudi Arabia, seeking to maintain total control over their populations. However <u>two thirds of sub-Saharan countries have staged elections in the past ten years, with coups becoming less common and internal wars gradually waning. <mark>Africa</mark>n nations <mark>are</mark> also <mark>starting to police human rights</u></mark> in their own region. African Union peacekeepers are now deployed in Darfur and are working with UN peacekeepers in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The evolution of democracy can also be seen in terms of improved human rights. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and several ensuing legal treaties, define political, cultural and economic rights as well as the rights of women, children, ethnic groups and religions. This declaration is intended to create a global safety net of rights applicable to all peoples everywhere, with no exceptions. It also recognises the principle of the subordination of national sovereignty to the universality of human rights; the dignity and worth of human life beyond the jurisdiction of any State. <u><mark>The </mark>global <mark>spread of democracy is</u></mark>now also<u><mark>irreversibly linked to</mark> the new cooperative <mark>globalisation</mark> model. </u>The EU, despite its growing pains, provides a compelling template; complementing national decisions in the supra-national interest at the commercial, financial, legal, health and research sharing level. <u><mark>The</mark> global <mark>spread of </mark>new <mark>technology</mark> and knowledge also <mark>provides the opportunity for developing countries to gain a quantum leap in</mark> material <mark>wellbeing; a</mark>n essential <mark>prerequisite for a </mark>stable <mark>democracy</mark>. </u>The current <u>cyber-based advances</u> therefore <u>presage a much more interactive public form of democracy and mark the next phase in its ongoing evolution</u>. Web 2.0’s social networking, blogging, messaging and video services have already significantly changed the way people discuss political issues and exchange ideas beyond national boundaries. In addition a number of popular sites exist as forums to actively harness individual opinions and encourage debate about contentious topics, funnelling them to political processes. These are often coupled to online petitions, <u>allowing the public to deliver requests to Government and receive a committed response. </u>In addition there are a plethora of specialized smart search engines and analytical tools aimed at locating and interpreting information about divisive and complex topics such as global warming and medical stem cell advances. These are increasingly linked to Argumentation frameworks and Game theory, aimed at supporting the logical basis of arguments, negotiation and other structured forms of group decision-making. New logic and statistical tools can also provide inference and evaluation mechanisms to better assess the evidence for a particular hypothesis. By 2030 it is likely that such ‘intelligence-based’ algorithms will be capable of automating the analysis and advice provided to politicians, at a similar level of quality and expertise as that offered by the best human advisers. It might be argued that there is still a need for the role of politicians and leaders in assessing and prioritising such expert advice in the overriding national interest. But a moment’s reflection leads to the opposite conclusion. Politicians have party allegiances and internal obligations that can and do create serious conflicts of interest and skew the best advice. History is replete with such disastrous decisions based on false premises, driven by party political bias and populist fads predicated on flawed knowledge. One needs to look no further in recent times than the patently inadequate evidential basis for the US’s war in Iraq which has cost at least half a million civilian lives and is still unresolved. However there remains a disjunction between the developed west and those developing countries only now recovering from colonisation, the subsequent domination by dictators and fascist regimes and ongoing natural disasters. There is in fact a time gap of several hundred years between the democratic trajectory of the west and east, which these countries are endeavouring to bridge within a generation; often creating serious short-term challenges and cultural dislocations. A very powerful enabler for the spread of democracy as mentioned is the Internet/Web- today’s storehouse of the world’s information and expertise. By increasing the flow of essential intelligence it facilitates transparency, reduces corruption, empowers dissidents and ensures governments are more responsive to their citizen’s needs. Ii is already providing the infrastructure for the emergence of a more democratic society; empowering all people to have direct input into critical decision processes affecting their lives, without the distortion of political intermediaries. <u><mark>By 2040 more democratic outcomes for all populations </mark>on the planet <mark>will be the norm</u>.</mark> Critical and urgent decisions relating to global warming, financial regulation, economic allocation of scarce resources such as food and water, humanitarian rights and refugee migration etc, will to be sifted through community knowledge, resulting in truly representative and equitable global governance. <u>Implementation of the democratic process itself will continue to evolve with new forms of e-voting and governance supervision, which will include the active participation of advocacy groups supported by a consensus of expert knowledge via the Intelligent Web</u> 4.0. Over time <u>democracy </u>as with all other social processes, <u>will evolve to best suit the needs of its </u>human <u>environment</u>. It will emerge as a networked model- a non-hierarchical, resilient protocol, responsive to rapid social change. Such distributed forms of government will involve local communities, operating with the best expert advice from the ground up; the opposite of political party self-interested power and superficial focus-group decision-making, as implemented by many current political systems. These are frequently unresponsive to legitimate minority group needs and can be easily corrupted by powerful lobby groups, such as those employed by the heavy carbon emitters in the global warming debate.</p> </s>

Free trade causes job loss: loss of 3 million jobs in 5 years from outsourcing, killing the economy.

Free trade caused more U.S. jobs losses than gains, especially for higher-wage jobs While corporate profits soar, individual wages stagnate, held In his 2006 book Sen Dorgan decries no one is more affected than American workers in the last five years, we've lost over 3 million U.S. jobs that have been oursourced to other countries, and millions more are poised to leave

(Deborah, M.B.A. from California State University, Long Beach, About.com, US Liberal Politics, “Pros & Cons of Free Trade Agreements,” http://usliberals.about.com/od/theeconomyjobs/i/FreeTradeAgmts_2.htm//wyo-mm) Opponents of U.S. free trade agreements believe that: Free trade has caused more U.S. jobs losses than gains, especially for higher-wage jobs. Many free trade agreements are bad deals for the U.S. Free Trade Has Caused U.S. Jobs Losses A Washington Post columnist wrote: "While corporate profits soar, individual wages stagnate, held at least partly in check by the brave new fact of offshoring -- that millions of Americans' jobs can be performed at a fraction of the cost in developing nations near and far." In his 2006 book "Take This Job and Ship It," Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) decries, "... in this new global economy, no one is more profoundly affected than American workers... in the last five years, we've lost over 3 million U.S. jobs that have been oursourced to other countries, and millions more are poised to leave."

<h4><strong>Free trade causes job loss: loss of 3 million jobs in 5 years from outsourcing, killing the economy. </h4><p>White NDG</p><p></strong>(Deborah, M.B.A. from California State University, Long Beach, About.com, US Liberal Politics, “Pros & Cons of Free Trade Agreements,” http://usliberals.about.com/od/theeconomyjobs/i/FreeTradeAgmts_2.htm//wyo-mm) </p><p>Opponents of U.S. free trade agreements believe that: <u><strong>Free trade</u></strong> has <u><strong>caused more U.S. jobs losses than gains, especially for higher-wage jobs</u></strong>. Many free trade agreements are bad deals for the U.S. Free Trade Has Caused U.S. Jobs Losses A Washington Post columnist wrote: "<u><strong>While corporate profits soar, individual wages stagnate, held</u></strong> at least partly in check by the brave new fact of offshoring -- that millions of Americans' jobs can be performed at a fraction of the cost in developing nations near and far." <u><strong>In his 2006 book</u></strong> "Take This Job and Ship It," <u><strong>Sen</u></strong>. Byron <u><strong>Dorgan</u></strong> (D-ND) <u><strong>decries</u></strong>, "... in this new global economy, <u><strong>no one is more</u></strong> profoundly <u><strong>affected than American workers</u></strong>... <u><strong>in the last five years, we've lost over 3 million U.S. jobs that have been oursourced to other countries, and millions more are poised to leave</u>."</p></strong>

White NDG

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: White NDG fulltext: (Deborah, M.B.A. from California State University, Long Beach, About.com, US Liberal Politics, “Pros & Cons of Free Trade Agreements,” http://usliberals.about.com/od/theeconomyjobs/i/FreeTradeAgmts_2.htm//wyo-mm) Opponents of U.S. free trade agreements believe that: Free trade has caused more U.S. jobs losses than gains, especially for higher-wage jobs. Many free trade agreements are bad deals for the U.S. Free Trade Has Caused U.S. Jobs Losses A Washington Post columnist wrote: "While corporate profits soar, individual wages stagnate, held at least partly in check by the brave new fact of offshoring -- that millions of Americans' jobs can be performed at a fraction of the cost in developing nations near and far." In his 2006 book "Take This Job and Ship It," Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) decries, "... in this new global economy, no one is more profoundly affected than American workers... in the last five years, we've lost over 3 million U.S. jobs that have been oursourced to other countries, and millions more are poised to leave." [/INST] <h4><strong>Free trade causes job loss: loss of 3 million jobs in 5 years from outsourcing, killing the economy. </h4><p>White NDG</p><p></strong>(Deborah, M.B.A. from California State University, Long Beach, About.com, US Liberal Politics, “Pros & Cons of Free Trade Agreements,” http://usliberals.about.com/od/theeconomyjobs/i/FreeTradeAgmts_2.htm//wyo-mm) </p><p>Opponents of U.S. free trade agreements believe that: <u><strong>Free trade</u></strong> has <u><strong>caused more U.S. jobs losses than gains, especially for higher-wage jobs</u></strong>. Many free trade agreements are bad deals for the U.S. Free Trade Has Caused U.S. Jobs Losses A Washington Post columnist wrote: "<u><strong>While corporate profits soar, individual wages stagnate, held</u></strong> at least partly in check by the brave new fact of offshoring -- that millions of Americans' jobs can be performed at a fraction of the cost in developing nations near and far." <u><strong>In his 2006 book</u></strong> "Take This Job and Ship It," <u><strong>Sen</u></strong>. Byron <u><strong>Dorgan</u></strong> (D-ND) <u><strong>decries</u></strong>, "... in this new global economy, <u><strong>no one is more</u></strong> profoundly <u><strong>affected than American workers</u></strong>... <u><strong>in the last five years, we've lost over 3 million U.S. jobs that have been oursourced to other countries, and millions more are poised to leave</u>."</p></strong> </s>

We access the better internal link to econ collapse- China’s influence on the world economy is far greater than Latin America because their markets are interconnected with the world’s major economic players- Latin America’s ties are only to regional partners-

<h4>We access the better internal link to econ collapse- China’s influence on the world economy is far greater than Latin America because their markets are interconnected with the world’s major economic players- Latin America’s ties are only to regional partners-</h4>

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: None fulltext: None [/INST] <h4>We access the better internal link to econ collapse- China’s influence on the world economy is far greater than Latin America because their markets are interconnected with the world’s major economic players- Latin America’s ties are only to regional partners-</h4> </s>

Biodiversity loss leads to extinction

Biologically diverse ecosystems are characterized by a large number of specialist species, filling narrow ecological niches. These ecosystems inherently are more stable than less diverse systems. "The more complex the ecosystem, the more successfully it can resist a stress. . . . [l]ike a net, in which each knot is connected to others by several strands, such a fabric can resist collapse better than a simple, unbranched circle of threads each new extinction, with all its dimly perceived and intertwined affects, could cause total ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Each new extinction increases the risk of disaster. Like a mechanic removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's wings, n80 [hu]mankind may be edging closer to the abyss.

Biologically diverse ecosystems are characterized by a large number of specialist species, filling narrow ecological niches. These ecosystems inherently are more stable than less diverse systems. "The more complex the ecosystem, the more successfully it can resist a stress. . . . [l]ike a net, in which each knot is connected to others by several strands, such a fabric can resist collapse better than a simple, unbranched circle of threads -- which if cut anywhere breaks down as a whole." n79 By causing widespread extinctions, humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems. As biologic simplicity increases, so does the risk of ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa, and the dustbowl conditions of the 1930s in the United States are relatively mild examples of what might be expected if this trend continues. Theoretically, each new animal or plant extinction, with all its dimly perceived and intertwined affects, could cause total ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Each new extinction increases the risk of disaster. Like a mechanic removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's wings, n80 [hu]mankind may be edging closer to the abyss.

<h4><strong>Biodiversity loss leads to extinction</h4><p>Diner gender paraphrased 94</p><p><u></strong>Military Law Review Winter 1994 143 Mil. L. Rev. 161 LENGTH: 30655 words ARTICLE: THE ARMY AND THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT: WHO'S ENDANGERING WHOM? NAME: MAJOR DAVID N. DINER BIO: Judge Advocate General's Corps, United States Army.</p><p>Biologically diverse ecosystems are characterized by a large number of specialist species, filling narrow ecological niches. These ecosystems inherently are more stable than less diverse systems. "The more complex the ecosystem, the more successfully it can resist a stress. . . . [l]ike a net, in which each knot is connected to others by several strands, such a fabric can resist collapse better than a simple, unbranched circle of threads</u> -- which if cut anywhere breaks down as a whole." n79 By causing widespread extinctions, humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems. As biologic simplicity increases, so does the risk of ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa, and the dustbowl conditions of the 1930s in the United States are relatively mild examples of what might be expected if this trend continues. Theoretically, <u>each new</u> animal or plant <u>extinction, with all its dimly perceived and intertwined affects, could cause total ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Each new extinction increases the risk of disaster. Like a mechanic removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's wings, n80 [hu]mankind may be edging closer to the abyss.</p></u>

Diner gender paraphrased 94 Military Law Review Winter 1994 143 Mil. L. Rev. 161 LENGTH: 30655 words ARTICLE: THE ARMY AND THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT: WHO'S ENDANGERING WHOM? NAME: MAJOR DAVID N. DINER BIO: Judge Advocate General's Corps, United States Army.

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Diner gender paraphrased 94 Military Law Review Winter 1994 143 Mil. L. Rev. 161 LENGTH: 30655 words ARTICLE: THE ARMY AND THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT: WHO'S ENDANGERING WHOM? NAME: MAJOR DAVID N. DINER BIO: Judge Advocate General's Corps, United States Army. fulltext: Biologically diverse ecosystems are characterized by a large number of specialist species, filling narrow ecological niches. These ecosystems inherently are more stable than less diverse systems. "The more complex the ecosystem, the more successfully it can resist a stress. . . . [l]ike a net, in which each knot is connected to others by several strands, such a fabric can resist collapse better than a simple, unbranched circle of threads -- which if cut anywhere breaks down as a whole." n79 By causing widespread extinctions, humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems. As biologic simplicity increases, so does the risk of ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa, and the dustbowl conditions of the 1930s in the United States are relatively mild examples of what might be expected if this trend continues. Theoretically, each new animal or plant extinction, with all its dimly perceived and intertwined affects, could cause total ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Each new extinction increases the risk of disaster. Like a mechanic removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's wings, n80 [hu]mankind may be edging closer to the abyss. [/INST] <h4><strong>Biodiversity loss leads to extinction</h4><p>Diner gender paraphrased 94</p><p><u></strong>Military Law Review Winter 1994 143 Mil. L. Rev. 161 LENGTH: 30655 words ARTICLE: THE ARMY AND THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT: WHO'S ENDANGERING WHOM? NAME: MAJOR DAVID N. DINER BIO: Judge Advocate General's Corps, United States Army.</p><p>Biologically diverse ecosystems are characterized by a large number of specialist species, filling narrow ecological niches. These ecosystems inherently are more stable than less diverse systems. "The more complex the ecosystem, the more successfully it can resist a stress. . . . [l]ike a net, in which each knot is connected to others by several strands, such a fabric can resist collapse better than a simple, unbranched circle of threads</u> -- which if cut anywhere breaks down as a whole." n79 By causing widespread extinctions, humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems. As biologic simplicity increases, so does the risk of ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa, and the dustbowl conditions of the 1930s in the United States are relatively mild examples of what might be expected if this trend continues. Theoretically, <u>each new</u> animal or plant <u>extinction, with all its dimly perceived and intertwined affects, could cause total ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Each new extinction increases the risk of disaster. Like a mechanic removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's wings, n80 [hu]mankind may be edging closer to the abyss.</p></u> </s>

Economic collapse leads to nuclear world war

What if the global economy stagnates--or even shrinks? In that case, we will face a new period of international conflict: South against North, rich against poor. Russia, China, India--these countries with their billions of people and their nuclear weapons will pose a much greater danger to world order than Germany and Japan did in the '30s

if the global economy stagnates we will face a new period of international conflict: South against North, rich against poor. Russia, China, India with their people and nuclear weapons will pose a much greater danger than Germany and Japan did in the '30s

There is something breathtakingly casual in the way the American elite responds to its failures. The savings and loan debacle, the disintegration of our inner cities, the budget deficit: Our public and private elites don't care about them. Perhaps because they grew up in the years when the U.S. faced no real economic challenges and knew no real limits, they don't understand that failure has a price. If so, this new failure--the failure to develop an international system to hedge against the possibility of worldwide depression--will open their eyes to their folly. Hundreds of millions-- billions--of people around the world have pinned their hopes on the international market economy. They and their leaders have embraced market principles--and drawn closer to the West--because they believe that our system can work for them. But what if it can't? What if the global economy stagnates--or even shrinks? In that case, we will face a new period of international conflict: South against North, rich against poor. Russia, China, India--these countries with their billions of people and their nuclear weapons will pose a much greater danger to world order than Germany and Japan did in the '30s.

