Cuba Appeasement DA

By: Walter Lindwall

1NC Shell
Obama has recently renewed his stance against Cuban human rights policies and failure to democratically reform BBC 2011 (13 September 2011 last updated at 04:58 ET, Barack Obama says Cuba's reforms not
aggressive enough, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-14894145 )

Recent changes in Cuba have not been "aggressive enough" to open its economy or reform its political system, US President Barack Obama has said. Mr Obama, speaking to Spanish-language correspondents in Washington, said Cuba remained a "throwback" to the 1960s. Cuba, under a US economic embargo for nearly five decades, has this year moved towards some economic opening. Asked about Mexico's drugs conflict, Mr Obama said President Felipe Calderon was right to take on the cartels. President Obama said the Cuban authorities had indicated they wanted to make changes to allow businesses to operate more freely. But, he said, there was no evidence that they had been sufficiently aggressive in doing this. "And they certainly have not been aggressive enough when it comes to liberating political prisoners and giving people the opportunity to speak their minds", Mr Obama said. Cuban President Raul Castro has been introducing some changes including allowing
Cubans to work for themselves. The Cuban government this year also freed the last of 75 dissidents jailed during a crackdown on dissent in 2003. But Mr

Obama put the situation in Cuba in the wider international context. "You are seeing enormous changes taking place in the Middle East just in the span of six months, you are seeing there are almost no authoritarian communist countries left in the world, and here you have this small island that is a throwback to the 60s." President Obama has moved to ease restrictions on Cuban-Americans travelling to the island but a gradual thaw in ties has been disrupted by the imprisonment of a US contractor. Mexican authorities regularly display equipment seized from traffickers. The US has repeatedly demanded the release of Alan Gross, who is serving a 15-year jail sentence for bringing illegal satellite equipment into Cuba. For its part, Havana regularly calls for five Cubans jailed for
spying in Florida to be released. In the interview, President Obama rejected the argument that Mexico should try to find some kind of accommodation with drug gangs as a way of ending the bloodshed. "I don't think Mexican people want to live in a society where drug kingpins are considered to be some of the more

Peace could not be achieved by negotiating with people without scruples or respect for human life, Mr Obama said.
powerful individuals in society," Obama said.

Plan is seen as Appeasement. This hurts U.S. credibility and encourages antiAmericanism in the region.

Brookes, 09

(Posted: 12:17 AM, April 15, 2009, KEEP THE EMBARGO, O STAND FOR CUBAN HUMAN RIGHTS, PETER BROOKES, Senior Fellow in National Security Affairs at the Heritage Foundation, MA, Johns Hopkins University, BS, US Naval Academy. Former associate professor, Joint Military Intelligence College, Former instructor, National Defense University, Columnist, New York Post Contributing editor, Townhall Magazine)

Lifting the embargo won't normalize relations, but instead legitimize -- and wave the white flag to -Fidel's 50-year fight against the Yanquis, further lionizing the dictator and encouraging the Latin American Left. Because the economy is nationalized, trade will pour plenty of cash into the Cuban national

coffers allowing Havana to suppress dissent at home and bolster its communist agenda abroad. The last thing we should do is to fill the pockets of a regime that'll use those profits to keep a jackboot on the neck of the Cuban people. The political and human-rights situation in Cuba is grim enough already. The police state controls the lives of 11 million Cubans in what has become an island prison. The people enjoy none of the basic civil liberties -- no freedom of speech, press, assembly or association. Security types monitor foreign journalists, restrict Internet access and foreign news and censor the domestic media. The regime holds more than 200 political dissidents in jails that rats won't live in. We also don't need a pumped-up Cuba that could become a serious menace to US interests in Latin America, the Caribbean -- or beyond. (The likes of China, Russia and Iran might also look to partner with a revitalized Cuba.) With an influx of resources, the Cuban regime would surely team up with the rulers of nations like Venezuela, Nicaragua and Bolivia to advance socialism and anti-Americanism in the Western Hemisphere. The embargo has stifled Havana's ambitions ever since the Castros lost their Soviet sponsorship in the early 1990s. Anyone noticed the lack of trouble Cuba has caused internationally since then? Contrast that with the 1980s some
time. Regrettably, 110 years after independence from Spain (courtesy of Uncle Sam), Cuba still isn't free. Instead of utopia, it has become a dystopia at the hands of the Castro brothers.