<h4><strong>Economic collapse leads to nuclear world war</h4><p>Mead in 92</p><p></strong>[Walter Russel, Depending on the Kindness of Strangers,” <u>New Perspectives Quarterly</u>, Summer, v. 9, n. 3]</p><p>There is something breathtakingly casual in the way the American elite responds to its failures. The savings and loan debacle, the disintegration of our inner cities, the budget deficit: Our public and private elites don't care about them. Perhaps because they grew up in the years when the U.S. faced no real economic challenges and knew no real limits, they don't understand that failure has a price. If so, this new failure--the failure to develop an international system to hedge against the possibility of worldwide depression--will open their eyes to their folly. Hundreds of millions-- billions--of people around the world have pinned their hopes on the international market economy. They and their leaders have embraced market principles--and drawn closer to the West--because they believe that our system can work for them. But what if it can't? <u><strong>What <mark>if the global economy stagnates</mark>--or even shrinks? In that case, <mark>we will face a new period of international conflict: South against North, rich against poor. Russia, China, India</mark>--these countries <mark>with their</mark> billions of <mark>people and</mark> their <mark>nuclear weapons will pose a much greater danger</mark> to world order <mark>than Germany and Japan did in the '30s</u></strong></mark>.</p>

Mead in 92 [Walter Russel, Depending on the Kindness of Strangers,” New Perspectives Quarterly, Summer, v. 9, n. 3]

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Mead in 92 [Walter Russel, Depending on the Kindness of Strangers,” New Perspectives Quarterly, Summer, v. 9, n. 3] fulltext: There is something breathtakingly casual in the way the American elite responds to its failures. The savings and loan debacle, the disintegration of our inner cities, the budget deficit: Our public and private elites don't care about them. Perhaps because they grew up in the years when the U.S. faced no real economic challenges and knew no real limits, they don't understand that failure has a price. If so, this new failure--the failure to develop an international system to hedge against the possibility of worldwide depression--will open their eyes to their folly. Hundreds of millions-- billions--of people around the world have pinned their hopes on the international market economy. They and their leaders have embraced market principles--and drawn closer to the West--because they believe that our system can work for them. But what if it can't? What if the global economy stagnates--or even shrinks? In that case, we will face a new period of international conflict: South against North, rich against poor. Russia, China, India--these countries with their billions of people and their nuclear weapons will pose a much greater danger to world order than Germany and Japan did in the '30s. [/INST] <h4><strong>Economic collapse leads to nuclear world war</h4><p>Mead in 92</p><p></strong>[Walter Russel, Depending on the Kindness of Strangers,” <u>New Perspectives Quarterly</u>, Summer, v. 9, n. 3]</p><p>There is something breathtakingly casual in the way the American elite responds to its failures. The savings and loan debacle, the disintegration of our inner cities, the budget deficit: Our public and private elites don't care about them. Perhaps because they grew up in the years when the U.S. faced no real economic challenges and knew no real limits, they don't understand that failure has a price. If so, this new failure--the failure to develop an international system to hedge against the possibility of worldwide depression--will open their eyes to their folly. Hundreds of millions-- billions--of people around the world have pinned their hopes on the international market economy. They and their leaders have embraced market principles--and drawn closer to the West--because they believe that our system can work for them. But what if it can't? <u><strong>What <mark>if the global economy stagnates</mark>--or even shrinks? In that case, <mark>we will face a new period of international conflict: South against North, rich against poor. Russia, China, India</mark>--these countries <mark>with their</mark> billions of <mark>people and</mark> their <mark>nuclear weapons will pose a much greater danger</mark> to world order <mark>than Germany and Japan did in the '30s</u></strong></mark>.</p> </s>

Trade not key to econ-

the bank does little to show that countries that trade freely grow more than those that do not Consider the Bank’s evidence for a link between free trade and growth. Th e Bank only establishes a correlation between population weighted trade to GDP ratios and real GDP per capita in developing countries this is not enough to show that free trade increases growth the Bank does not test any other hypotheses that could explain the correlation they report between changing population weighted trade to GDP ratios and GDP per capita in developing countries the study has what economists refer to as low internal validity report’s estimate of inequality is probably inaccurate. Biased PPP measures make inequality appear to be lower than it actually is

(Nicole, Ph.D. University of Arizona, assistant professor in philosophy and international relations at Carnegie Mellon University, Journal of Moral Philosophy, “Free Trade, Poverty, and Inequality,” 2011, Academic Search Premiere, //wyo-mm) Next, consider the Bank’s argument for the conclusion that free trade is reducing poverty because it has increased growth rates without increasing inequality in recent decades. Or, as they put it, “the combination of rapid growth with no systematic change in inequality has dramatically reduced absolute poverty in the globalizing countries.” 115 Th e fi rst problem with this argument is that the bank does little to show that countries that trade freely grow more than those that do not. Consider the Bank’s evidence for a link between free trade and growth. Th e Bank only establishes a correlation between population weighted trade to GDP ratios and real GDP per capita in developing countries. Even setting aside the distinction between liberalization and free trade, this is not enough to show that free trade increases growth. It is quite possible that there is a common cause of an increase in population weighted trade to GDP ratios and real GDP per capita in developing countries. Foreign aid, geographical factors, or foreign investment, for instance, may increase both trade to GDP ratios and real GDP per capita. More generally, the Bank does not test any other hypotheses that could explain the correlation they report between changing population weighted trade to GDP ratios and real GDP per capita in developing countries. 116 So, the study has what economists refer to as low internal validity. A study has low internal validity when there is little reason to believe its estimates refl ect the causal relationships between the thing being evaluated (e.g. free trade) and the particular outcome observed (e.g. growth) even holding the study’s circumstances fi xed. Th e Bank’s study does little to show that the jump from correlation to causation is justifi ed. Even if this paper granted without evidence that free trade increases growth rates, however, the Bank does little to show that free trade has not increased inequality. Th e Bank merely claims that “the long trend of rising global inequality … has been halted and even reversed.” 117 Th e report does not explain how it measures global inequality, however. Since it arrives at this result, it probably weights international inequality by population using a biased PPP index. (Many use this as a proxy for world inequality, Th ough, as this paper has argued, it is a poor proxy.) So, the report’s estimate of inequality is probably inaccurate. Biased PPP measures make inequality appear to be lower than it actually is. As this paper argued above, even if the Bank is interested in the impact of the reforms it encourages that promote free trade on countries on average, it should not look at international inequality weighted by population. 118.

<h4><strong>Trade not key to econ-</h4><p>Hassoun 11</p><p></strong>(Nicole, Ph.D. University of Arizona, assistant professor in philosophy and international relations at Carnegie Mellon University, Journal of Moral Philosophy, “Free Trade, Poverty, and Inequality,” 2011, Academic Search Premiere, //wyo-mm)</p><p>Next, consider the Bank’s argument for the conclusion that free trade is reducing poverty because it has increased growth rates without increasing inequality in recent decades. Or, as they put it, “the combination of rapid growth with no systematic change in inequality has dramatically reduced absolute poverty in the globalizing countries.” 115 Th e fi rst problem with this argument is that <u><strong>the bank does little to show that countries that trade freely grow more than those that do not</u></strong>. <u><strong>Consider the Bank’s evidence for a link between free trade and growth. Th e Bank only establishes a correlation between population weighted trade to GDP ratios and real GDP per capita in developing countries</u></strong>. Even setting aside the distinction between liberalization and free trade, <u><strong>this is not enough to show that free trade increases growth</u></strong>. It is quite possible that there is a common cause of an increase in population weighted trade to GDP ratios and real GDP per capita in developing countries. Foreign aid, geographical factors, or foreign investment, for instance, may increase both trade to GDP ratios and real GDP per capita. More generally, <u><strong>the Bank does not test any other hypotheses that could explain the correlation they report between changing population weighted trade to GDP ratios and</u></strong> real <u><strong>GDP per capita in developing countries</u></strong>. 116 So, <u><strong>the study has what economists refer to as low internal validity</u></strong>. A study has low internal validity when there is little reason to believe its estimates refl ect the causal relationships between the thing being evaluated (e.g. free trade) and the particular outcome observed (e.g. growth) even holding the study’s circumstances fi xed. Th e Bank’s study does little to show that the jump from correlation to causation is justifi ed. Even if this paper granted without evidence that free trade increases growth rates, however, the Bank does little to show that free trade has not increased inequality. Th e Bank merely claims that “the long trend of rising global inequality … has been halted and even reversed.” 117 Th e report does not explain how it measures global inequality, however. Since it arrives at this result, it probably weights international inequality by population using a biased PPP index. (Many use this as a proxy for world inequality, Th ough, as this paper has argued, it is a poor proxy.) So, the <u><strong>report’s estimate of inequality is probably inaccurate. Biased PPP measures make inequality appear to be lower than it actually is</u></strong>. As this paper argued above, even if the Bank is interested in the impact of the reforms it encourages that promote free trade on countries on average, it should not look at international inequality weighted by population. 118.</p>

Hassoun 11

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Hassoun 11 fulltext: (Nicole, Ph.D. University of Arizona, assistant professor in philosophy and international relations at Carnegie Mellon University, Journal of Moral Philosophy, “Free Trade, Poverty, and Inequality,” 2011, Academic Search Premiere, //wyo-mm) Next, consider the Bank’s argument for the conclusion that free trade is reducing poverty because it has increased growth rates without increasing inequality in recent decades. Or, as they put it, “the combination of rapid growth with no systematic change in inequality has dramatically reduced absolute poverty in the globalizing countries.” 115 Th e fi rst problem with this argument is that the bank does little to show that countries that trade freely grow more than those that do not. Consider the Bank’s evidence for a link between free trade and growth. Th e Bank only establishes a correlation between population weighted trade to GDP ratios and real GDP per capita in developing countries. Even setting aside the distinction between liberalization and free trade, this is not enough to show that free trade increases growth. It is quite possible that there is a common cause of an increase in population weighted trade to GDP ratios and real GDP per capita in developing countries. Foreign aid, geographical factors, or foreign investment, for instance, may increase both trade to GDP ratios and real GDP per capita. More generally, the Bank does not test any other hypotheses that could explain the correlation they report between changing population weighted trade to GDP ratios and real GDP per capita in developing countries. 116 So, the study has what economists refer to as low internal validity. A study has low internal validity when there is little reason to believe its estimates refl ect the causal relationships between the thing being evaluated (e.g. free trade) and the particular outcome observed (e.g. growth) even holding the study’s circumstances fi xed. Th e Bank’s study does little to show that the jump from correlation to causation is justifi ed. Even if this paper granted without evidence that free trade increases growth rates, however, the Bank does little to show that free trade has not increased inequality. Th e Bank merely claims that “the long trend of rising global inequality … has been halted and even reversed.” 117 Th e report does not explain how it measures global inequality, however. Since it arrives at this result, it probably weights international inequality by population using a biased PPP index. (Many use this as a proxy for world inequality, Th ough, as this paper has argued, it is a poor proxy.) So, the report’s estimate of inequality is probably inaccurate. Biased PPP measures make inequality appear to be lower than it actually is. As this paper argued above, even if the Bank is interested in the impact of the reforms it encourages that promote free trade on countries on average, it should not look at international inequality weighted by population. 118. [/INST] <h4><strong>Trade not key to econ-</h4><p>Hassoun 11</p><p></strong>(Nicole, Ph.D. University of Arizona, assistant professor in philosophy and international relations at Carnegie Mellon University, Journal of Moral Philosophy, “Free Trade, Poverty, and Inequality,” 2011, Academic Search Premiere, //wyo-mm)</p><p>Next, consider the Bank’s argument for the conclusion that free trade is reducing poverty because it has increased growth rates without increasing inequality in recent decades. Or, as they put it, “the combination of rapid growth with no systematic change in inequality has dramatically reduced absolute poverty in the globalizing countries.” 115 Th e fi rst problem with this argument is that <u><strong>the bank does little to show that countries that trade freely grow more than those that do not</u></strong>. <u><strong>Consider the Bank’s evidence for a link between free trade and growth. Th e Bank only establishes a correlation between population weighted trade to GDP ratios and real GDP per capita in developing countries</u></strong>. Even setting aside the distinction between liberalization and free trade, <u><strong>this is not enough to show that free trade increases growth</u></strong>. It is quite possible that there is a common cause of an increase in population weighted trade to GDP ratios and real GDP per capita in developing countries. Foreign aid, geographical factors, or foreign investment, for instance, may increase both trade to GDP ratios and real GDP per capita. More generally, <u><strong>the Bank does not test any other hypotheses that could explain the correlation they report between changing population weighted trade to GDP ratios and</u></strong> real <u><strong>GDP per capita in developing countries</u></strong>. 116 So, <u><strong>the study has what economists refer to as low internal validity</u></strong>. A study has low internal validity when there is little reason to believe its estimates refl ect the causal relationships between the thing being evaluated (e.g. free trade) and the particular outcome observed (e.g. growth) even holding the study’s circumstances fi xed. Th e Bank’s study does little to show that the jump from correlation to causation is justifi ed. Even if this paper granted without evidence that free trade increases growth rates, however, the Bank does little to show that free trade has not increased inequality. Th e Bank merely claims that “the long trend of rising global inequality … has been halted and even reversed.” 117 Th e report does not explain how it measures global inequality, however. Since it arrives at this result, it probably weights international inequality by population using a biased PPP index. (Many use this as a proxy for world inequality, Th ough, as this paper has argued, it is a poor proxy.) So, the <u><strong>report’s estimate of inequality is probably inaccurate. Biased PPP measures make inequality appear to be lower than it actually is</u></strong>. As this paper argued above, even if the Bank is interested in the impact of the reforms it encourages that promote free trade on countries on average, it should not look at international inequality weighted by population. 118.</p> </s>

NO IMPACT – Cuban Health care cannot solve disease

there is excellent health care on Cuba — just not for ordinary Cubans. there is not just one system, There are three. The first is for foreigners the facilities in which they are treated are clean, well supplied, state-of-the-art. The foreigners-only facilities are segregated, facilities on Cuba The second health-care system is for Cuban elites And their system, like the one for medical tourists, is top-notch. Then there is the real Cuban system, the one that ordinary people must use — and it is wretched. Hospitals and clinics are crumbling. Conditions are so unsanitary, patients may be better off at home, If they do have to go to the hospital, they must bring their own bedsheets, soap, towels, food, light bulbs — even toilet paper. And basic medications are scarce. In Cuba, finding an aspirin can be a chore. And an antibiotic will fetch a fortune on the black market. A nurse spoke to Canada’s National Post. “We have nothing,” said the nurse. “I haven’t seen aspirin in a Cuban store here for more than a year. The equipment that doctors have to work with is either antiquated or nonexistent. Doctors have been known to reuse latex gloves — there is no choice. [Cuban] doctors are well trained, but they have nothing to work with. So deplorable is the state of health care in Cuba that old-fashioned diseases are back with a vengeance. These include tuberculosis, leprosy, and typhoid fever.

To be sure, there is excellent health care on Cuba — just not for ordinary Cubans. Dr. Jaime Suchlicki of the University of Miami’s Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies explains that there is not just one system, or even two: There are three. The first is for foreigners who come to Cuba specifically for medical care. This is known as “medical tourism.” The tourists pay in hard currency, which provides oxygen to the regime. And the facilities in which they are treated are First World: clean, well supplied, state-of-the-art. The foreigners-only facilities do a big business in what you might call vanity treatments: Botox, liposuction, and breast implants. Remember, too, that there are many separate, or segregated, facilities on Cuba. People speak of “tourism apartheid.” For example, there are separate hotels, separate beaches, separate restaurants — separate everything. As you can well imagine, this causes widespread resentment in the general population. The second health-care system is for Cuban elites — the Party, the military, official artists and writers, and so on. In the Soviet Union, these people were called the “nomenklatura.” And their system, like the one for medical tourists, is top-notch. Then there is the real Cuban system, the one that ordinary people must use — and it is wretched. Testimony and documentation on the subject are vast. Hospitals and clinics are crumbling. Conditions are so unsanitary, patients may be better off at home, whatever home is. If they do have to go to the hospital, they must bring their own bedsheets, soap, towels, food, light bulbs — even toilet paper. And basic medications are scarce. In Sicko, even sophisticated medications are plentiful and cheap. In the real Cuba, finding an aspirin can be a chore. And an antibiotic will fetch a fortune on the black market. A nurse spoke to Isabel Vincent of Canada’s National Post. “We have nothing,” said the nurse. “I haven’t seen aspirin in a Cuban store here for more than a year. If you have any pills in your purse, I’ll take them. Even if they have passed their expiry date.” The equipment that doctors have to work with is either antiquated or nonexistent. Doctors have been known to reuse latex gloves — there is no choice. When they travel to the island, on errands of mercy, American doctors make sure to take as much equipment and as many supplies as they can carry. One told the Associated Press, “The [Cuban] doctors are pretty well trained, but they have nothing to work with. It’s like operating with knives and spoons.” And doctors are not necessarily privileged citizens in Cuba. A doctor in exile told the Miami Herald that, in 2003, he earned what most doctors did: 575 pesos a month, or about 25 dollars. He had to sell pork out of his home to get by. And the chief of medical services for the whole of the Cuban military had to rent out his car as a taxi on weekends. “Everyone tries to survive,” he explained. (Of course, you can call a Cuban with a car privileged, whatever he does with it.) So deplorable is the state of health care in Cuba that old-fashioned diseases are back with a vengeance. These include tuberculosis, leprosy, and typhoid fever. And dengue, another fever, is a particular menace. Indeed, an exiled doctor named Dessy Mendoza Rivero — a former political prisoner and a spectacularly brave man — wrote a book called ¡Dengue! La Epidemia Secreta de Fidel Castro.