The US embargo remains a matter of principle -- and an appropriate response to Cuba's brutal repression of its people. Giving in to evil only begets more of it. Haven't we learned that yet? Until we see progress in loosing the Cuban people from the yoke of the communist regime, we should hold firm onto the leverage the embargo provides.

Cuban appeasement only encourages democratic backsliding in Latin America and damages U.S. credibility

Lockhart 9 Melissa Lockhart, Senior Programs Officer for the Pacific Council on International Policy,
April 22, 2009, The United States, Cuba and the Western Hemisphere, online: http://cuba.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2009/04/22/the-united-states-cuba-and-the-western-hemisphere/ The obstacle halting further progress in changes to current policy, as many see it, is one of principles: if Obama were to lift the embargo unilaterally, he would be sending a message about democracy and human rightsnamely, that they no longer matter to the United States. The Obama administration believes that the embargo has been a failure, Latin American leaders are clamoring for it to be lifted, and yet the Castros show no indication that they are on the way toward releasing political prisoners or embracing democratic principles. What to do? But on the other hand, why have Latin American leaders like Brazils Lula and Mexicos Caldern been silent on Havanas human rights record?

Democratic backsliding in Latin America causes regional proliferation and nuclear conflict Schulz 2k (Donald Schulz, Chairman of the Political Science Department at Cleveland State University,
March 2000, The United States and Latin America: Shaping an Elusive Future, http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub31.pdf)

A second major interest is the promotion of democracy. At first glance, this might appear to be a peripheral concern.
For much of its history, the United States was perfectly comfortable with authoritarian regimes in Latin America, so long as they did not threaten higher priority interests like regional security or U.S. economic holdings. But that is no longer the case. U.S. values have changed; democracy has been elevated to the status of an "important" interest. In part, this has been because American

leaders have

gained a greater appreciation of the role of legitimacy as a source of political stability. Governments that are popularly elected and respect human rights and the rule of law are less dangerous to both their citizens and their neighbors. Nations which are substantively democratic tend not to go to war with one another. They are also less vulnerable to the threat of internal war provoked, in part, by government violence and illegality.(5) In short, democracy and economic integration are not simply value preferences, but are increasingly bound up with hemispheric security. To take just one example: The restoration of democracy in Brazil and Argentina and their increasingly strong and profitable relationship in Mercosur have contributed in no small degree to their decisions to foresake the development of nuclear weapons. Perceptions of threat have declined, and perceptions of the benefits of cooperation have grown, and this has permitted progress on a range of security issues from
border disputes, to peacekeeping, environmental protection, counternarcotics, and the combat of organized crime. CONTINUES Until recently, the primary U.S. concern about Brazil has been that it might acquire nuclear weapons and delivery systems. In the 1970s, the Brazilian military embarked on a secret program to develop an atom bomb. By the late 1980s, both Brazil and Argentina were aggressively pursuing nuclear development programs that had clear military spin-offs.54 There were powerful military and civilian advocates of developing nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles within both countries. Today, however, the situation has changed. As

a result of political leadership transitions in both countries, Brazil and Argentina now appear firmly committed to restricting their nuclear programs to peaceful purposes. They have entered into various nuclear-related
agreements with each othermost notably the quadripartite comprehensive safeguards agreement (1991), which permits the inspection of all their nuclear installations by the International Atomic Energy Agencyand have joined the Missile Technology Control Regime. Even

so, no one can be certain about the future. As Scott Tollefson has observed: . . the military application of Brazils nuclear and space programs depends less on technological considerations than on political will. While technological constraints present a formidable barrier to achieving nuclear bombs and ballistic missiles, that barrier is
not insurmountable. The critical element, therefore, in determining the applications of Brazils nuclear and space technologies will be primarily political.55 Put simply, if changes

in political leadership were instrumental in redirecting Brazils nuclear program towards peaceful purposes, future political upheavals could still produce a reversion to previous orientations. Civilian supremacy is not so strong that it could not be swept away by a coup, especially if the legitimacy of the current democratic experiment were to be undermined by economic crisis and growing poverty/inequality. Nor are civilian leaders necessarily less militaristic or more
committed to democracy than the military. The example of Perus Fujimori comes immediately to mind. How serious a threat might Brazil potentially be? It has been estimated that if the nuclear plant at Angra dos Reis (Angra I) were only producing at 30 percent capacity, it could produce five 20-kiloton weapons a year. If production from other plants were included, Brazil