<h4>NO IMPACT – Cuban Health care cannot solve disease </h4><p><strong>National Review</strong> 7/30/<strong>2007 </strong>“The Myth of Cuban Health Care” http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/cuba/health-myth.htm</p><p>To be sure, <u><strong>there is excellent health care on Cuba — just not for ordinary Cubans.</u></strong> Dr. Jaime Suchlicki of the University of Miami’s Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies explains that <u><strong>there is not just one system,</u></strong> or even two: <u><strong>There are three. The first is for foreigners</u></strong> who come to Cuba specifically for medical care. This is known as “medical tourism.” The tourists pay in hard currency, which provides oxygen to the regime. And <u><strong>the facilities in which they are treated are</u></strong> First World: <u><strong>clean, well supplied, state-of-the-art.</p><p>The foreigners-only facilities</u></strong> do a big business in what you might call vanity treatments: Botox, liposuction, and breast implants. Remember, too, that there <u><strong>are</u></strong> many separate, or <u><strong>segregated, facilities on Cuba</u></strong>. People speak of “tourism apartheid.” For example, there are separate hotels, separate beaches, separate restaurants — separate everything. As you can well imagine, this causes widespread resentment in the general population.</p><p><u><strong>The second health-care system is for Cuban elites</u></strong> — the Party, the military, official artists and writers, and so on. In the Soviet Union, these people were called the “nomenklatura.” <u><strong>And their system, like the one for medical tourists, is top-notch.</p><p>Then there is the real Cuban system, the one that ordinary people must use — and it is wretched.</u></strong> Testimony and documentation on the subject are vast. <u><strong>Hospitals and clinics are crumbling.</u></strong> <u><strong>Conditions are so unsanitary, patients may be better off at home,</u></strong> whatever home is. <u><strong>If they do have to go to the hospital, they must bring their own bedsheets, soap, towels, food, light bulbs — even toilet paper. And basic medications are scarce.</u></strong> In Sicko, even sophisticated medications are plentiful and cheap. <u><strong>In</u></strong> the real <u><strong>Cuba, finding an aspirin can be a chore. And an antibiotic will fetch a fortune on the black market.</p><p>A nurse spoke to</u></strong> Isabel Vincent of <u><strong>Canada’s National Post. “We have nothing,” said the nurse. “I haven’t seen aspirin in a Cuban store here for more than a year.</u></strong> If you have any pills in your purse, I’ll take them. Even if they have passed their expiry date.”</p><p><u><strong>The equipment that doctors have to work with is either antiquated or nonexistent.</u></strong> <u><strong>Doctors have been known to reuse latex gloves — there is no choice.</u></strong> When they travel to the island, on errands of mercy, American doctors make sure to take as much equipment and as many supplies as they can carry. One told the Associated Press, “The <u><strong>[Cuban]</u></strong> <u><strong>doctors are</u></strong> pretty <u><strong>well trained, but they have nothing to work with.</u></strong> It’s like operating with knives and spoons.”</p><p>And doctors are not necessarily privileged citizens in Cuba. A doctor in exile told the Miami Herald that, in 2003, he earned what most doctors did: 575 pesos a month, or about 25 dollars. He had to sell pork out of his home to get by. And the chief of medical services for the whole of the Cuban military had to rent out his car as a taxi on weekends. “Everyone tries to survive,” he explained. (Of course, you can call a Cuban with a car privileged, whatever he does with it.)</p><p><u><strong>So deplorable is the state of health care in Cuba that old-fashioned diseases are back with a vengeance. These include tuberculosis, leprosy, and typhoid fever.</u></strong> And dengue, another fever, is a particular menace. Indeed, an exiled doctor named Dessy Mendoza Rivero — a former political prisoner and a spectacularly brave man — wrote a book called ¡Dengue! La Epidemia Secreta de Fidel Castro.</p>

National Review 7/30/2007 “The Myth of Cuban Health Care” http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/cuba/health-myth.htm

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: National Review 7/30/2007 “The Myth of Cuban Health Care” http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/cuba/health-myth.htm fulltext: To be sure, there is excellent health care on Cuba — just not for ordinary Cubans. Dr. Jaime Suchlicki of the University of Miami’s Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies explains that there is not just one system, or even two: There are three. The first is for foreigners who come to Cuba specifically for medical care. This is known as “medical tourism.” The tourists pay in hard currency, which provides oxygen to the regime. And the facilities in which they are treated are First World: clean, well supplied, state-of-the-art. The foreigners-only facilities do a big business in what you might call vanity treatments: Botox, liposuction, and breast implants. Remember, too, that there are many separate, or segregated, facilities on Cuba. People speak of “tourism apartheid.” For example, there are separate hotels, separate beaches, separate restaurants — separate everything. As you can well imagine, this causes widespread resentment in the general population. The second health-care system is for Cuban elites — the Party, the military, official artists and writers, and so on. In the Soviet Union, these people were called the “nomenklatura.” And their system, like the one for medical tourists, is top-notch. Then there is the real Cuban system, the one that ordinary people must use — and it is wretched. Testimony and documentation on the subject are vast. Hospitals and clinics are crumbling. Conditions are so unsanitary, patients may be better off at home, whatever home is. If they do have to go to the hospital, they must bring their own bedsheets, soap, towels, food, light bulbs — even toilet paper. And basic medications are scarce. In Sicko, even sophisticated medications are plentiful and cheap. In the real Cuba, finding an aspirin can be a chore. And an antibiotic will fetch a fortune on the black market. A nurse spoke to Isabel Vincent of Canada’s National Post. “We have nothing,” said the nurse. “I haven’t seen aspirin in a Cuban store here for more than a year. If you have any pills in your purse, I’ll take them. Even if they have passed their expiry date.” The equipment that doctors have to work with is either antiquated or nonexistent. Doctors have been known to reuse latex gloves — there is no choice. When they travel to the island, on errands of mercy, American doctors make sure to take as much equipment and as many supplies as they can carry. One told the Associated Press, “The [Cuban] doctors are pretty well trained, but they have nothing to work with. It’s like operating with knives and spoons.” And doctors are not necessarily privileged citizens in Cuba. A doctor in exile told the Miami Herald that, in 2003, he earned what most doctors did: 575 pesos a month, or about 25 dollars. He had to sell pork out of his home to get by. And the chief of medical services for the whole of the Cuban military had to rent out his car as a taxi on weekends. “Everyone tries to survive,” he explained. (Of course, you can call a Cuban with a car privileged, whatever he does with it.) So deplorable is the state of health care in Cuba that old-fashioned diseases are back with a vengeance. These include tuberculosis, leprosy, and typhoid fever. And dengue, another fever, is a particular menace. Indeed, an exiled doctor named Dessy Mendoza Rivero — a former political prisoner and a spectacularly brave man — wrote a book called ¡Dengue! La Epidemia Secreta de Fidel Castro. [/INST] <h4>NO IMPACT – Cuban Health care cannot solve disease </h4><p><strong>National Review</strong> 7/30/<strong>2007 </strong>“The Myth of Cuban Health Care” http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/cuba/health-myth.htm</p><p>To be sure, <u><strong>there is excellent health care on Cuba — just not for ordinary Cubans.</u></strong> Dr. Jaime Suchlicki of the University of Miami’s Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies explains that <u><strong>there is not just one system,</u></strong> or even two: <u><strong>There are three. The first is for foreigners</u></strong> who come to Cuba specifically for medical care. This is known as “medical tourism.” The tourists pay in hard currency, which provides oxygen to the regime. And <u><strong>the facilities in which they are treated are</u></strong> First World: <u><strong>clean, well supplied, state-of-the-art.</p><p>The foreigners-only facilities</u></strong> do a big business in what you might call vanity treatments: Botox, liposuction, and breast implants. Remember, too, that there <u><strong>are</u></strong> many separate, or <u><strong>segregated, facilities on Cuba</u></strong>. People speak of “tourism apartheid.” For example, there are separate hotels, separate beaches, separate restaurants — separate everything. As you can well imagine, this causes widespread resentment in the general population.</p><p><u><strong>The second health-care system is for Cuban elites</u></strong> — the Party, the military, official artists and writers, and so on. In the Soviet Union, these people were called the “nomenklatura.” <u><strong>And their system, like the one for medical tourists, is top-notch.</p><p>Then there is the real Cuban system, the one that ordinary people must use — and it is wretched.</u></strong> Testimony and documentation on the subject are vast. <u><strong>Hospitals and clinics are crumbling.</u></strong> <u><strong>Conditions are so unsanitary, patients may be better off at home,</u></strong> whatever home is. <u><strong>If they do have to go to the hospital, they must bring their own bedsheets, soap, towels, food, light bulbs — even toilet paper. And basic medications are scarce.</u></strong> In Sicko, even sophisticated medications are plentiful and cheap. <u><strong>In</u></strong> the real <u><strong>Cuba, finding an aspirin can be a chore. And an antibiotic will fetch a fortune on the black market.</p><p>A nurse spoke to</u></strong> Isabel Vincent of <u><strong>Canada’s National Post. “We have nothing,” said the nurse. “I haven’t seen aspirin in a Cuban store here for more than a year.</u></strong> If you have any pills in your purse, I’ll take them. Even if they have passed their expiry date.”</p><p><u><strong>The equipment that doctors have to work with is either antiquated or nonexistent.</u></strong> <u><strong>Doctors have been known to reuse latex gloves — there is no choice.</u></strong> When they travel to the island, on errands of mercy, American doctors make sure to take as much equipment and as many supplies as they can carry. One told the Associated Press, “The <u><strong>[Cuban]</u></strong> <u><strong>doctors are</u></strong> pretty <u><strong>well trained, but they have nothing to work with.</u></strong> It’s like operating with knives and spoons.”</p><p>And doctors are not necessarily privileged citizens in Cuba. A doctor in exile told the Miami Herald that, in 2003, he earned what most doctors did: 575 pesos a month, or about 25 dollars. He had to sell pork out of his home to get by. And the chief of medical services for the whole of the Cuban military had to rent out his car as a taxi on weekends. “Everyone tries to survive,” he explained. (Of course, you can call a Cuban with a car privileged, whatever he does with it.)</p><p><u><strong>So deplorable is the state of health care in Cuba that old-fashioned diseases are back with a vengeance. These include tuberculosis, leprosy, and typhoid fever.</u></strong> And dengue, another fever, is a particular menace. Indeed, an exiled doctor named Dessy Mendoza Rivero — a former political prisoner and a spectacularly brave man — wrote a book called ¡Dengue! La Epidemia Secreta de Fidel Castro.</p> </s>

DA solves warming- Extend 1NC Bremmer and Huntsman- we need US-China cooperation in order to for the two world’s largest polluters to work together on forging relations that solve global warming-

<h4>DA solves warming- Extend 1NC Bremmer and Huntsman- we need US-China cooperation in order to for the two world’s largest polluters to work together on forging relations that solve global warming- </h4>

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: None fulltext: None [/INST] <h4>DA solves warming- Extend 1NC Bremmer and Huntsman- we need US-China cooperation in order to for the two world’s largest polluters to work together on forging relations that solve global warming- </h4> </s>

Proliferation is slow, doesn’t cascade, and doesn’t cause conflict – 60 years of empirics prove

the fear of proliferation is pervasive, it is unfounded and lacks an understanding of the evidence. Nuclear proliferation has been slow Since the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty came into effect in 1970, only three countries have joined the nuclear club: India, Pakistan, and North Korea. In total, only .05% of the world’s states have nuclear weapons in their possession. while nuclear weapons have spread very slowly, conventional weapons have proliferated exponentially across the globe. The wars of the 21st century are being fought in the peripheral regions of the globe that are undergoing conventional weapons proliferation If deterrence works reliably, as it has done over the past 60 plus years, then there is less to be feared from nuclear proliferation than there is from convention warfare

the fear of proliferation is unfounded and lacks an understanding of the evidence Nuclear proliferation has been slow Since the N P T came into effect only three countries have joined the nuclear club only .05% of the world’s states have nuclear weapons in their possession. The wars of the 21st century are being fought in the peripheral regions of the globe that are undergoing conventional weapons proliferation. If deterrence works as it has over the past 60 plus years, then there is less to be feared from nuclear proliferation than convention warfare.

Denise, professor of international relations at Southern Illinois University, “Proliferation Leads to Peace” ”< http://www.policymic.com/articles/1463/nuclear-proliferation-leads-to-peace>] Unfortunately, while the fear of proliferation is pervasive, it is unfounded and lacks an understanding of the evidence. Nuclear proliferation has been slow. From 1945 to 1970, only six countries acquired nuclear weapons: United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France, China, and Israel. Since the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty came into effect in 1970, only three countries have joined the nuclear club: India, Pakistan, and North Korea. In total, only .05% of the world’s states have nuclear weapons in their possession. Supporters of non-proliferation seem to overlook the fact that there are states currently capable of making nuclear weapons and have chosen not to construct them, which illustrates the seriousness with which states consider their entrance into the nuclear club. Included on this list are such actors as: Japan, Argentina, Brazil, Egypt, Iran, South Korea, Taiwan, and South Africa. The attraction of nuclear weapons is multifold. Nuclear weapons enhance the international status of states that possess them and help insecure states feel more secure. States also seek nuclear capabilities for offensive purposes. It is important to point out that while nuclear weapons have spread very slowly, conventional weapons have proliferated exponentially across the globe. The wars of the 21st century are being fought in the peripheral regions of the globe that are undergoing conventional weapons proliferation. What the pundits of non-proliferation forget to mention are the many lessons that are learned from the nuclear world. Nuclear weapons provide stability just as they did during the Cold War era. The fear of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) loomed heavily on the minds of nuclear powers through out the Cold War and continues to be an important consideration for nuclear states today. States do not strike first unless they are assured of a military victory, and the probability of a military victory is diminished by fear that their actions would prompt a swift retaliation by other states. In other words, states with nuclear weapons are deterred by another state’s second-strike capabilities. During the Cold War, the United States and Soviet Union could not destroy enough of the other’s massive arsenal of nuclear weapons to make a retaliatory strike bearable. Even the prospect of a small number of nuclear weapons being placed in Cuba by the Soviets had a great deterrent effect on the United States. Nothing can be done with nuclear weapons other than to use them for deterrent purposes. If deterrence works reliably, as it has done over the past 60 plus years, then there is less to be feared from nuclear proliferation than there is from convention warfare.

<h4><strong>Proliferation is slow, doesn’t cascade, and doesn’t cause conflict – 60 years of empirics prove</h4><p><mark>DeGarmo 2011</p><p></strong></mark> Denise, professor of international relations at Southern Illinois University, “Proliferation Leads to Peace” ”< http://www.policymic.com/articles/1463/nuclear-proliferation-leads-to-peace>]</p><p>Unfortunately, while <u><strong><mark>the fear of proliferation is</mark> pervasive, it is <mark>unfounded</mark> <mark>and lacks an understanding of the evidence</mark>. <mark>Nuclear proliferation has been slow</u></strong></mark>. From 1945 to 1970, only six countries acquired nuclear weapons: United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France, China, and Israel. <u><strong><mark>Since the N</mark>uclear Non-<mark>P</mark>roliferation <mark>T</mark>reaty <mark>came into effect</mark> in 1970, <mark>only three countries have joined the nuclear club</mark>: India, Pakistan, and North Korea. In total, <mark>only .05% of the world’s states have nuclear weapons in their possession.</u></strong></mark> Supporters of non-proliferation seem to overlook the fact that there are states currently capable of making nuclear weapons and have chosen not to construct them, which illustrates the seriousness with which states consider their entrance into the nuclear club. Included on this list are such actors as: Japan, Argentina, Brazil, Egypt, Iran, South Korea, Taiwan, and South Africa. The attraction of nuclear weapons is multifold. Nuclear weapons enhance the international status of states that possess them and help insecure states feel more secure. States also seek nuclear capabilities for offensive purposes. It is important to point out that <u><strong>while nuclear weapons have spread very slowly, conventional weapons have proliferated exponentially across the globe. <mark>The wars of the 21st century are being fought in the peripheral regions of the globe that are undergoing conventional weapons proliferation</u></strong>.</mark> What the pundits of non-proliferation forget to mention are the many lessons that are learned from the nuclear world. Nuclear weapons provide stability just as they did during the Cold War era. The fear of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) loomed heavily on the minds of nuclear powers through out the Cold War and continues to be an important consideration for nuclear states today. States do not strike first unless they are assured of a military victory, and the probability of a military victory is diminished by fear that their actions would prompt a swift retaliation by other states. In other words, states with nuclear weapons are deterred by another state’s second-strike capabilities. During the Cold War, the United States and Soviet Union could not destroy enough of the other’s massive arsenal of nuclear weapons to make a retaliatory strike bearable. Even the prospect of a small number of nuclear weapons being placed in Cuba by the Soviets had a great deterrent effect on the United States. Nothing can be done with nuclear weapons other than to use them for deterrent purposes. <u><strong><mark>If deterrence works</mark> reliably, <mark>as it has</mark> done <mark>over the past 60 plus years, then there is less to be feared from nuclear proliferation than </mark>there is from <mark>convention warfare</u>.</p></strong></mark>