would have a capability three

times greater than India or Pakistan. Furthermore, its defense industry already has a substantial missile producing capability.
On the other hand, the country has a very limited capacity to project its military power via air and sealift or to sustain its forces over long distances. And though a 1983 law authorizes significant military manpower increases (which could place Brazil at a numerical level slightly higher than France, Iran and Pakistan), such growth will be restricted by a lack of economic resources. Indeed, the development of all these military potentials has been, and will continue to be, severely constrained by a lack of money. (Which is one reason Brazil decided to engage in arms control with Argentina in the first p1ace.) In short, a restoration of Brazilian militarism, imbued with nationalistic ambitions for great power status, is not unthinkable, and such a regime could present some fairly serious problems. That government

would probably need foreign as well as domestic enemies to help justify its existence. One obvious candidate would be the United States, which would presumably be critical of any return to dictatorial rule. Beyond this, moreover, the spectre of a
predatory international community, covetous of the riches of the Amazon, could help rally political support to the regime. For years, some Brazilian military officers have been warning of foreign intervention. Indeed, as far back as 1991 General Antenor de Santa Cruz Abreu, then chief of the Military Command of the Amazon, threatened

to transform the region into a new Vietnam if developed countries tried to internationalize the Amazon . Subsequently, in 1993, U.S.-Guyanese combined
military exercises near the Brazilian border provoked an angry response from many high-ranking Brazilian officers.57 Since then, of course, U.S.Brazilian relations have improved considerably. Nevertheless, the basic U.S./ international concerns over the Amaazonthe threat to the regions ecology through burning and deforestation, the presence of narcotrafficking activities, the Indian question, etc.have not disappeared, and some may very well intensify in the years ahead. At the same time, if the growing trend towards subregional economic groupingsin particular, MERCOSURcontinues, it is likely to increase competition between Southern Cone and NAFTA countries.

Economic conflicts, in turn, may be expected to intensify political differences, and could lead to heightened politicomilitary rivalry between different blocs or coalitions in the hemisphere.

Uniqueness
Obama is taking a hard line stance against Cuba now Forero 13 (Juan, NPR's South American correspondent and The Washington Post's correspondent for
Colombia and Venezuela, Obama's Unfinished Business: Latin America, January 22 of 2013, NPR, http://www.npr.org/2013/01/22/169980241/obamas-unfinished-business-latin-america) FORERO: Well, I think there's two policy shifts in Cuba that are super significant. I think one of them is what you just mentioned, you know, this visa policy. And the other one is that the Cuban government has also been moving to permit small-scale private enterprise on the island. Things are so bad there that the state has been releasing workers - in other words, laying people off. And those
people are supposed to try to find jobs and get things rolling with their own little businesses. That's going to be very tough in a country like that. And these are big changes. And of

course there's talk about whether the United States would ever move on any significant change such as ending its economic embargo of the island. And I don't see that that is going to happen. I mean, the U.S. has
long said that the Castros - that is Raul, the president, and his brother Fidel - have to be gone before the U.S. engages Cuba. And I think it's important to note that American diplomats, I think, would love to see an end to the embargo. Because it's very damaging to the U.S.

It permits the Cubans to claim

it's being bullied by a superpower. And the embargo just hasn't worked. You know, it hasn't ousted the communist government there. But the Obama administration, I think, faces domestic issues here. First of all, most Americans simply don't care about Cuba. And I think that the Cuban-American community, which does, has a leadership which continues to support a hard line against Cuba. And Obama knows full well that that community, the Cuban-American community, particularly in Florida, does vote.