DeGarmo 2011

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: DeGarmo 2011 fulltext: Denise, professor of international relations at Southern Illinois University, “Proliferation Leads to Peace” ”< http://www.policymic.com/articles/1463/nuclear-proliferation-leads-to-peace>] Unfortunately, while the fear of proliferation is pervasive, it is unfounded and lacks an understanding of the evidence. Nuclear proliferation has been slow. From 1945 to 1970, only six countries acquired nuclear weapons: United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France, China, and Israel. Since the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty came into effect in 1970, only three countries have joined the nuclear club: India, Pakistan, and North Korea. In total, only .05% of the world’s states have nuclear weapons in their possession. Supporters of non-proliferation seem to overlook the fact that there are states currently capable of making nuclear weapons and have chosen not to construct them, which illustrates the seriousness with which states consider their entrance into the nuclear club. Included on this list are such actors as: Japan, Argentina, Brazil, Egypt, Iran, South Korea, Taiwan, and South Africa. The attraction of nuclear weapons is multifold. Nuclear weapons enhance the international status of states that possess them and help insecure states feel more secure. States also seek nuclear capabilities for offensive purposes. It is important to point out that while nuclear weapons have spread very slowly, conventional weapons have proliferated exponentially across the globe. The wars of the 21st century are being fought in the peripheral regions of the globe that are undergoing conventional weapons proliferation. What the pundits of non-proliferation forget to mention are the many lessons that are learned from the nuclear world. Nuclear weapons provide stability just as they did during the Cold War era. The fear of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) loomed heavily on the minds of nuclear powers through out the Cold War and continues to be an important consideration for nuclear states today. States do not strike first unless they are assured of a military victory, and the probability of a military victory is diminished by fear that their actions would prompt a swift retaliation by other states. In other words, states with nuclear weapons are deterred by another state’s second-strike capabilities. During the Cold War, the United States and Soviet Union could not destroy enough of the other’s massive arsenal of nuclear weapons to make a retaliatory strike bearable. Even the prospect of a small number of nuclear weapons being placed in Cuba by the Soviets had a great deterrent effect on the United States. Nothing can be done with nuclear weapons other than to use them for deterrent purposes. If deterrence works reliably, as it has done over the past 60 plus years, then there is less to be feared from nuclear proliferation than there is from convention warfare. [/INST] <h4><strong>Proliferation is slow, doesn’t cascade, and doesn’t cause conflict – 60 years of empirics prove</h4><p><mark>DeGarmo 2011</p><p></strong></mark> Denise, professor of international relations at Southern Illinois University, “Proliferation Leads to Peace” ”< http://www.policymic.com/articles/1463/nuclear-proliferation-leads-to-peace>]</p><p>Unfortunately, while <u><strong><mark>the fear of proliferation is</mark> pervasive, it is <mark>unfounded</mark> <mark>and lacks an understanding of the evidence</mark>. <mark>Nuclear proliferation has been slow</u></strong></mark>. From 1945 to 1970, only six countries acquired nuclear weapons: United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France, China, and Israel. <u><strong><mark>Since the N</mark>uclear Non-<mark>P</mark>roliferation <mark>T</mark>reaty <mark>came into effect</mark> in 1970, <mark>only three countries have joined the nuclear club</mark>: India, Pakistan, and North Korea. In total, <mark>only .05% of the world’s states have nuclear weapons in their possession.</u></strong></mark> Supporters of non-proliferation seem to overlook the fact that there are states currently capable of making nuclear weapons and have chosen not to construct them, which illustrates the seriousness with which states consider their entrance into the nuclear club. Included on this list are such actors as: Japan, Argentina, Brazil, Egypt, Iran, South Korea, Taiwan, and South Africa. The attraction of nuclear weapons is multifold. Nuclear weapons enhance the international status of states that possess them and help insecure states feel more secure. States also seek nuclear capabilities for offensive purposes. It is important to point out that <u><strong>while nuclear weapons have spread very slowly, conventional weapons have proliferated exponentially across the globe. <mark>The wars of the 21st century are being fought in the peripheral regions of the globe that are undergoing conventional weapons proliferation</u></strong>.</mark> What the pundits of non-proliferation forget to mention are the many lessons that are learned from the nuclear world. Nuclear weapons provide stability just as they did during the Cold War era. The fear of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) loomed heavily on the minds of nuclear powers through out the Cold War and continues to be an important consideration for nuclear states today. States do not strike first unless they are assured of a military victory, and the probability of a military victory is diminished by fear that their actions would prompt a swift retaliation by other states. In other words, states with nuclear weapons are deterred by another state’s second-strike capabilities. During the Cold War, the United States and Soviet Union could not destroy enough of the other’s massive arsenal of nuclear weapons to make a retaliatory strike bearable. Even the prospect of a small number of nuclear weapons being placed in Cuba by the Soviets had a great deterrent effect on the United States. Nothing can be done with nuclear weapons other than to use them for deterrent purposes. <u><strong><mark>If deterrence works</mark> reliably, <mark>as it has</mark> done <mark>over the past 60 plus years, then there is less to be feared from nuclear proliferation than </mark>there is from <mark>convention warfare</u>.</p></strong></mark> </s>

NOT UNIQUE - Cuban health care is struggling – the economy and the embargo

Until recently, Cubans were justifiably proud of their health-care system. But Cuba’s crumbling economy has put this system under stress. Pharmacies are generally ill-stocked. In many hospitals patients must provide their own sheets, food and dressings. Neglect of infrastructure means that almost 10% of the population lacks access to clean drinking water. The American embargo against the island does not help: equipment for radiology, mammograms and cancer therapy is hard to replace If the health service is to thrive again, economic surgery will need to speed up.

Until recently, Cubans were justifiably proud of their health-care system. Life-expectancy matches that of Americans, who are eight times richer. Infant mortality ties with Canada’s as the lowest in the Americas. Measles jabs have been near-universal for more than 20 years, putting Cuba ahead of many rich countries. But Cuba’s crumbling economy has put this system under stress. Though the state still trains armies of doctors, a third of these are deployed overseas in “soft-power” missions. Pharmacies are generally ill-stocked. In many hospitals patients must provide their own sheets, food and dressings. Neglect of infrastructure means that almost 10% of the population lacks access to clean drinking water. The American embargo against the island does not help: equipment for radiology, mammograms and cancer therapy is hard to replace, says Julia Sweig of the Council on Foreign Relations, an American think-tank. Raúl Castro, the president, who this month visited China and Vietnam, is trying to revive the economy by cautiously transferring chunks of it into private hands. The next step, reported this week, will be to let transport and other service workers form co-operatives, currently restricted to farming. If the health service is to thrive again, this sort of economic surgery will need to speed up.

<h4>NOT UNIQUE - Cuban health care is struggling – the economy and the embargo </h4><p><strong>The Economist</strong> 7/14/<strong>2012</strong> “Cuban Health Care: Under Investigation” http://www.economist.com/node/21558613</p><p><u><strong>Until recently, Cubans were justifiably proud of their health-care system.</u></strong> Life-expectancy matches that of Americans, who are eight times richer. Infant mortality ties with Canada’s as the lowest in the Americas. Measles jabs have been near-universal for more than 20 years, putting Cuba ahead of many rich countries.</p><p><u><strong>But Cuba’s crumbling economy has put this system under stress.</u></strong> Though the state still trains armies of doctors, a third of these are deployed overseas in “soft-power” missions. <u><strong>Pharmacies are generally ill-stocked. In many hospitals patients must provide their own sheets, food and dressings. Neglect of infrastructure means that almost 10% of the population lacks access to clean drinking water.</u></strong> <u><strong>The American embargo against the island does not help: equipment for radiology, mammograms and cancer therapy is hard to replace</u></strong>, says Julia Sweig of the Council on Foreign Relations, an American think-tank.</p><p>Raúl Castro, the president, who this month visited China and Vietnam, is trying to revive the economy by cautiously transferring chunks of it into private hands. The next step, reported this week, will be to let transport and other service workers form co-operatives, currently restricted to farming. <u><strong>If the health service is to thrive again,</u></strong> this sort of <u><strong>economic surgery will need to speed up.</p></u></strong>

The Economist 7/14/2012 “Cuban Health Care: Under Investigation” http://www.economist.com/node/21558613

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: The Economist 7/14/2012 “Cuban Health Care: Under Investigation” http://www.economist.com/node/21558613 fulltext: Until recently, Cubans were justifiably proud of their health-care system. Life-expectancy matches that of Americans, who are eight times richer. Infant mortality ties with Canada’s as the lowest in the Americas. Measles jabs have been near-universal for more than 20 years, putting Cuba ahead of many rich countries. But Cuba’s crumbling economy has put this system under stress. Though the state still trains armies of doctors, a third of these are deployed overseas in “soft-power” missions. Pharmacies are generally ill-stocked. In many hospitals patients must provide their own sheets, food and dressings. Neglect of infrastructure means that almost 10% of the population lacks access to clean drinking water. The American embargo against the island does not help: equipment for radiology, mammograms and cancer therapy is hard to replace, says Julia Sweig of the Council on Foreign Relations, an American think-tank. Raúl Castro, the president, who this month visited China and Vietnam, is trying to revive the economy by cautiously transferring chunks of it into private hands. The next step, reported this week, will be to let transport and other service workers form co-operatives, currently restricted to farming. If the health service is to thrive again, this sort of economic surgery will need to speed up. [/INST] <h4>NOT UNIQUE - Cuban health care is struggling – the economy and the embargo </h4><p><strong>The Economist</strong> 7/14/<strong>2012</strong> “Cuban Health Care: Under Investigation” http://www.economist.com/node/21558613</p><p><u><strong>Until recently, Cubans were justifiably proud of their health-care system.</u></strong> Life-expectancy matches that of Americans, who are eight times richer. Infant mortality ties with Canada’s as the lowest in the Americas. Measles jabs have been near-universal for more than 20 years, putting Cuba ahead of many rich countries.</p><p><u><strong>But Cuba’s crumbling economy has put this system under stress.</u></strong> Though the state still trains armies of doctors, a third of these are deployed overseas in “soft-power” missions. <u><strong>Pharmacies are generally ill-stocked. In many hospitals patients must provide their own sheets, food and dressings. Neglect of infrastructure means that almost 10% of the population lacks access to clean drinking water.</u></strong> <u><strong>The American embargo against the island does not help: equipment for radiology, mammograms and cancer therapy is hard to replace</u></strong>, says Julia Sweig of the Council on Foreign Relations, an American think-tank.</p><p>Raúl Castro, the president, who this month visited China and Vietnam, is trying to revive the economy by cautiously transferring chunks of it into private hands. The next step, reported this week, will be to let transport and other service workers form co-operatives, currently restricted to farming. <u><strong>If the health service is to thrive again,</u></strong> this sort of <u><strong>economic surgery will need to speed up.</p></u></strong> </s>

2. Alt Causes:

<h4><strong>2. Alt Causes: </h4></strong>

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: None fulltext: None [/INST] <h4><strong>2. Alt Causes: </h4></strong> </s>

AND, your evidence is written in the abstract about trilateral cooperation- it doesn’t speak to the US increasing relations with Cuba specifically or its effects on China’s willingness to cooperate with the US- 1NC ev indicates that China will perceive US relations with China as infringing on their sphere of influence, making them refuse to cooperate- takes out the internal link

<h4>AND, your evidence is written in the abstract about trilateral cooperation- it doesn’t speak to the US increasing relations with Cuba specifically or its effects on China’s willingness to cooperate with the US- 1NC ev indicates that China will perceive US relations with China as infringing on their sphere of influence, making them refuse to cooperate- takes out the internal link</h4>

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: None fulltext: None [/INST] <h4>AND, your evidence is written in the abstract about trilateral cooperation- it doesn’t speak to the US increasing relations with Cuba specifically or its effects on China’s willingness to cooperate with the US- 1NC ev indicates that China will perceive US relations with China as infringing on their sphere of influence, making them refuse to cooperate- takes out the internal link</h4> </s>

NOT UNIQUE - Health care declining – supplies & staff

health services are becoming harder to access and getting worse Although infant mortality has continued to fall, maternal mortality has risen. Many drugs are in short supply. Hospital patients have to bring their own sheets. the main reason for the shortage of medical staff is low salaries.

And now health services and education are becoming harder to access and getting worse. Secondary-school enrolment is below its 1989 peak. There is a surfeit of humanities graduates and a shortage of agronomists and engineers. Although infant mortality has continued to fall, maternal mortality has risen. Many drugs are in short supply. Hospital patients sometimes have to bring their own sheets. There are reports of doctors starting to demand payment. On a weekday morning in a village in the inappropriately named municipality of La Salud ("health"), south of the capital, this correspondent came across an elderly woman who had hurt her arm and was whimpering with pain, having found no doctors in attendance at two health clinics. In 2010, 37,000 Cuban doctors and other health workers were working in 77 countries around the world, mostly in Venezuela but also in Africa, the Caribbean and Central America. The Cuban government also offers scholarships to 20,000 Latin Americans to study medicine--all part of its obsessive search for international prestige. But the main reason for the shortage of medical staff is low salaries. A woman who gave her name as Grisel says she worked as a family doctor for just $23 a month, but now earns $40 a month in an improvised craft shop in Havana. She has two small children. A pair of children's shoes costs $13. As a doctor "I faced a choice of buying shoes or eating."

<h4>NOT UNIQUE - Health care declining – supplies & staff </h4><p><strong>The Economist</strong> 3/24/<strong>2012</strong> “The deal's off; Inequality” page proquest </p><p>And now <u><strong>health services</u></strong> and education <u><strong>are becoming harder to access and getting worse</u></strong>. Secondary-school enrolment is below its 1989 peak. There is a surfeit of humanities graduates and a shortage of agronomists and engineers. <u><strong>Although infant mortality has continued to fall, maternal mortality has risen. Many drugs are in short supply. Hospital patients</u></strong> sometimes <u><strong>have to bring their own sheets.</u></strong> There are reports of doctors starting to demand payment. On a weekday morning in a village in the inappropriately named municipality of La Salud ("health"), south of the capital, this correspondent came across an elderly woman who had hurt her arm and was whimpering with pain, having found no doctors in attendance at two health clinics.</p><p>In 2010, 37,000 Cuban doctors and other health workers were working in 77 countries around the world, mostly in Venezuela but also in Africa, the Caribbean and Central America. The Cuban government also offers scholarships to 20,000 Latin Americans to study medicine--all part of its obsessive search for international prestige. But <u><strong>the main reason for the shortage of medical staff is low salaries.</u></strong> A woman who gave her name as Grisel says she worked as a family doctor for just $23 a month, but now earns $40 a month in an improvised craft shop in Havana. She has two small children. A pair of children's shoes costs $13. As a doctor "I faced a choice of buying shoes or eating."</p>

The Economist 3/24/2012 “The deal's off; Inequality” page proquest

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: The Economist 3/24/2012 “The deal's off; Inequality” page proquest fulltext: And now health services and education are becoming harder to access and getting worse. Secondary-school enrolment is below its 1989 peak. There is a surfeit of humanities graduates and a shortage of agronomists and engineers. Although infant mortality has continued to fall, maternal mortality has risen. Many drugs are in short supply. Hospital patients sometimes have to bring their own sheets. There are reports of doctors starting to demand payment. On a weekday morning in a village in the inappropriately named municipality of La Salud ("health"), south of the capital, this correspondent came across an elderly woman who had hurt her arm and was whimpering with pain, having found no doctors in attendance at two health clinics. In 2010, 37,000 Cuban doctors and other health workers were working in 77 countries around the world, mostly in Venezuela but also in Africa, the Caribbean and Central America. The Cuban government also offers scholarships to 20,000 Latin Americans to study medicine--all part of its obsessive search for international prestige. But the main reason for the shortage of medical staff is low salaries. A woman who gave her name as Grisel says she worked as a family doctor for just $23 a month, but now earns $40 a month in an improvised craft shop in Havana. She has two small children. A pair of children's shoes costs $13. As a doctor "I faced a choice of buying shoes or eating." [/INST] <h4>NOT UNIQUE - Health care declining – supplies & staff </h4><p><strong>The Economist</strong> 3/24/<strong>2012</strong> “The deal's off; Inequality” page proquest </p><p>And now <u><strong>health services</u></strong> and education <u><strong>are becoming harder to access and getting worse</u></strong>. Secondary-school enrolment is below its 1989 peak. There is a surfeit of humanities graduates and a shortage of agronomists and engineers. <u><strong>Although infant mortality has continued to fall, maternal mortality has risen. Many drugs are in short supply. Hospital patients</u></strong> sometimes <u><strong>have to bring their own sheets.</u></strong> There are reports of doctors starting to demand payment. On a weekday morning in a village in the inappropriately named municipality of La Salud ("health"), south of the capital, this correspondent came across an elderly woman who had hurt her arm and was whimpering with pain, having found no doctors in attendance at two health clinics.</p><p>In 2010, 37,000 Cuban doctors and other health workers were working in 77 countries around the world, mostly in Venezuela but also in Africa, the Caribbean and Central America. The Cuban government also offers scholarships to 20,000 Latin Americans to study medicine--all part of its obsessive search for international prestige. But <u><strong>the main reason for the shortage of medical staff is low salaries.</u></strong> A woman who gave her name as Grisel says she worked as a family doctor for just $23 a month, but now earns $40 a month in an improvised craft shop in Havana. She has two small children. A pair of children's shoes costs $13. As a doctor "I faced a choice of buying shoes or eating."</p> </s>

A) US conventional forces

even in the absence of overwhelming superiority in nuclear weapons, the great predominance of U.S. conventional forces would remain a strong motive for aspiring states to seek nuclear weapons.

even in the absence of nuclear weapons great predominance of U.S. conventional forces would remain a strong motive

So long as serious political differences exist between nations and peoples, and given that the possibility of nuclear weapons exists, the U.S. should have nuclear weapons to deter potential opponents and to avoid intimidation by other states seeking a capability of weapons of mass destruction. In any case, even in the absence of overwhelming superiority in nuclear weapons, the great predominance of U.S. conventional forces would remain a strong motive for aspiring states to seek nuclear weapons.

<h4><strong>A) US conventional forces</h4><p>Brown and Deutch 7</strong> (Harold Brown, senior counselor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, was secretary of defense in the Carter administration. John. Deutch is Institute professor of chemistry at MIT, and was director of Central Intelligence in the first Clinton administration. 11/19/7. <u><strong>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119542524645797257.html</p><p></u></strong>So long as serious political differences exist between nations and peoples, and given that the possibility of nuclear weapons exists, the U.S. should have nuclear weapons to deter potential opponents and to avoid intimidation by other states seeking a capability of weapons of mass destruction. In any case, <u><strong><mark>even in the absence of</mark> overwhelming superiority in <mark>nuclear weapons</mark>, the <mark>great predominance of U.S. conventional forces would remain a strong motive</mark> for aspiring states to seek nuclear weapons.</p></u></strong>

Brown and Deutch 7 (Harold Brown, senior counselor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, was secretary of defense in the Carter administration. John. Deutch is Institute professor of chemistry at MIT, and was director of Central Intelligence in the first Clinton administration. 11/19/7. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119542524645797257.html

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Brown and Deutch 7 (Harold Brown, senior counselor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, was secretary of defense in the Carter administration. John. Deutch is Institute professor of chemistry at MIT, and was director of Central Intelligence in the first Clinton administration. 11/19/7. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119542524645797257.html fulltext: So long as serious political differences exist between nations and peoples, and given that the possibility of nuclear weapons exists, the U.S. should have nuclear weapons to deter potential opponents and to avoid intimidation by other states seeking a capability of weapons of mass destruction. In any case, even in the absence of overwhelming superiority in nuclear weapons, the great predominance of U.S. conventional forces would remain a strong motive for aspiring states to seek nuclear weapons. [/INST] <h4><strong>A) US conventional forces</h4><p>Brown and Deutch 7</strong> (Harold Brown, senior counselor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, was secretary of defense in the Carter administration. John. Deutch is Institute professor of chemistry at MIT, and was director of Central Intelligence in the first Clinton administration. 11/19/7. <u><strong>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119542524645797257.html</p><p></u></strong>So long as serious political differences exist between nations and peoples, and given that the possibility of nuclear weapons exists, the U.S. should have nuclear weapons to deter potential opponents and to avoid intimidation by other states seeking a capability of weapons of mass destruction. In any case, <u><strong><mark>even in the absence of</mark> overwhelming superiority in <mark>nuclear weapons</mark>, the <mark>great predominance of U.S. conventional forces would remain a strong motive</mark> for aspiring states to seek nuclear weapons.</p></u></strong> </s>

No impact to Warming- Mitigation and adaptation will solve

These statements are alarmist and misleading society’s immediate behavior has an extremely low probability of leading to catastrophic consequences science and economics is quite clear that emissions over the next few decades will lead to only mild consequences severe impacts require a century (or two of no mitigation predicted impacts assume there will be no or little adaptation the more severe impacts will take more than a century or even a millennium to unfold and many of these potential” impacts will never occur because people will adapt. It is not at all apparent that immediate and dramatic policies need to be developed to thwart long‐range climate risks

These statements are alarmist and misleading science and economics is quite clear that emissions will lead to mild consequences severe impacts require a century (or two the more severe impacts will take more than a millennium to unfold and these ” impacts will never occur because people will adapt. It is not apparent that immediate policies need to be developed to thwart long‐range climate risks

These statements are largely alarmist and misleading. Although climate change is a serious problem that deserves attention, society’s immediate behavior has an extremely low probability of leading to catastrophic consequences. The science and economics of climate change is quite clear that emissions over the next few decades will lead to only mild consequences. The severe impacts predicted by alarmists require a century (or two in the case of Stern 2006) of no mitigation. Many of the predicted impacts assume there will be no or little adaptation. The net economic impacts from climate change over the next 50 years will be small regardless. Most of the more severe impacts will take more than a century or even a millennium to unfold and many of these “potential” impacts will never occur because people will adapt. It is not at all apparent that immediate and dramatic policies need to be developed to thwart long‐range climate risks. What is needed are long‐run balanced responses.

<h4>No impact to Warming- Mitigation and adaptation will solve </h4><p>Robert O. <strong>Mendelsohn 9</strong>, the Edwin Weyerhaeuser Davis Professor, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University, June 2009, “Climate Change and Economic Growth,” online: http://www.growthcommission.org/storage/cgdev/documents/gcwp060web.pdf</p><p><u><strong><mark>These statements are</u></strong></mark> largely <u><strong><mark>alarmist and misleading</u></strong></mark>. Although climate change is a serious problem that deserves attention, <u><strong>society’s immediate behavior has an</strong> <strong>extremely low probability</strong> <strong>of leading to</strong> <strong>catastrophic consequences</u></strong>. The <u><strong><mark>science and economics</u></strong></mark> of climate change <u><strong><mark>is quite clear that emissions</mark> over the next few decades <mark>will lead to</mark> only</u></strong> <u><strong><mark>mild consequences</u></strong></mark>. The <u><strong><mark>severe impacts</u></strong></mark> predicted by alarmists <u><strong><mark>require a century (or two</u></strong></mark> in the case of Stern 2006) <u><strong>of no mitigation</u></strong>. Many of the <u><strong>predicted impacts assume there will be no or little adaptation</u></strong>. The net economic impacts from climate change over the next 50 years will be small regardless. Most of <u><strong><mark>the more severe impacts will take more than</mark> a century or even <mark>a millennium to unfold and</mark> many of<mark> these</u></strong></mark> “<u><strong>potential<mark>” impacts</u></strong> <u><strong>will never occur because people will adapt.</u></strong></mark> <u><strong><mark>It is not</mark> at all <mark>apparent that immediate</mark> and dramatic <mark>policies need to be developed to thwart long‐range climate risks</u></strong></mark>. What is needed are long‐run balanced responses.</p>

Robert O. Mendelsohn 9, the Edwin Weyerhaeuser Davis Professor, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University, June 2009, “Climate Change and Economic Growth,” online: http://www.growthcommission.org/storage/cgdev/documents/gcwp060web.pdf

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Robert O. Mendelsohn 9, the Edwin Weyerhaeuser Davis Professor, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University, June 2009, “Climate Change and Economic Growth,” online: http://www.growthcommission.org/storage/cgdev/documents/gcwp060web.pdf fulltext: These statements are largely alarmist and misleading. Although climate change is a serious problem that deserves attention, society’s immediate behavior has an extremely low probability of leading to catastrophic consequences. The science and economics of climate change is quite clear that emissions over the next few decades will lead to only mild consequences. The severe impacts predicted by alarmists require a century (or two in the case of Stern 2006) of no mitigation. Many of the predicted impacts assume there will be no or little adaptation. The net economic impacts from climate change over the next 50 years will be small regardless. Most of the more severe impacts will take more than a century or even a millennium to unfold and many of these “potential” impacts will never occur because people will adapt. It is not at all apparent that immediate and dramatic policies need to be developed to thwart long‐range climate risks. What is needed are long‐run balanced responses. [/INST] <h4>No impact to Warming- Mitigation and adaptation will solve </h4><p>Robert O. <strong>Mendelsohn 9</strong>, the Edwin Weyerhaeuser Davis Professor, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University, June 2009, “Climate Change and Economic Growth,” online: http://www.growthcommission.org/storage/cgdev/documents/gcwp060web.pdf</p><p><u><strong><mark>These statements are</u></strong></mark> largely <u><strong><mark>alarmist and misleading</u></strong></mark>. Although climate change is a serious problem that deserves attention, <u><strong>society’s immediate behavior has an</strong> <strong>extremely low probability</strong> <strong>of leading to</strong> <strong>catastrophic consequences</u></strong>. The <u><strong><mark>science and economics</u></strong></mark> of climate change <u><strong><mark>is quite clear that emissions</mark> over the next few decades <mark>will lead to</mark> only</u></strong> <u><strong><mark>mild consequences</u></strong></mark>. The <u><strong><mark>severe impacts</u></strong></mark> predicted by alarmists <u><strong><mark>require a century (or two</u></strong></mark> in the case of Stern 2006) <u><strong>of no mitigation</u></strong>. Many of the <u><strong>predicted impacts assume there will be no or little adaptation</u></strong>. The net economic impacts from climate change over the next 50 years will be small regardless. Most of <u><strong><mark>the more severe impacts will take more than</mark> a century or even <mark>a millennium to unfold and</mark> many of<mark> these</u></strong></mark> “<u><strong>potential<mark>” impacts</u></strong> <u><strong>will never occur because people will adapt.</u></strong></mark> <u><strong><mark>It is not</mark> at all <mark>apparent that immediate</mark> and dramatic <mark>policies need to be developed to thwart long‐range climate risks</u></strong></mark>. What is needed are long‐run balanced responses.</p> </s>

LINK TURN - Embargo restricts Cuba from access to necessary medicines and tech

Cuban hospitals suffer restrictions in acquiring imported medical consumables and medicine, advanced medical technology and latest scientific information, The public Institute of Cardiology and Cardiovascular Surgery, where thousands of people receive free medical care is financially strained by the embargo. "We must find alternatives which means higher prices for these products," said Director of the institute Dr. Llerena. some equipments were simply unattainable, "because they are manufactured in the U S The embargo has caused Cuba a loss of more than 200 million dollars in the medical sector alone "due to the U.S. embargo, we do not have the raw materials and tools to solve problems

Cuban hospitals suffer restrictions in acquiring imported medical consumables and medicine, advanced medical technology and latest scientific information, officials said. The public Institute of Cardiology and Cardiovascular Surgery, where thousands of people receive free medical care every year from international specialists, is financially strained by the embargo. "We must find alternatives that sometimes include purchasing from distant markets, buying from third parties, which means higher prices for these products," said Director of the institute Dr. Lorenzo Llerena. He added some equipments were simply unattainable, "because they are manufactured in the United States." The embargo has caused Cuba a loss of more than 200 million dollars in the medical sector alone by 2011, representing a significant impact on the tiny Caribbean nation, according to official figures. John Rhodes, a patient, told Xinhua that Cuba had made a great effort for the benefit of all its citizens. "It provides us free medicine across the country, which is highly expensive around the world," he said, adding "due to the U.S. embargo, sometimes we do not have all the raw materials and tools to solve certain problems immediately."

<h4>LINK TURN - Embargo restricts Cuba from access to necessary medicines and tech </h4><p><strong>Xinhua News</strong> 11/28/<strong>2012</strong> “Cuban healthcare weakended by U.S. embargo” http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/health/2012-11/28/c_132004531.htm</p><p>HAVANA, Nov. 27 (Xinhua) -- <u><strong>Cuban medical authorities said</u></strong> on Tuesday <u><strong>a 50-year trade embargo imposed by the U</u></strong>nited <u><strong>S</u></strong>tates <u><strong>has severely undermined the country's healthcare system.</p><p>Cuban hospitals suffer restrictions in acquiring imported medical consumables and medicine, advanced medical technology and latest scientific information,</u></strong> officials said.</p><p><u><strong>The public Institute of Cardiology and Cardiovascular Surgery, where thousands of people receive free medical care</u></strong> every year from international specialists, <u><strong>is financially strained by the embargo.</p><p>"We must find alternatives</u></strong> that sometimes include purchasing from distant markets, buying from third parties, <u><strong>which means higher prices for these products," said Director of the institute Dr.</u></strong> Lorenzo <u><strong>Llerena.</p><p></u></strong>He added <u><strong>some equipments were simply unattainable, "because they are manufactured in the U</u></strong>nited <u><strong>S</u></strong>tates."</p><p><u><strong>The embargo has caused Cuba a loss of more than 200 million dollars in the medical sector alone</u></strong> by 2011, representing a significant impact on the tiny Caribbean nation, according to official figures.</p><p>John Rhodes, a patient, told Xinhua that Cuba had made a great effort for the benefit of all its citizens.</p><p>"It provides us free medicine across the country, which is highly expensive around the world," he said, adding <u><strong>"due to the U.S. embargo,</u></strong> sometimes <u><strong>we do not have</u></strong> all <u><strong>the raw materials and tools to solve</u></strong> certain <u><strong>problems</u></strong> immediately."</p>

Xinhua News 11/28/2012 “Cuban healthcare weakended by U.S. embargo” http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/health/2012-11/28/c_132004531.htm HAVANA, Nov. 27 (Xinhua) -- Cuban medical authorities said on Tuesday a 50-year trade embargo imposed by the United States has severely undermined the country's healthcare system.

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Xinhua News 11/28/2012 “Cuban healthcare weakended by U.S. embargo” http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/health/2012-11/28/c_132004531.htm HAVANA, Nov. 27 (Xinhua) -- Cuban medical authorities said on Tuesday a 50-year trade embargo imposed by the United States has severely undermined the country's healthcare system. fulltext: Cuban hospitals suffer restrictions in acquiring imported medical consumables and medicine, advanced medical technology and latest scientific information, officials said. The public Institute of Cardiology and Cardiovascular Surgery, where thousands of people receive free medical care every year from international specialists, is financially strained by the embargo. "We must find alternatives that sometimes include purchasing from distant markets, buying from third parties, which means higher prices for these products," said Director of the institute Dr. Lorenzo Llerena. He added some equipments were simply unattainable, "because they are manufactured in the United States." The embargo has caused Cuba a loss of more than 200 million dollars in the medical sector alone by 2011, representing a significant impact on the tiny Caribbean nation, according to official figures. John Rhodes, a patient, told Xinhua that Cuba had made a great effort for the benefit of all its citizens. "It provides us free medicine across the country, which is highly expensive around the world," he said, adding "due to the U.S. embargo, sometimes we do not have all the raw materials and tools to solve certain problems immediately." [/INST] <h4>LINK TURN - Embargo restricts Cuba from access to necessary medicines and tech </h4><p><strong>Xinhua News</strong> 11/28/<strong>2012</strong> “Cuban healthcare weakended by U.S. embargo” http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/health/2012-11/28/c_132004531.htm</p><p>HAVANA, Nov. 27 (Xinhua) -- <u><strong>Cuban medical authorities said</u></strong> on Tuesday <u><strong>a 50-year trade embargo imposed by the U</u></strong>nited <u><strong>S</u></strong>tates <u><strong>has severely undermined the country's healthcare system.</p><p>Cuban hospitals suffer restrictions in acquiring imported medical consumables and medicine, advanced medical technology and latest scientific information,</u></strong> officials said.</p><p><u><strong>The public Institute of Cardiology and Cardiovascular Surgery, where thousands of people receive free medical care</u></strong> every year from international specialists, <u><strong>is financially strained by the embargo.</p><p>"We must find alternatives</u></strong> that sometimes include purchasing from distant markets, buying from third parties, <u><strong>which means higher prices for these products," said Director of the institute Dr.</u></strong> Lorenzo <u><strong>Llerena.</p><p></u></strong>He added <u><strong>some equipments were simply unattainable, "because they are manufactured in the U</u></strong>nited <u><strong>S</u></strong>tates."</p><p><u><strong>The embargo has caused Cuba a loss of more than 200 million dollars in the medical sector alone</u></strong> by 2011, representing a significant impact on the tiny Caribbean nation, according to official figures.</p><p>John Rhodes, a patient, told Xinhua that Cuba had made a great effort for the benefit of all its citizens.</p><p>"It provides us free medicine across the country, which is highly expensive around the world," he said, adding <u><strong>"due to the U.S. embargo,</u></strong> sometimes <u><strong>we do not have</u></strong> all <u><strong>the raw materials and tools to solve</u></strong> certain <u><strong>problems</u></strong> immediately."</p> </s>

B) Can’t unlearn the nuke

One cannot make the scientific knowledge and technological know-how that make nuclear weapons possible disappear. Proliferating states, even if they abandoned these devices , would still be able to clandestinely retain a few of their existing weapons -- or maintain a break-out capability to acquire a few weapons quickly, if

One cannot make the scientific knowledge disappear Proliferating states would still be able to clandestinely retain weapons

One cannot, for example, make the scientific knowledge and technological know-how that make nuclear weapons possible disappear. Proliferating states, even if they abandoned these devices under resolute international pressure, would still be able to clandestinely retain a few of their existing weapons -- or maintain a standby, break-out capability to acquire a few weapons quickly, if needed.

<h4><strong>B) Can’t unlearn the nuke</h4><p>Brown and Deutch 7</strong> (Harold Brown, senior counselor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, was secretary of defense in the Carter administration. John. Deutch is Institute professor of chemistry at MIT, and was director of Central Intelligence in the first Clinton administration. 11/19/7. <u>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119542524645797257.html</p><p><strong><mark>One cannot</u></strong></mark>, for example, <u><strong><mark>make the scientific knowledge</mark> and technological know-how that make nuclear weapons possible <mark>disappear</mark>. <mark>Proliferating states</mark>, even if they abandoned these devices</u></strong> under resolute international pressure<u><strong>, <mark>would still be able to clandestinely retain</mark> a few of their existing <mark>weapons</mark> -- or maintain a</u></strong> standby, <u><strong>break-out capability to acquire a few weapons quickly, if</u> needed.</p></strong>

Brown and Deutch 7 (Harold Brown, senior counselor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, was secretary of defense in the Carter administration. John. Deutch is Institute professor of chemistry at MIT, and was director of Central Intelligence in the first Clinton administration. 11/19/7. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119542524645797257.html

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Brown and Deutch 7 (Harold Brown, senior counselor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, was secretary of defense in the Carter administration. John. Deutch is Institute professor of chemistry at MIT, and was director of Central Intelligence in the first Clinton administration. 11/19/7. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119542524645797257.html fulltext: One cannot, for example, make the scientific knowledge and technological know-how that make nuclear weapons possible disappear. Proliferating states, even if they abandoned these devices under resolute international pressure, would still be able to clandestinely retain a few of their existing weapons -- or maintain a standby, break-out capability to acquire a few weapons quickly, if needed. [/INST] <h4><strong>B) Can’t unlearn the nuke</h4><p>Brown and Deutch 7</strong> (Harold Brown, senior counselor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, was secretary of defense in the Carter administration. John. Deutch is Institute professor of chemistry at MIT, and was director of Central Intelligence in the first Clinton administration. 11/19/7. <u>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119542524645797257.html</p><p><strong><mark>One cannot</u></strong></mark>, for example, <u><strong><mark>make the scientific knowledge</mark> and technological know-how that make nuclear weapons possible <mark>disappear</mark>. <mark>Proliferating states</mark>, even if they abandoned these devices</u></strong> under resolute international pressure<u><strong>, <mark>would still be able to clandestinely retain</mark> a few of their existing <mark>weapons</mark> -- or maintain a</u></strong> standby, <u><strong>break-out capability to acquire a few weapons quickly, if</u> needed.</p></strong> </s>

Non-unique- Chinese influence in Cuba down now- Cuban resentment

it could be difficult sledding for China in Cuba. There is still resentment that China did little to help the island nation after the collapse of the Soviet Union the reduction of support from The Kremlin. there is competition among Latin American nations to play China off against Taiwan as each vie for greater influence: Cuba is guilty of this

(Jonathan, The Motley Fool, “ The Castros of Cuba are the Kardashians of the Caribbean,” July 21, 2012, http://beta.fool.com/jonathanyates13/2012/07/21/castros-cuba-are-kardashians-caribbean/7303/?ticker=KO) /wyo-mm Last year, China National Petroleum Corp signed a $4.5 billion agreement with Cuba to upgrade the Cienfuegos refinery. But it could be difficult sledding for China in Cuba. There is still resentment that China did little to help the island nation after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the reduction of support from The Kremlin. In addition, there is competition among Latin American nations to play China off against Taiwan as each vie for greater influence: Cuba is guilty of this, too.