US is taking a hard-line against Cuba and wont lift the embargo Kovalik and Lamrani, 6/28 - Senior Associate General Counsel of the United Steelworkers, AFL-CIO
(USW), Dr. Lamrani, lecturer at Paris Sorbonne Paris IV University and Paris-Est Marne-la-Valle University and French journalist, specialist on relations between Cuba and the US, (Daniel and Salmi, Trying to Destroy The Danger of a Good Example The Unrelenting Economic War on Cuba 6/28, http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/06/28/the-unrelenting-economic-war-on-cuba/ ) Imagine then, what Cuba could do if the U.S. blockade were lifted. It is clear that the rulers of the U.S. have imagined this, and with terror in their hearts. Indeed, Lamrani quotes former Cuban Minister of Foreign Affairs, Felipe Perez Roque, as quite rightly asserting[asserts]: Why does the U.S. government not lift the blockade against Cuba? I will answer: because it is afraid. It fears our example. It knows that if the blockade were lifted, Cubas economic and social development would be dizzying. It knows that we would demonstrate even more so than now, the possibilities of Cuban socialism, all the potential not yet fully deployed of a country without discrimination of any kind, with social justice and human rights for all citizens, and not just for the few. It is the government of a great and powerful empire, but it fears the example of this small insurgent island. The next critical question is how can those of good will help and support the good example of Cuba in the face of the U.S. blockade. Obviously, the first answer is to organize and agitate for an end the blockade. As a young Senator, Barack Obama said that the blockade was obsolete and should end, and yet, while loosening the screws just a bit, President Obama has continued to aggressively enforce the blockade. He must be called to task on this. In addition, Congress must be lobbied to end the legal regime which keeps the embargo in place. In addition, we must support Venezuela and its new President, Nicolas Maduro, as Venezuela has been quite critical in supporting Cuba in its international medical mission. And indeed, one of the first things President Maduro did once elected in April was to travel to Cuba to reaffirm his support for these efforts. It should be noted that Maduros electoral rival, Henrique Capriles who led

an attack against the Cuban Embassy in Caracas during the 2002 coup vowed to end support for, and joint work, with Cuba.

Link

Generic Cuba Link

Lifting the embargo is appeasement. Sends a message of weakness to the rest of the world Perales 2010 (Jos Ral August The United States and Cuba: Implications of an Economic
Relationship (Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Latin American Program, Senior Program Associate) <http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/LAP_Cuba_Implications.pdf> The Helms-Burton Act created a clear roadmap stipulating the conditions by which the embargo could be suspended and ended. These include: legalization of political activity, the release of all political prisoners, dissolution of the Cuban Ministry of the Interiors Department of State Security, establishment of an independent judiciary, and a government that does not include the Castro brothers. Only when these conditions are met and democracy is reestablished should the embargo be scrapped. Elimination of the embargo prior to meeting these conditions will rightly be perceived as weakness in the face of political pressure. For instance, the Obama administration has little intention of signing a free trade
agreement with Colombiaa staunch ally with whom the United States has a very positive economic relationshipbecause of concern over the countrys inadequate labor rights.

Imagine the hypocrisy of U.S. foreign policy were it to punish a consolidated yet capitulate and reward the Cuban government for systematically abusing labor rights. What sort of message would that send to the world?
democracy with strong, albeit imperfect, labor rights,

The Castro Regime will take advantage of any concessions the U.S. Gives. This hurts Credibility.

Walser 12 (Ray, veteran Foreign Service officer, is a Senior Policy Analyst specializing in Latin America
at Heritage Foundation. Cuban-American Leaders: No Substitute for Freedom in Cuba http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/25/cuban-american-leaders-no-substitute-for-freedom-in-cuba/ )

With each new step lifting restrictions on travel and remittances have come more demands for additional actionsnot a reciprocal loosening of the regimes grip on its citizens . A one-of akind letter entitled Commitment to Freedom, signed by a distinguished battery of CubanAmerican former senior executives for Fortune 500 companies and released on June 25, advises Washington and the Obama Administration to curb its enthusiasm for a policy of appeasement and concessions. It warns against falling for the Castro regimes deceptive campaign to secure U.S. capital infusion and bank credits and lure some Cuban-American businessmen without ushering in a true economic and political opening. The former CEOs argue that recent economic reforms heralded as game-changing are, in fact, mostly cosmetic, heavily-taxed and revocable, and offer no legal protection or investment return. The letters signatories further warn that the Castro regime is seeking to divide and neutralize the Cuban-American community, and lure some of its businessmen, by selling the fallacious concept that there is no solution to Cubas predicament other than supporting cosmetic reforms without liberty and d emocracy. They are correct when they say
the future lies not with the current failed, octogenarian rulers, but with the leaders of the growing pro-democracy movement. The

Obama Administration policy aimed at easing travel and remittances to Cuba has visibly failed to advance genuine economic or political freedom. With the unjust detention of American Alan Gross and the continual crackdown on dissent and protest, the regime cannot hide its iron fist of political repression.

Any Engagement with Cuba will be seen as Appeasement

Calzon 07 Executive director of the Center for a Free Cuba in Washington, D.C. (Frank, Appeasing
the Castros will backfire - keep the Embargo Calzon, October 3 of 2007, Havana Journal, http://havanajournal.com/politics/entry/appeasing-the-castros-will-backfire-keep-the-embargo-calzon/)

Castros abusehis ability to order windows smashed or call out street demonstrations becomes revenge for inviting unapproved Cuban guests to the embassy , for reaching out to engage
ordinary Cubans in ways not preapproved by Castros government. Foreign observers in Cuba seem to have great difficulty imagining what the regime will do next. One reason why is that they keep looking for logical reasons to explain the regimes actions. Yet the reality is that much of what has happened in Cuba over the last 50 years cannot be explained, except as the whim of a man whose only goal is to be in control of everything Cuban. Castro

has a lot in common with Stalin. The Castro regime simply deems any independent actionhowever smallto be a challenge to its totalitarian control. Thus, inviting Cubas political dissidents to an embassy event is a hostile act. To give a short-wave radio to a Cuban national is, curiously enough, a violation of human rights. Any Cuban daring to voice support for change in Cuba is a paid agent of the United States. What to do in a situation such as this? The principle that should guide foreign governments is that they should show Cubans that they have friends on the outside. Foreign governments can start by, at the very least, always insisting on reciprocity in the freedom allowed Castros diplomats and embassies to operate in their capitals. This is not what happened. Foreign missionsAmericas among themaccede to Castros restrictions on how their diplomats and embassies function in Cuba. Cubas diplomats take full advantage of their freedoms in the U.S. capital. They attend congressional hearings, have access to the American media, develop relationships with businessmen and progressive activists, host student groups, speak at universities and enjoy tax-exempt status. Yet U.S. diplomats in Cuba have no similar privileges in Havana. They are subject to petty harassments. The Cuban government goes so far as to
detain shipping containers of supplies sent to the U.S. Interests Section in Cuba and has broken into the U.S. diplomatic pouch.

Attempting to appease Cubas kidnappers will backfire, as it always has. It is instructive that the refugee crises in 1980 and 1994, which involved 125,000 and 30,000 Cubans respectively, and the 1996 murder of Brothers to the Rescue crews over the Florida Straits occurred at times when Washington actually was trying to improve relations. Eventually, Cubas long nightmare will end. If governments around the world would also shake free of the Havana Syndrome, they might hasten Cubas democratic awakening.

Years of work have gone into pressuring reform in Cuba. Backing out damages U.S. reputation irreparably
Castaeda 8 (Jorge Castaeda, professor at New York University and fellow at the New America
Foundation, September-October 2008, Morning in Latin America, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 87, No. 5

Over the past few decades, the United States, Canada, the European Union, and Latin America have patiently constructed a regional legal framework to defend and encourage democratic rule as well as respect for human rights in the hemisphere. These values have been
enshrined in conventions, charters, and free trade-agreements, from the Inter-American Democratic Charter, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights to the American Convention on Human Rights and the labor and environmental chapters of fleetrade agreements, as well as in the democratic clauses of the economic agreements between Chile and the EU and between Mexico and the EU. These mechanisms are not perfect, and they have not truly

been tested. But to waive them in the interests of simply guaranteeing stability in Cuba and ensuring an exodus-free succession instead of a democratic transition--that is, creating once again a "Cuban exception" for reasons of pure pragmatism--would be unworthy of the enormous

efforts every country in the hemisphere has made to deepen and strengthen democracy in the Americas. Cuba must return to the regional concert of powers, but accepting this concert's rules. To allow it to proceed otherwise would weaken democracy and encourage authoritarian traditions in the hemisphere--and lay the groundwork for other exceptions that would justify their existence by invoking the Cuban precedent.