<h4><strong>Non-unique- Chinese influence in Cuba down now- Cuban resentment</h4><p>Yates 12</p><p></strong>(Jonathan, The Motley Fool, “ The Castros of Cuba are the Kardashians of the Caribbean,” July 21, 2012, http://beta.fool.com/jonathanyates13/2012/07/21/castros-cuba-are-kardashians-caribbean/7303/?ticker=KO) /wyo-mm</p><p>Last year, China National Petroleum Corp signed a $4.5 billion agreement with Cuba to upgrade the Cienfuegos refinery. But <u><strong>it could be difficult sledding for China in Cuba. There is still resentment that China did little to help the island nation after the collapse of the Soviet Union</u></strong> in 1991 and <u><strong>the reduction of support from The Kremlin.</u></strong> In addition, <u><strong>there is competition among Latin American nations to play China off against Taiwan as each vie for greater influence: Cuba is guilty of this</u></strong>, too.</p>

Yates 12

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Yates 12 fulltext: (Jonathan, The Motley Fool, “ The Castros of Cuba are the Kardashians of the Caribbean,” July 21, 2012, http://beta.fool.com/jonathanyates13/2012/07/21/castros-cuba-are-kardashians-caribbean/7303/?ticker=KO) /wyo-mm Last year, China National Petroleum Corp signed a $4.5 billion agreement with Cuba to upgrade the Cienfuegos refinery. But it could be difficult sledding for China in Cuba. There is still resentment that China did little to help the island nation after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the reduction of support from The Kremlin. In addition, there is competition among Latin American nations to play China off against Taiwan as each vie for greater influence: Cuba is guilty of this, too. [/INST] <h4><strong>Non-unique- Chinese influence in Cuba down now- Cuban resentment</h4><p>Yates 12</p><p></strong>(Jonathan, The Motley Fool, “ The Castros of Cuba are the Kardashians of the Caribbean,” July 21, 2012, http://beta.fool.com/jonathanyates13/2012/07/21/castros-cuba-are-kardashians-caribbean/7303/?ticker=KO) /wyo-mm</p><p>Last year, China National Petroleum Corp signed a $4.5 billion agreement with Cuba to upgrade the Cienfuegos refinery. But <u><strong>it could be difficult sledding for China in Cuba. There is still resentment that China did little to help the island nation after the collapse of the Soviet Union</u></strong> in 1991 and <u><strong>the reduction of support from The Kremlin.</u></strong> In addition, <u><strong>there is competition among Latin American nations to play China off against Taiwan as each vie for greater influence: Cuba is guilty of this</u></strong>, too.</p> </s>

LINK TURN - Embargo devastates health care system – supplies & lack of information exchange

The negative impact of the US embargo on the Cuban health care system has been documented in a report by the American Association for World Health the AAWH identified that the embargo contributed particularly to malnutrition lack of access to medicines and medical supplies, and limited the exchange of medical and scientific information due to travel restrictions and currency regulations. the U.S. embargo of food and the de facto embargo on medical supplies has wreaked havoc with the island's model primary health care system.”

The negative impact of the US embargo on the Cuban health care system and on the right to health of Cubans during the 1990s has been documented in a 1997 report by the American Association for World Health (AAWH).45 The 300-page document is still the most comprehensive study on the issue. Based on a fact-finding mission to Cuba, the AAWH identified that the embargo contributed particularly to malnutrition affecting especially women and children, poor water quality, lack of access to medicines and medical supplies, and limited the exchange of medical and scientific information due to travel restrictions and currency regulations. The AAWH found that “a humanitarian catastrophe has been averted only because the Cuban government has maintained a high level of budgetary support for a health care system designed to deliver primary and preventive health care to all of its citizens… Even so, the U.S. embargo of food and the de facto embargo on medical supplies has wreaked havoc with the island's model primary health care system.”46

<h4>LINK TURN - Embargo devastates health care system – supplies & lack of information exchange</h4><p><strong>Amnesty International 2009</strong> “ The US Embargo Against Cuba: Its Impact on Economic and Social Rights” http://www.amnestyusa.org/pdfs/amr250072009eng.pdf</p><p><u><strong>The negative impact of the US embargo on the Cuban health care system</u></strong> and on the right to health of Cubans during the 1990s <u><strong>has been documented in a</u></strong> 1997 <u><strong>report by the American Association for World Health</u></strong> (AAWH).45 The 300-page document is still the most comprehensive study on the issue. Based on a fact-finding mission to Cuba, <u><strong>the AAWH identified that the embargo contributed particularly to malnutrition</u></strong> affecting especially women and children, poor water quality, <u><strong>lack of access to medicines and medical supplies, and limited the exchange of medical and scientific information due to travel restrictions and currency regulations.</u></strong> The AAWH found that “a humanitarian catastrophe has been averted only because the Cuban government has maintained a high level of budgetary support for a health care system designed to deliver primary and preventive health care to all of its citizens… Even so, <u><strong>the U.S. embargo of food and the de facto embargo on medical supplies has wreaked havoc with the island's model primary health care system.”</u></strong>46</p>

Amnesty International 2009 “ The US Embargo Against Cuba: Its Impact on Economic and Social Rights” http://www.amnestyusa.org/pdfs/amr250072009eng.pdf

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Amnesty International 2009 “ The US Embargo Against Cuba: Its Impact on Economic and Social Rights” http://www.amnestyusa.org/pdfs/amr250072009eng.pdf fulltext: The negative impact of the US embargo on the Cuban health care system and on the right to health of Cubans during the 1990s has been documented in a 1997 report by the American Association for World Health (AAWH).45 The 300-page document is still the most comprehensive study on the issue. Based on a fact-finding mission to Cuba, the AAWH identified that the embargo contributed particularly to malnutrition affecting especially women and children, poor water quality, lack of access to medicines and medical supplies, and limited the exchange of medical and scientific information due to travel restrictions and currency regulations. The AAWH found that “a humanitarian catastrophe has been averted only because the Cuban government has maintained a high level of budgetary support for a health care system designed to deliver primary and preventive health care to all of its citizens… Even so, the U.S. embargo of food and the de facto embargo on medical supplies has wreaked havoc with the island's model primary health care system.”46 [/INST] <h4>LINK TURN - Embargo devastates health care system – supplies & lack of information exchange</h4><p><strong>Amnesty International 2009</strong> “ The US Embargo Against Cuba: Its Impact on Economic and Social Rights” http://www.amnestyusa.org/pdfs/amr250072009eng.pdf</p><p><u><strong>The negative impact of the US embargo on the Cuban health care system</u></strong> and on the right to health of Cubans during the 1990s <u><strong>has been documented in a</u></strong> 1997 <u><strong>report by the American Association for World Health</u></strong> (AAWH).45 The 300-page document is still the most comprehensive study on the issue. Based on a fact-finding mission to Cuba, <u><strong>the AAWH identified that the embargo contributed particularly to malnutrition</u></strong> affecting especially women and children, poor water quality, <u><strong>lack of access to medicines and medical supplies, and limited the exchange of medical and scientific information due to travel restrictions and currency regulations.</u></strong> The AAWH found that “a humanitarian catastrophe has been averted only because the Cuban government has maintained a high level of budgetary support for a health care system designed to deliver primary and preventive health care to all of its citizens… Even so, <u><strong>the U.S. embargo of food and the de facto embargo on medical supplies has wreaked havoc with the island's model primary health care system.”</u></strong>46</p> </s>

C) Regional concerns

http://www.stimson.org/pub.cfm?id=734 Nor would a unilateral reduction help the US contain proliferation. Iran and North Korea will pursue their weapon programs depending on broad strategic, economic, and political considerations,

Nor would a unilateral reduction help the US contain proliferation Iran and North Korea will pursue their weapon programs depending on broad strategic, economic, and political considerations

1/21. http://www.stimson.org/pub.cfm?id=734) Nor would a unilateral reduction help the US contain proliferation. Iran and North Korea will pursue their weapon programs depending on broad strategic, economic, and political considerations, whether the US has 1,000 or 5,000 weapons. In either case, they would be helplessly outnumbered and would depend on a US unwillingness to sustain even a single nuclear blast on its territory to deter American involvement in a regional crisis.

<h4><strong>C) Regional concerns</h4><p>Blechman 9 </strong>(Barry. co-founder of the Henry L. Stimson Center and a Stimson Distinguished Fellow, “Don’t Reduce the US Nuclear Arsenal Unilaterally: We Need Levers to Move the World Toward Disarmament</p><p> 1/21. <u>http://www.stimson.org/pub.cfm?id=734</u>)</p><p><u><strong><mark>Nor would a unilateral reduction help the US contain proliferation</mark>. <mark>Iran and North Korea will pursue their weapon programs depending on broad strategic, economic, and political considerations</mark>, </u></strong>whether the US has 1,000 or 5,000 weapons. In either case, they would be helplessly outnumbered and would depend on a US unwillingness to sustain even a single nuclear blast on its territory to deter American involvement in a regional crisis. 
 </p>

Blechman 9 (Barry. co-founder of the Henry L. Stimson Center and a Stimson Distinguished Fellow, “Don’t Reduce the US Nuclear Arsenal Unilaterally: We Need Levers to Move the World Toward Disarmament

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Blechman 9 (Barry. co-founder of the Henry L. Stimson Center and a Stimson Distinguished Fellow, “Don’t Reduce the US Nuclear Arsenal Unilaterally: We Need Levers to Move the World Toward Disarmament fulltext: 1/21. http://www.stimson.org/pub.cfm?id=734) Nor would a unilateral reduction help the US contain proliferation. Iran and North Korea will pursue their weapon programs depending on broad strategic, economic, and political considerations, whether the US has 1,000 or 5,000 weapons. In either case, they would be helplessly outnumbered and would depend on a US unwillingness to sustain even a single nuclear blast on its territory to deter American involvement in a regional crisis. [/INST] <h4><strong>C) Regional concerns</h4><p>Blechman 9 </strong>(Barry. co-founder of the Henry L. Stimson Center and a Stimson Distinguished Fellow, “Don’t Reduce the US Nuclear Arsenal Unilaterally: We Need Levers to Move the World Toward Disarmament</p><p> 1/21. <u>http://www.stimson.org/pub.cfm?id=734</u>)</p><p><u><strong><mark>Nor would a unilateral reduction help the US contain proliferation</mark>. <mark>Iran and North Korea will pursue their weapon programs depending on broad strategic, economic, and political considerations</mark>, </u></strong>whether the US has 1,000 or 5,000 weapons. In either case, they would be helplessly outnumbered and would depend on a US unwillingness to sustain even a single nuclear blast on its territory to deter American involvement in a regional crisis. 
 </p> </s>

Health care system is crumbling – budget cuts

Cuba's system of free medical care, is not immune to cutbacks The health sector has endured millions of dollars in budget cuts and tens of thousands of layoffs, analysts, predict further cuts to what has been a pillar of the socialist system Based on the official exchange rate, the government spends $2 each time a Cuban visits a family doctor, $4.14 for each X-ray and $6,827 for a heart transplant. Scarcities are common and sanitary conditions fall short of the ideal in decaying facilities Patients often bring their own bed sheets, electric fans, food and water for hospital stays.

HAVANA -- Cuba's system of free medical care, long considered a birthright by its citizens and trumpeted as one of the communist government's great successes, is not immune to cutbacks under Raul Castro's drive for efficiency. The health sector has already endured millions of dollars in budget cuts and tens of thousands of layoffs, and it became clear this month that Castro is looking for more ways to save when the newspaper voice of the Communist Party, Granma, published daily details for two weeks on how much the government spends on everything from anesthetics and acupuncture to orthodontics and organ transplants. It's part of a wider media campaign that seems geared to discourage frivolous use of medical services, to explain or blunt fears of a drop-off in care and to remind Cubans to be grateful that health care is still free despite persistent economic woes. But it's also raising the eyebrows of outside analysts, who predict further cuts or significant changes to what has been a pillar of the socialist system implanted after the 1959 revolution. "Very often the media has been a leading indicator of where the economic reforms are going," said Phil Peters, a longtime Cuba observer at the Lexington Institute think tank. "My guess is that there's some kind of policy statement to follow, because that's been the pattern." The theme of the Granma pieces, posters in clinics and ads on state TV is the same: "Your health care is free, but how much does it cost?" The answer is, not much by outside standards, but quite a bit for Cuba, which spends $190 million a year paying for its citizens' medical bills. Based on the official exchange rate, the government spends $2 each time a Cuban visits a family doctor, $4.14 for each X-ray and $6,827 for a heart transplant. It's not a luxury service though. Scarcities now are common and sanitary conditions fall short of the ideal in decaying facilities where paint peels from the walls. Patients often bring their own bed sheets, electric fans, food and water for hospital stays.

<h4>Health care system is crumbling – budget cuts</h4><p><strong>Associated Press </strong>8/25/<strong>2012</strong> “Cuba Health Care: Budget Cuts Threaten Sector” Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/27/cuba-health-care_n_1832955.html</p><p>HAVANA -- <u><strong>Cuba's system of free medical care,</u></strong> long considered a birthright by its citizens and trumpeted as one of the communist government's great successes, <u><strong>is not immune to cutbacks</u></strong> under Raul Castro's drive for efficiency.</p><p><u><strong>The health sector has</u></strong> already <u><strong>endured millions of dollars in budget cuts and tens of thousands of layoffs,</u></strong> and it became clear this month that Castro is looking for more ways to save when the newspaper voice of the Communist Party, Granma, published daily details for two weeks on how much the government spends on everything from anesthetics and acupuncture to orthodontics and organ transplants.</p><p>It's part of a wider media campaign that seems geared to discourage frivolous use of medical services, to explain or blunt fears of a drop-off in care and to remind Cubans to be grateful that health care is still free despite persistent economic woes. But it's also raising the eyebrows of outside <u><strong>analysts,</u></strong> who <u><strong>predict further cuts</u></strong> or significant changes <u><strong>to what has been a pillar of the socialist system</u></strong> implanted after the 1959 revolution.</p><p>"Very often the media has been a leading indicator of where the economic reforms are going," said Phil Peters, a longtime Cuba observer at the Lexington Institute think tank. "My guess is that there's some kind of policy statement to follow, because that's been the pattern."</p><p>The theme of the Granma pieces, posters in clinics and ads on state TV is the same: "Your health care is free, but how much does it cost?"</p><p>The answer is, not much by outside standards, but quite a bit for Cuba, which spends $190 million a year paying for its citizens' medical bills.</p><p><u><strong>Based on the official exchange rate, the government spends $2 each time a Cuban visits a family doctor, $4.14 for each X-ray and $6,827 for a heart transplant.</p><p></u></strong>It's not a luxury service though. <u><strong>Scarcities</u></strong> now <u><strong>are common and sanitary conditions fall short of the ideal in decaying facilities</u></strong> where paint peels from the walls. <u><strong>Patients often bring their own bed sheets, electric fans, food and water for hospital stays.</p></u></strong>

Associated Press 8/25/2012 “Cuba Health Care: Budget Cuts Threaten Sector” Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/27/cuba-health-care_n_1832955.html

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Associated Press 8/25/2012 “Cuba Health Care: Budget Cuts Threaten Sector” Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/27/cuba-health-care_n_1832955.html fulltext: HAVANA -- Cuba's system of free medical care, long considered a birthright by its citizens and trumpeted as one of the communist government's great successes, is not immune to cutbacks under Raul Castro's drive for efficiency. The health sector has already endured millions of dollars in budget cuts and tens of thousands of layoffs, and it became clear this month that Castro is looking for more ways to save when the newspaper voice of the Communist Party, Granma, published daily details for two weeks on how much the government spends on everything from anesthetics and acupuncture to orthodontics and organ transplants. It's part of a wider media campaign that seems geared to discourage frivolous use of medical services, to explain or blunt fears of a drop-off in care and to remind Cubans to be grateful that health care is still free despite persistent economic woes. But it's also raising the eyebrows of outside analysts, who predict further cuts or significant changes to what has been a pillar of the socialist system implanted after the 1959 revolution. "Very often the media has been a leading indicator of where the economic reforms are going," said Phil Peters, a longtime Cuba observer at the Lexington Institute think tank. "My guess is that there's some kind of policy statement to follow, because that's been the pattern." The theme of the Granma pieces, posters in clinics and ads on state TV is the same: "Your health care is free, but how much does it cost?" The answer is, not much by outside standards, but quite a bit for Cuba, which spends $190 million a year paying for its citizens' medical bills. Based on the official exchange rate, the government spends $2 each time a Cuban visits a family doctor, $4.14 for each X-ray and $6,827 for a heart transplant. It's not a luxury service though. Scarcities now are common and sanitary conditions fall short of the ideal in decaying facilities where paint peels from the walls. Patients often bring their own bed sheets, electric fans, food and water for hospital stays. [/INST] <h4>Health care system is crumbling – budget cuts</h4><p><strong>Associated Press </strong>8/25/<strong>2012</strong> “Cuba Health Care: Budget Cuts Threaten Sector” Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/27/cuba-health-care_n_1832955.html</p><p>HAVANA -- <u><strong>Cuba's system of free medical care,</u></strong> long considered a birthright by its citizens and trumpeted as one of the communist government's great successes, <u><strong>is not immune to cutbacks</u></strong> under Raul Castro's drive for efficiency.</p><p><u><strong>The health sector has</u></strong> already <u><strong>endured millions of dollars in budget cuts and tens of thousands of layoffs,</u></strong> and it became clear this month that Castro is looking for more ways to save when the newspaper voice of the Communist Party, Granma, published daily details for two weeks on how much the government spends on everything from anesthetics and acupuncture to orthodontics and organ transplants.</p><p>It's part of a wider media campaign that seems geared to discourage frivolous use of medical services, to explain or blunt fears of a drop-off in care and to remind Cubans to be grateful that health care is still free despite persistent economic woes. But it's also raising the eyebrows of outside <u><strong>analysts,</u></strong> who <u><strong>predict further cuts</u></strong> or significant changes <u><strong>to what has been a pillar of the socialist system</u></strong> implanted after the 1959 revolution.</p><p>"Very often the media has been a leading indicator of where the economic reforms are going," said Phil Peters, a longtime Cuba observer at the Lexington Institute think tank. "My guess is that there's some kind of policy statement to follow, because that's been the pattern."</p><p>The theme of the Granma pieces, posters in clinics and ads on state TV is the same: "Your health care is free, but how much does it cost?"</p><p>The answer is, not much by outside standards, but quite a bit for Cuba, which spends $190 million a year paying for its citizens' medical bills.</p><p><u><strong>Based on the official exchange rate, the government spends $2 each time a Cuban visits a family doctor, $4.14 for each X-ray and $6,827 for a heart transplant.</p><p></u></strong>It's not a luxury service though. <u><strong>Scarcities</u></strong> now <u><strong>are common and sanitary conditions fall short of the ideal in decaying facilities</u></strong> where paint peels from the walls. <u><strong>Patients often bring their own bed sheets, electric fans, food and water for hospital stays.</p></u></strong> </s>

Trade prevents war

If Bastiat’s Principle holds where goods do not cross frontiers, armies will its corollary dictates that where goods do cross frontiers, armies will not. Trade will not prevent war, but it attenuates its likelihood trade increases the probability peaceful and stable relations will continue and decreases the probability that instabilities and conflicts will erupt

(Michael, Adjunct professor of economics at Claremont Graduate University, “The Mind of the Market,” 2008 p. 252//wyo-mm) Bastiat’s Principle not only helps us understand how hunter-gatherers made the transition to consumer-traders, it also illuminates one of the primary causes of conflict; its corollary elucidates one of the principal steps toward conflict reduction. If Bastiat’s Principle holds that where goods do not cross frontiers, armies will, then its corollary dictates that where goods do cross frontiers, armies will not. This is a principle, not a law, since there are exceptions both historically and today. Trade will not prevent war, but it attenuates its likelihood. Thinking in terms of probabilities instead of absolutes—fuzzy logic’s range of fractional possibilities versus Aristotelian logic’s A or non-A categories—trade between groups increases the probability that peaceful and stable relations will continue and decreases the probability that instabilities and conflicts will erupt.