Cuban Oil Link

Drilling for oil is seen as an appeasement to rogue states plan sends the same signal Newsmax 2010 (4/5/10 Drilling Won't Mask Appeasement http://www.newsmax.com/Koch/KochObama-Venezuela-Iran/2010/04/05/id/354811) The president is to be commended for opening offshore areas for oil exploration. According to The Times of March 31, the president is ending a long-standing moratorium on oil exploration along the east coast from the northern tip of Delaware to the central coast of Florida, covering 167 million acres of ocean. Obviously, the action is intended to respond to the United States need for oil and our dependence on foreign sources. One large foreign source currently is Venezuela, whose leader, Hugo Chavez, is a sworn enemy of the U.S. According to The Times of April 3, Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin of Russia visited Venezuela on Friday to sign a series of military and oil agreements with President Hugo Chavez, who is seeking to expand ties with Russia as a way of countering the influence of the United States in Latin America.
The Times also reported that Mr. Chavez had suggested before Mr. Putins arrival that the countries could cooperate ambitiously on nuclear energy and a satellite-launching base in Venezuela. What would we do if Venezuela invited Russia to build a missile launch pad, or Russia provided Venezuela with the plans and materials for building nuclear weapons? Would there be a replay of the Cuban missile crisis of the 1960s? Based on our continuing failure to confront North Korea and Iran with regard to their nuclear activities, I suspect we would do nothing. I fear that we have lost the battle and lost our nerve. It

appears that the Obama administration has decided to live with the idea that these two rogue states North Korea and Iran can do as they please on the nuclear front. There is a foul whiff of Munich and appeasement in the air. A harbinger of what is to come is the Obama administrations
abysmal treatment of our close ally, Israel. Some see Obama's willingness to throw Israel under the bus as an attempt to court better relations with the Sunni Arab countries. Obama apparently believes that better relations with the Sunni Arabs will mean less hostility to the U.S. and greater access to oil. However, hatred

of the U.S. has little to do with what we do and a lot to do with what we are a free, secular, and democratic country that protects the rights of women and minorities. No amount of appeasement will change this undeniable fact. Someone also has to explain to me how distancing ourselves
from Israel is going to prevent Muslims from killing Muslims by the tens of thousands in Iraq, Iran, and Pakistan. Former Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begins statement, Goyim *Gentiles+ kill goyim and they come to hang the Jews, comes to mind. One well known supporter of Israel, with great access to the White House, said to me recently, I have never been so terrified. Me too.

Travel Ban Link

Lifting the Travel Ban seen as appeasement Suchlicki 07 (Jaime is Emilio Bacardi Moreau Distinguished Professor and Director, Institute for Cuban
and Cuban-American Studies, University of Miami. Don't Lift the Cuba Travel Ban, April 11, 2007, FrontPageMagazine.com)

Lifting the travel ban without any major concession from Cuba would send the wrong message to the enemies of the United States: that a foreign leader can seize U.S. properties without compensation; allow the use of his territory for the introduction of nuclear missiles aimed at the United Sates; espouse terrorism and anti-U.S. causes throughout the world; and eventually the United States will forget and forgive, and reward him with tourism, investments and economic aid. Since the Ford/Carter era, U.S. policy toward Latin America has emphasized democracy, human
rights and constitutional government. Under President Reagan the U.S. intervened in Grenada, under President Bush, Sr. the U.S. intervened in Panama and under President Clinton the U.S. landed marines in Haiti, all to restore democracy to those countries. The U.S. has prevented military coups in the region and supported the will of the people in free elections. While the U.S. policy has not been uniformly applied throughout the world, it is U.S. policy in the region. Cuba is part of Latin America. A normalization of relations with a military dictatorship in Cuba will send the wrong message to the rest of the continent. Supporting

regimes and dictators that violate human rights and abuse their population is an ill-advised policy that rewards and encourages further abuses.