<h4><strong>Trade prevents war</h4><p>Shermer 08</p><p></strong>(Michael, Adjunct professor of economics at Claremont Graduate University, “The Mind of the Market,” 2008 p. 252//wyo-mm)</p><p>Bastiat’s Principle not only helps us understand how hunter-gatherers made the transition to consumer-traders, it also illuminates one of the primary causes of conflict; its corollary elucidates one of the principal steps toward conflict reduction. <u><strong>If Bastiat’s Principle holds</u></strong> that <u><strong>where goods do not cross frontiers, armies will</u></strong>, then <u><strong>its corollary dictates that where goods do cross frontiers, armies will not.</u></strong> This is a principle, not a law, since there are exceptions both historically and today. <u><strong>Trade will not prevent war, but it attenuates its likelihood</u></strong>. Thinking in terms of probabilities instead of absolutes—fuzzy logic’s range of fractional possibilities versus Aristotelian logic’s A or non-A categories—<u><strong>trade</u></strong> between groups <u><strong>increases the probability</u></strong> that <u><strong>peaceful and stable relations will continue and decreases the probability that instabilities and conflicts will erupt</u></strong>. </p>

Shermer 08

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Shermer 08 fulltext: (Michael, Adjunct professor of economics at Claremont Graduate University, “The Mind of the Market,” 2008 p. 252//wyo-mm) Bastiat’s Principle not only helps us understand how hunter-gatherers made the transition to consumer-traders, it also illuminates one of the primary causes of conflict; its corollary elucidates one of the principal steps toward conflict reduction. If Bastiat’s Principle holds that where goods do not cross frontiers, armies will, then its corollary dictates that where goods do cross frontiers, armies will not. This is a principle, not a law, since there are exceptions both historically and today. Trade will not prevent war, but it attenuates its likelihood. Thinking in terms of probabilities instead of absolutes—fuzzy logic’s range of fractional possibilities versus Aristotelian logic’s A or non-A categories—trade between groups increases the probability that peaceful and stable relations will continue and decreases the probability that instabilities and conflicts will erupt. [/INST] <h4><strong>Trade prevents war</h4><p>Shermer 08</p><p></strong>(Michael, Adjunct professor of economics at Claremont Graduate University, “The Mind of the Market,” 2008 p. 252//wyo-mm)</p><p>Bastiat’s Principle not only helps us understand how hunter-gatherers made the transition to consumer-traders, it also illuminates one of the primary causes of conflict; its corollary elucidates one of the principal steps toward conflict reduction. <u><strong>If Bastiat’s Principle holds</u></strong> that <u><strong>where goods do not cross frontiers, armies will</u></strong>, then <u><strong>its corollary dictates that where goods do cross frontiers, armies will not.</u></strong> This is a principle, not a law, since there are exceptions both historically and today. <u><strong>Trade will not prevent war, but it attenuates its likelihood</u></strong>. Thinking in terms of probabilities instead of absolutes—fuzzy logic’s range of fractional possibilities versus Aristotelian logic’s A or non-A categories—<u><strong>trade</u></strong> between groups <u><strong>increases the probability</u></strong> that <u><strong>peaceful and stable relations will continue and decreases the probability that instabilities and conflicts will erupt</u></strong>. </p> </s>

No link- relations not zero-sum

With both the U.S. and China making gains in the region in different sectors, there is room for each side to grow; which implies that trade with Latin America is not a zero-sum game. China presents an alternative to the U S but that is not bad The U.S more diversified than China and does not need to enter into direct competition

(Michael, China Research Center, “China’s Growing Presence in Latin-America: Implications for U.S. and Chinese Presence in the Region,” April 15, 2011, http://www.chinacenter.net/chinas-growing-presence-in-latin-america-implications-for-u-s-and-chinese-presence-in-the-region/) /wyo-mm With both the U.S. and China making gains in the region in different sectors, there is seemingly room for each side to grow; which implies that, in fact, trade with Latin America is not a zero-sum game. China presents an alternative to the United States, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. The U.S. is much more diversified than China at the moment and therefore does not need to enter into direct competition. However, as China responds to calls from Brazil and diversifies its investments, there is increasing worry that China is going to outmatch U.S. trade in the region. These fears may be economically based, but there are potentially harmful political consequences – primarily, providing Latin America with a quasi-world power as an alternative to the U.S. Since the Monroe Doctrine, Latin America has been considered a secure sphere of influence for the U.S. The fact that China presents a less democratic alternative to U.S. influence presents a major problem.

<h4><strong>No link- relations not zero-sum</h4><p>Cerna 11</p><p></strong>(Michael, China Research Center, “China’s Growing Presence in Latin-America: Implications for U.S. and Chinese Presence in the Region,” April 15, 2011, http://www.chinacenter.net/chinas-growing-presence-in-latin-america-implications-for-u-s-and-chinese-presence-in-the-region/) /wyo-mm</p><p><u><strong>With both the U.S. and China making gains in the region in different sectors, there is</u></strong> seemingly <u><strong>room for each side to grow; which implies that</u></strong>, in fact, <u><strong>trade with Latin America is not a zero-sum game. China presents an alternative to the U</u></strong>nited <u><strong>S</u></strong>tates, <u><strong>but that is not</u></strong> necessarily a <u><strong>bad</u></strong> thing. <u><strong>The U.S</u></strong>. is much <u><strong>more diversified than China</u></strong> at the moment <u><strong>and</u></strong> therefore <u><strong>does not need to enter into direct competition</u></strong>. However, as China responds to calls from Brazil and diversifies its investments, there is increasing worry that China is going to outmatch U.S. trade in the region. These fears may be economically based, but there are potentially harmful political consequences – primarily, providing Latin America with a quasi-world power as an alternative to the U.S. Since the Monroe Doctrine, Latin America has been considered a secure sphere of influence for the U.S. The fact that China presents a less democratic alternative to U.S. influence presents a major problem.</p>

Cerna 11

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Cerna 11 fulltext: (Michael, China Research Center, “China’s Growing Presence in Latin-America: Implications for U.S. and Chinese Presence in the Region,” April 15, 2011, http://www.chinacenter.net/chinas-growing-presence-in-latin-america-implications-for-u-s-and-chinese-presence-in-the-region/) /wyo-mm With both the U.S. and China making gains in the region in different sectors, there is seemingly room for each side to grow; which implies that, in fact, trade with Latin America is not a zero-sum game. China presents an alternative to the United States, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. The U.S. is much more diversified than China at the moment and therefore does not need to enter into direct competition. However, as China responds to calls from Brazil and diversifies its investments, there is increasing worry that China is going to outmatch U.S. trade in the region. These fears may be economically based, but there are potentially harmful political consequences – primarily, providing Latin America with a quasi-world power as an alternative to the U.S. Since the Monroe Doctrine, Latin America has been considered a secure sphere of influence for the U.S. The fact that China presents a less democratic alternative to U.S. influence presents a major problem. [/INST] <h4><strong>No link- relations not zero-sum</h4><p>Cerna 11</p><p></strong>(Michael, China Research Center, “China’s Growing Presence in Latin-America: Implications for U.S. and Chinese Presence in the Region,” April 15, 2011, http://www.chinacenter.net/chinas-growing-presence-in-latin-america-implications-for-u-s-and-chinese-presence-in-the-region/) /wyo-mm</p><p><u><strong>With both the U.S. and China making gains in the region in different sectors, there is</u></strong> seemingly <u><strong>room for each side to grow; which implies that</u></strong>, in fact, <u><strong>trade with Latin America is not a zero-sum game. China presents an alternative to the U</u></strong>nited <u><strong>S</u></strong>tates, <u><strong>but that is not</u></strong> necessarily a <u><strong>bad</u></strong> thing. <u><strong>The U.S</u></strong>. is much <u><strong>more diversified than China</u></strong> at the moment <u><strong>and</u></strong> therefore <u><strong>does not need to enter into direct competition</u></strong>. However, as China responds to calls from Brazil and diversifies its investments, there is increasing worry that China is going to outmatch U.S. trade in the region. These fears may be economically based, but there are potentially harmful political consequences – primarily, providing Latin America with a quasi-world power as an alternative to the U.S. Since the Monroe Doctrine, Latin America has been considered a secure sphere of influence for the U.S. The fact that China presents a less democratic alternative to U.S. influence presents a major problem.</p> </s>

Cubans lack resources for necessary medicine and equipment

Healthcare may be free and available for all Cuban citizens but medication is not. Pharmacies are very poorly stocked and rationing of supplies is minimal. hospitals are in poor conditions and doctors have to bring in their own supplies and equipment to allow them to treat their patients. Despite the production of medical supplies and technology very little of this actually remains in Cuba. Every year Cuba exports huge amounts of medical aid, mostly to other Latin American countries for purely financial returns. 22 For example, Venezuela provides much-needed oil to Cuba and in exchange receives Cuban doctors and medical supplies. 14 Medication and equipment is available but only to pay for in American dollars, of which the poor and middle classes of Cuba are very unlikely to have. The ‘pesos pharmacies’ and local state hospitals are drastically under-stocked and thus access for the poor to needed medication is minimal, despite the service being free.

However, challenges remain. Healthcare may be free and available for all Cuban citizens but medication is not. Pharmacies are often very poorly stocked and rationing of supplies is minimal. 13 There are claims that hospitals are often in poor conditions and doctors have to bring in their own supplies and equipment to allow them to treat their patients. 10 Despite the production of medical supplies and technology, it seems very little of this actually remains in Cuba. Every year Cuba exports huge amounts of medical aid, mostly to other Latin American countries for purely financial returns. 22 For example, Venezuela provides much-needed oil to Cuba and in exchange receives Cuban doctors and medical supplies. 14 Cuba’s dual economy has a lot to do with why such disparity exists. Medication and equipment is there and available but only to pay for in American dollars, of which the poor and middle classes of Cuba are very unlikely to have. 23 The ‘pesos pharmacies’ and local state hospitals are drastically under-stocked and thus access for the poor to needed medication is minimal, despite the service being free.

<h4>Cubans lack resources for necessary medicine and equipment </h4><p><strong>Global Politics 2007</strong> “The Challenges of Health Care in Cuba” http://www.global-politics.co.uk/issue9/hanna/</p><p>However, challenges remain. <u><strong>Healthcare may be free and available for all Cuban citizens but medication is not.</u></strong> <u><strong>Pharmacies are</u></strong> often <u><strong>very poorly stocked and rationing of supplies is minimal.</u></strong> 13 There are claims that <u><strong>hospitals are</u></strong> often <u><strong>in poor conditions and doctors have to bring in their own supplies and equipment to allow them to treat their patients.</u></strong> 10 <u><strong>Despite the production of medical supplies and technology</u></strong>, it seems <u><strong>very little of this actually remains in Cuba. Every year Cuba exports huge amounts of medical aid, mostly to other Latin American countries for purely financial returns. 22 For example, Venezuela provides much-needed oil to Cuba and in exchange receives Cuban doctors and medical supplies. 14</p><p></u></strong>Cuba’s dual economy has a lot to do with why such disparity exists. <u><strong>Medication and equipment is</u></strong> there and <u><strong>available but only to pay for in American dollars, of which the poor and middle classes of Cuba are very unlikely to have.</u></strong> 23 <u><strong>The ‘pesos pharmacies’ and local state hospitals are drastically under-stocked and thus access for the poor to needed medication is minimal, despite the service being free.</p></u></strong>

Global Politics 2007 “The Challenges of Health Care in Cuba” http://www.global-politics.co.uk/issue9/hanna/

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Global Politics 2007 “The Challenges of Health Care in Cuba” http://www.global-politics.co.uk/issue9/hanna/ fulltext: However, challenges remain. Healthcare may be free and available for all Cuban citizens but medication is not. Pharmacies are often very poorly stocked and rationing of supplies is minimal. 13 There are claims that hospitals are often in poor conditions and doctors have to bring in their own supplies and equipment to allow them to treat their patients. 10 Despite the production of medical supplies and technology, it seems very little of this actually remains in Cuba. Every year Cuba exports huge amounts of medical aid, mostly to other Latin American countries for purely financial returns. 22 For example, Venezuela provides much-needed oil to Cuba and in exchange receives Cuban doctors and medical supplies. 14 Cuba’s dual economy has a lot to do with why such disparity exists. Medication and equipment is there and available but only to pay for in American dollars, of which the poor and middle classes of Cuba are very unlikely to have. 23 The ‘pesos pharmacies’ and local state hospitals are drastically under-stocked and thus access for the poor to needed medication is minimal, despite the service being free. [/INST] <h4>Cubans lack resources for necessary medicine and equipment </h4><p><strong>Global Politics 2007</strong> “The Challenges of Health Care in Cuba” http://www.global-politics.co.uk/issue9/hanna/</p><p>However, challenges remain. <u><strong>Healthcare may be free and available for all Cuban citizens but medication is not.</u></strong> <u><strong>Pharmacies are</u></strong> often <u><strong>very poorly stocked and rationing of supplies is minimal.</u></strong> 13 There are claims that <u><strong>hospitals are</u></strong> often <u><strong>in poor conditions and doctors have to bring in their own supplies and equipment to allow them to treat their patients.</u></strong> 10 <u><strong>Despite the production of medical supplies and technology</u></strong>, it seems <u><strong>very little of this actually remains in Cuba. Every year Cuba exports huge amounts of medical aid, mostly to other Latin American countries for purely financial returns. 22 For example, Venezuela provides much-needed oil to Cuba and in exchange receives Cuban doctors and medical supplies. 14</p><p></u></strong>Cuba’s dual economy has a lot to do with why such disparity exists. <u><strong>Medication and equipment is</u></strong> there and <u><strong>available but only to pay for in American dollars, of which the poor and middle classes of Cuba are very unlikely to have.</u></strong> 23 <u><strong>The ‘pesos pharmacies’ and local state hospitals are drastically under-stocked and thus access for the poor to needed medication is minimal, despite the service being free.</p></u></strong> </s>

Trade agreements key to achieve climate mitigation policies: market access incentivizes negotiation

mutually agreed actions directly affect economic activity in the other. This can be climate mitigation agreements raise the price of emitting carbon and hence energy costs and as a result directly affect trade flows by changing relative product prices and country incomes new trade barriers affecting transfers of technology make the achievement of climate mitigation goals more difficult to achieve China may be more willing to undertake climate mitigation policies if there is agreement on trade arrangements which gives China more security over market access Or, financial transfers between wealthier and poorer countries may induce poorer country participation in global climate change mitigation negotiations

(John, The World Economy, “What Role for Trade in a Post-2012 Global Climate Policy Regime,” December 18, 2011, Wiley Online Library//wyo-mm) First is the direct linkage that mutually agreed actions in one area directly affect economic activity in the other. This can be, for instance, that climate mitigation agreements raise the price of emitting carbon and hence energy costs and as a result directly affect trade flows by changing relative product prices and country incomes. Or it can be that new trade barriers affecting, say, transfers of technology make the achievement of climate mitigation goals more difficult to achieve. Second comes linkage in global policy bargaining. China, for example, may be more willing to undertake climate mitigation policies if, at the same time, there is agreement on trade arrangements which gives China more security over market access (say, through more restricted use of anti-dumping actions against China). Or, financial transfers between wealthier and poorer countries may induce poorer country participation in global climate change mitigation negotiations.

<h4><strong>Trade agreements key to achieve climate mitigation policies: market access incentivizes negotiation</h4><p>Whalley 11</p><p></strong>(John, The World Economy, “What Role for Trade in a Post-2012 Global Climate Policy Regime,” December 18, 2011, Wiley Online Library//wyo-mm)</p><p>First is the direct linkage that <u><strong>mutually agreed actions</u></strong> in one area <u><strong>directly affect economic activity in the other. This can be</u></strong>, for instance, that <u><strong>climate mitigation agreements raise the price of emitting carbon and hence energy costs and as a result directly affect trade flows by changing relative product prices and country incomes</u></strong>. Or it can be that <u><strong>new trade barriers affecting</u></strong>, say, <u><strong>transfers of technology make the achievement of climate mitigation goals more difficult to achieve</u></strong>. Second comes linkage in global policy bargaining. <u><strong>China</u></strong>, for example, <u><strong>may be more willing to undertake climate mitigation policies if</u></strong>, at the same time, <u><strong>there is agreement on trade arrangements which gives China more security over market access</u></strong> (say, through more restricted use of anti-dumping actions against China). <u><strong>Or, financial transfers between wealthier and poorer countries may induce poorer country participation in global climate change mitigation negotiations</u>.</p></strong>

Whalley 11

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Whalley 11 fulltext: (John, The World Economy, “What Role for Trade in a Post-2012 Global Climate Policy Regime,” December 18, 2011, Wiley Online Library//wyo-mm) First is the direct linkage that mutually agreed actions in one area directly affect economic activity in the other. This can be, for instance, that climate mitigation agreements raise the price of emitting carbon and hence energy costs and as a result directly affect trade flows by changing relative product prices and country incomes. Or it can be that new trade barriers affecting, say, transfers of technology make the achievement of climate mitigation goals more difficult to achieve. Second comes linkage in global policy bargaining. China, for example, may be more willing to undertake climate mitigation policies if, at the same time, there is agreement on trade arrangements which gives China more security over market access (say, through more restricted use of anti-dumping actions against China). Or, financial transfers between wealthier and poorer countries may induce poorer country participation in global climate change mitigation negotiations. [/INST] <h4><strong>Trade agreements key to achieve climate mitigation policies: market access incentivizes negotiation</h4><p>Whalley 11</p><p></strong>(John, The World Economy, “What Role for Trade in a Post-2012 Global Climate Policy Regime,” December 18, 2011, Wiley Online Library//wyo-mm)</p><p>First is the direct linkage that <u><strong>mutually agreed actions</u></strong> in one area <u><strong>directly affect economic activity in the other. This can be</u></strong>, for instance, that <u><strong>climate mitigation agreements raise the price of emitting carbon and hence energy costs and as a result directly affect trade flows by changing relative product prices and country incomes</u></strong>. Or it can be that <u><strong>new trade barriers affecting</u></strong>, say, <u><strong>transfers of technology make the achievement of climate mitigation goals more difficult to achieve</u></strong>. Second comes linkage in global policy bargaining. <u><strong>China</u></strong>, for example, <u><strong>may be more willing to undertake climate mitigation policies if</u></strong>, at the same time, <u><strong>there is agreement on trade arrangements which gives China more security over market access</u></strong> (say, through more restricted use of anti-dumping actions against China). <u><strong>Or, financial transfers between wealthier and poorer countries may induce poorer country participation in global climate change mitigation negotiations</u>.</p></strong> </s>

No internal link- China sees Latin America as US territory and will cooperate

While the U S tries to shape the behavior of China, the behavior of the US government also infl uences China’s perceptions of the U S China recognizes Latin America as a US sphere of infl uence and is keen not to produce suspicion in the U S with regard to Chinese motives and intentions. Both governments are interested in avoiding misunderstandings

(Detlef, German Institute of Global and Area Studies, “The Dragon in the Backyard: US Visions of ChinaMay 2013, http://www.giga-hamburg.de/dl/download.php?d=/content/publikationen/pdf/gf_international_1305.pdf) /wyo-mm While the United States tries to shape the behavior of China, the behavior of the US government also infl uences China’s perceptions of the United States’ intentions. In the view of most US specialists, China implicitly recognizes Latin America as a US sphere of infl uence (Ellis 2012a; Paz 2012) and is keen not to produce suspicion in the United States with regard to Chinese motives and intentions. Both governments are interested in avoiding misunderstandings. With the visit of then US assistant secretary for Western Aff airs, Thomas Shannon, to Beijing in April 2006, both sides start-ed a dialogue on Latin America. The last round of dialogue took place in Washington in March 2012 between then interim assistant secretary for Western Hemisphere Aff airs, Roberta S. Jacobson, and Chinese counterpart Yan Wanming. The sixth round of dialogue is being organized for the current year; it will be the fi rst of the Xi Jinping administration and the fi rst of Obama’s second term in offi ce (communication by Gonzalo Paz March 7, 2013). There could be more cooperation in Latin America between the countries in the future.

<h4>No internal link- <strong>China sees Latin America as US territory and will cooperate</h4><p>Nolte 13</p><p></strong>(Detlef, German Institute of Global and Area Studies, “The Dragon in the Backyard: US </p><p>Visions of ChinaMay 2013, http://www.giga-hamburg.de/dl/download.php?d=/content/publikationen/pdf/gf_international_1305.pdf) /wyo-mm</p><p><u><strong>While the U</u></strong>nited <u><strong>S</u></strong>tates <u><strong>tries to shape the behavior of China, the behavior of the US government also infl uences China’s perceptions of the U</u></strong>nited <u><strong>S</u></strong>tates’ intentions. In the view of most US specialists, <u><strong>China</u></strong> implicitly <u><strong>recognizes Latin America as a US sphere of infl uence</u></strong> (Ellis 2012a; Paz 2012) <u><strong>and is keen not to produce suspicion</u></strong> <u><strong>in the U</u></strong>nited <u><strong>S</u></strong>tates <u><strong>with regard to Chinese motives and intentions. Both governments are interested in avoiding misunderstandings</u></strong>. With the visit of then US assistant secretary for Western Aff airs, Thomas Shannon, to Beijing in April 2006, both sides start-ed a dialogue on Latin America. The last round of dialogue took place in Washington in March 2012 between then interim assistant secretary for Western Hemisphere Aff airs, Roberta S. Jacobson, and Chinese counterpart Yan Wanming. The sixth round of dialogue is being organized for the current year; it will be the fi rst of the Xi Jinping administration and the fi rst of Obama’s second term in offi ce (communication by Gonzalo Paz March 7, 2013). There could be more cooperation in Latin America between the countries in the future.</p>

Nolte 13

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Nolte 13 fulltext: (Detlef, German Institute of Global and Area Studies, “The Dragon in the Backyard: US Visions of ChinaMay 2013, http://www.giga-hamburg.de/dl/download.php?d=/content/publikationen/pdf/gf_international_1305.pdf) /wyo-mm While the United States tries to shape the behavior of China, the behavior of the US government also infl uences China’s perceptions of the United States’ intentions. In the view of most US specialists, China implicitly recognizes Latin America as a US sphere of infl uence (Ellis 2012a; Paz 2012) and is keen not to produce suspicion in the United States with regard to Chinese motives and intentions. Both governments are interested in avoiding misunderstandings. With the visit of then US assistant secretary for Western Aff airs, Thomas Shannon, to Beijing in April 2006, both sides start-ed a dialogue on Latin America. The last round of dialogue took place in Washington in March 2012 between then interim assistant secretary for Western Hemisphere Aff airs, Roberta S. Jacobson, and Chinese counterpart Yan Wanming. The sixth round of dialogue is being organized for the current year; it will be the fi rst of the Xi Jinping administration and the fi rst of Obama’s second term in offi ce (communication by Gonzalo Paz March 7, 2013). There could be more cooperation in Latin America between the countries in the future. [/INST] <h4>No internal link- <strong>China sees Latin America as US territory and will cooperate</h4><p>Nolte 13</p><p></strong>(Detlef, German Institute of Global and Area Studies, “The Dragon in the Backyard: US </p><p>Visions of ChinaMay 2013, http://www.giga-hamburg.de/dl/download.php?d=/content/publikationen/pdf/gf_international_1305.pdf) /wyo-mm</p><p><u><strong>While the U</u></strong>nited <u><strong>S</u></strong>tates <u><strong>tries to shape the behavior of China, the behavior of the US government also infl uences China’s perceptions of the U</u></strong>nited <u><strong>S</u></strong>tates’ intentions. In the view of most US specialists, <u><strong>China</u></strong> implicitly <u><strong>recognizes Latin America as a US sphere of infl uence</u></strong> (Ellis 2012a; Paz 2012) <u><strong>and is keen not to produce suspicion</u></strong> <u><strong>in the U</u></strong>nited <u><strong>S</u></strong>tates <u><strong>with regard to Chinese motives and intentions. Both governments are interested in avoiding misunderstandings</u></strong>. With the visit of then US assistant secretary for Western Aff airs, Thomas Shannon, to Beijing in April 2006, both sides start-ed a dialogue on Latin America. The last round of dialogue took place in Washington in March 2012 between then interim assistant secretary for Western Hemisphere Aff airs, Roberta S. Jacobson, and Chinese counterpart Yan Wanming. The sixth round of dialogue is being organized for the current year; it will be the fi rst of the Xi Jinping administration and the fi rst of Obama’s second term in offi ce (communication by Gonzalo Paz March 7, 2013). There could be more cooperation in Latin America between the countries in the future.</p> </s>

Embargo prevents access to necessary tech

the problems with Cuba’s health care system are associated with the American embargo,” “This prevents them from having access to the latest pharmaceutical and technological advances, so many of their facilities are very basic.”

“Many of the problems with Cuba’s health care system are associated with the American embargo,” Berres said. “This prevents them from having access to the latest pharmaceutical and technological advances, so many of their facilities are very basic.”

<h4>Embargo prevents access to necessary tech </h4><p><strong>SurfKY News</strong> 4/15/<strong>2013</strong> “UK Delegation Visits Cuba, Learns About its Healthcare System” http://surfky.com/index.php/communities/303-lexington-fayette-county/29814-uk-delegation-visits-cuba-learns-about-its-healthcare-system</p><p>“Many of <u><strong>the problems with Cuba’s health care system are associated with the American embargo,”</u></strong> Berres said. <u><strong>“This prevents them from having access to the latest pharmaceutical and technological advances, so many of their facilities are very basic.”</p></u></strong>

SurfKY News 4/15/2013 “UK Delegation Visits Cuba, Learns About its Healthcare System” http://surfky.com/index.php/communities/303-lexington-fayette-county/29814-uk-delegation-visits-cuba-learns-about-its-healthcare-system

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: SurfKY News 4/15/2013 “UK Delegation Visits Cuba, Learns About its Healthcare System” http://surfky.com/index.php/communities/303-lexington-fayette-county/29814-uk-delegation-visits-cuba-learns-about-its-healthcare-system fulltext: “Many of the problems with Cuba’s health care system are associated with the American embargo,” Berres said. “This prevents them from having access to the latest pharmaceutical and technological advances, so many of their facilities are very basic.” [/INST] <h4>Embargo prevents access to necessary tech </h4><p><strong>SurfKY News</strong> 4/15/<strong>2013</strong> “UK Delegation Visits Cuba, Learns About its Healthcare System” http://surfky.com/index.php/communities/303-lexington-fayette-county/29814-uk-delegation-visits-cuba-learns-about-its-healthcare-system</p><p>“Many of <u><strong>the problems with Cuba’s health care system are associated with the American embargo,”</u></strong> Berres said. <u><strong>“This prevents them from having access to the latest pharmaceutical and technological advances, so many of their facilities are very basic.”</p></u></strong> </s>

(Insert Impact Defense to specific scenario)

<h4>(Insert Impact Defense to specific scenario)</h4>

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: None fulltext: None [/INST] <h4>(Insert Impact Defense to specific scenario)</h4> </s>

the environment is at the tipping point- Collapse will be fast and catastrophic

The paper by 22 top researchers said a “tipping point” by which the biosphere goes into swift and irreversible change, with cataclysmic impacts for humans, could occur as early as this century. The study appears ahead of the June 20-22 UN Conference on Sustainable Development, The factors in today’s equation include a world population that is set to rise from seven billion to around 9.3 billion by mid-century and global warming that will outstrip the UN target of two degrees Celsius The team determined that once 50-90 percent of small-scale ecosystems become altered, the entire eco-web tips over into a new state, characterised especially by species extinction Once the shift happens, it cannot be reversed.

22 top researchers said a “tipping point” by which the biosphere goes into swift and irreversible change, with cataclysmic impacts for humans could occur this century. The factors in today’s equation include a world population that is set to rise and global warming that will outstrip the UN target of two degrees Celsius once 50-90 percent of small-scale ecosystems become altered, the entire eco-web tips over especially by species extinctions Once the shift happens, it cannot be reversed

(Agence France-Presse, citing UN study, “Environmental collapse now a serious threat: scientists,” Raw Story, http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/06/06/environmental-collapse-now-a-serious-threat-scientists/) The paper by 22 top researchers said a “tipping point” by which the biosphere goes into swift and irreversible change, with potentially cataclysmic impacts for humans, could occur as early as this century.¶ The warning contrasts with a mainstream view among scientists that environmental collapse would be gradual and take centuries.¶ The study appears ahead of the June 20-22 UN Conference on Sustainable Development, the 20-year followup to the Earth Summit that set down priorities for protecting the environment.¶ The Nature paper, written by biologists, ecologists, geologists and palaeontologists from three continents, compared the biological impact of past episodes of global change with what is happening today.¶ The factors in today’s equation include a world population that is set to rise from seven billion to around 9.3 billion by mid-century and global warming that will outstrip the UN target of two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit).¶ The team determined that once 50-90 percent of small-scale ecosystems become altered, the entire eco-web tips over into a new state, characterised especially by species extinctions.¶ Once the shift happens, it cannot be reversed.¶ To support today’s population, about 43 percent of Earth’s ice-free land surface is being used for farming or habitation, according to the study.

<h4><strong>the environment is at the tipping point- Collapse will be fast and catastrophic</h4><p>AFP, 12</p><p></strong>(Agence France-Presse, citing UN study, “Environmental collapse now a serious threat: scientists,” Raw Story, http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/06/06/environmental-collapse-now-a-serious-threat-scientists/)</p><p><u><strong>The paper by <mark>22 top researchers said a “tipping point” by which the biosphere goes into swift and irreversible change,</u></strong> <u><strong>with</u></strong> </mark>potentially <u><strong><mark>cataclysmic impacts for humans</mark>, <mark>could occur </mark>as early as <mark>this century.</u></strong></mark>¶ The warning contrasts with a mainstream view among scientists that environmental collapse would be gradual and take centuries.¶ <u><strong>The study appears ahead of the June 20-22 UN Conference on Sustainable Development,</u></strong> the 20-year followup to the Earth Summit that set down priorities for protecting the environment.¶ The Nature paper, written by biologists, ecologists, geologists and palaeontologists from three continents, compared the biological impact of past episodes of global change with what is happening today.¶ <u><strong><mark>The factors in today’s equation include a world population that is set to rise </mark>from seven billion to around 9.3 billion by mid-century <mark>and global warming that will outstrip the UN target of two degrees Celsius</u></strong> </mark>(3.6 degrees Fahrenheit).¶ <u><strong>The team determined that <mark>once 50-90 percent of small-scale ecosystems become altered, the entire eco-web tips over </mark>into a new state, characterised <mark>especially by species extinction</u></strong>s</mark>.¶ <u><strong><mark>Once the shift happens, it cannot be reversed</mark>.</u>¶ To support today’s population, about 43 percent of Earth’s ice-free land surface is being used for farming or habitation, according to the study.</p></strong>

AFP, 12

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: AFP, 12 fulltext: (Agence France-Presse, citing UN study, “Environmental collapse now a serious threat: scientists,” Raw Story, http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/06/06/environmental-collapse-now-a-serious-threat-scientists/) The paper by 22 top researchers said a “tipping point” by which the biosphere goes into swift and irreversible change, with potentially cataclysmic impacts for humans, could occur as early as this century.¶ The warning contrasts with a mainstream view among scientists that environmental collapse would be gradual and take centuries.¶ The study appears ahead of the June 20-22 UN Conference on Sustainable Development, the 20-year followup to the Earth Summit that set down priorities for protecting the environment.¶ The Nature paper, written by biologists, ecologists, geologists and palaeontologists from three continents, compared the biological impact of past episodes of global change with what is happening today.¶ The factors in today’s equation include a world population that is set to rise from seven billion to around 9.3 billion by mid-century and global warming that will outstrip the UN target of two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit).¶ The team determined that once 50-90 percent of small-scale ecosystems become altered, the entire eco-web tips over into a new state, characterised especially by species extinctions.¶ Once the shift happens, it cannot be reversed.¶ To support today’s population, about 43 percent of Earth’s ice-free land surface is being used for farming or habitation, according to the study. [/INST] <h4><strong>the environment is at the tipping point- Collapse will be fast and catastrophic</h4><p>AFP, 12</p><p></strong>(Agence France-Presse, citing UN study, “Environmental collapse now a serious threat: scientists,” Raw Story, http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/06/06/environmental-collapse-now-a-serious-threat-scientists/)</p><p><u><strong>The paper by <mark>22 top researchers said a “tipping point” by which the biosphere goes into swift and irreversible change,</u></strong> <u><strong>with</u></strong> </mark>potentially <u><strong><mark>cataclysmic impacts for humans</mark>, <mark>could occur </mark>as early as <mark>this century.</u></strong></mark>¶ The warning contrasts with a mainstream view among scientists that environmental collapse would be gradual and take centuries.¶ <u><strong>The study appears ahead of the June 20-22 UN Conference on Sustainable Development,</u></strong> the 20-year followup to the Earth Summit that set down priorities for protecting the environment.¶ The Nature paper, written by biologists, ecologists, geologists and palaeontologists from three continents, compared the biological impact of past episodes of global change with what is happening today.¶ <u><strong><mark>The factors in today’s equation include a world population that is set to rise </mark>from seven billion to around 9.3 billion by mid-century <mark>and global warming that will outstrip the UN target of two degrees Celsius</u></strong> </mark>(3.6 degrees Fahrenheit).¶ <u><strong>The team determined that <mark>once 50-90 percent of small-scale ecosystems become altered, the entire eco-web tips over </mark>into a new state, characterised <mark>especially by species extinction</u></strong>s</mark>.¶ <u><strong><mark>Once the shift happens, it cannot be reversed</mark>.</u>¶ To support today’s population, about 43 percent of Earth’s ice-free land surface is being used for farming or habitation, according to the study.</p></strong> </s>