Internal Link
US must not appease Cuba Maine 13 Emil Maine (writer for the Heritage Foundation) July 22, 2013, The Heritage Foundation, U.S. Engages Cuba, Cuba Engages in
Arms Traffickinghttp://blog.heritage.org/2013/07/22/u-s-engages-cuba-cuba-engages-in-arms-trafficking/ )

The interception of a North Korean ship believed to be carrying missiles, jets, and other weapons from Cuba through the Panama Canal should be a wakeup call for the Obama Administration as it resumes migration talks with Cuban officials for the first time since 2011. The incident illustrates the wrongheadedness of the Obama Administrations warming relations with the Castro regime. The Obama Administration seems to have forgotten that the source of lack of progress in CubanAmerican relations is the regime in Havana, which is hopelessly wedded to the Communist political-economic model. The talks aim to address changes in the flow of
people between the two countries, but it is important to note that anyone traveling to Cuba today will pay a significant percentage of his travel costs to support the Castro regime. Cuban

Americans or others traveling under license will inevitably visit official stores and patronize government tourist facilities, most of which are run by military-owned holding companies or concessions and support the socialist economy. Americans traveling to Cuba may believe that their visits engender good will and foster people-to-people contactand perhaps they do but they also help to enrich the Castro regime. If we actually want to help the long-suffering people of Cuba, the answer should be obvious: shine a light on the repression and tyranny that make daily life in Cuba such a grinding ordeal. Dissidents such as Rosa Maria Paya and Berta Soler already speak out against the regime,
hoping to raise awareness and demanding answers about horrors of communist Cuba. Paya hopes to pressure Cuba for answers about her fathers murder, dissident Oswaldo Paya, while Ladies in White leader Berta Soler works to defend political prisoners. If the plight of Cuban political prisoners were not enough, American Alan Gross has been held in a Cuban prison for more than three years. A subcontractor for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), Gross was arrested in December 2009 for making the Internet available to members of Cubas small Jewish community. He was sentenced to 15 years in prison in March 2011. Rather

than accommodate and appease the Cuban regime, the Obama Administration should uphold the right of the Cuban people to democracy, and the Administration should refrain from measures that would enrich the Castro regime and its loyalists without empowering the citizens of Cuba to take charge of their country. The U.S. should offer real changes in U.S. policy only in exchange for freedom of
information, expression, and travel for all Cubans and others repressed by the regime.

Appeasement kills credibility Morris 9 - former political adviser to Sen. Trent Lott and President Bill Clinton (Dick, Obama's Weakness Issue, June 24 of 2009, Real
Clear Politics, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/06/24/obamas_weakness_issue_97145.html) The transparent appeasement of Iran's government --

and its obvious lack of reciprocation -- make Obama look ridiculous. Long after the mullahs have suppressed what limited democracy they once allowed, Obama's image problems will persist. While Americans generally applaud Obama's outreach to the Muslims of the world and think highly of his Cairo speech, they are very dissatisfied with his inadequate efforts to stop Iran from developing -- and North Korea from using -- nuclear weapons. Clearly, his policies toward these two nations are a weak spot in his reputation. His failure to stand up to either aggressor is of a piece with his virtual surrender in the war on terror.

Appeasement emboldens Cuba to spread anti-American thoughts through Latin America which threatens U.S national security

Roberts 07, (James; Research Fellow; The Heritage Foundation's lead expert in economic freedom
and growth. He studies economic and political issues in Latin America and Europe Cuba at the

Crossroads: The Threat to U.S. National Security; Heritage Foundation WebMemo; 18 October 2007; http://www.heritage.org/Research/LatinAmerica/wm1669.cfm;)
The next event will feature a discussion of the many ways that

Castro's Cuba threatens U.S. national security. A number of security issues stand out: Cuba is aggressively spreading anti-Americanism throughout Latin America and is deeply involved in backing and advising the increasingly totalitarian and virulently anti-U.S. regime of Venezuelan dictator-President Hugo Chvez.[1] Since Raul Castro took the reins as acting head of state in 2006, Cuban intelligence services have intensified their targeting of the U.S. Since 9/11, however, U.S. intelligence agencies have reduced the priority assigned to Cuba.[2] Cuba's Directorate of Intelligence (DI) is among the top six intelligence services in the world. Thirty-five of its intelligence officers or agents have been identified operating in the U.S. and neutralized between 1996 and 2003. [3] This is strong evidence of DI's aggressiveness and hostility toward the U.S. Cuba traffics in intelligence. U.S. intelligence secrets collected by Cuba have been sold to or bartered with Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, and other enemies of the United States. China is known to have had intelligence personnel posted to the Cuban Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) site at Bejucal since 2001, and Russia continues to receive Cuban SIGINT information. Additionally, many Cuban intelligence agents and security police are advising Hugo Chvez in Venezuela.[4] Cuban intelligence has successfully compromised every major U.S. military operation since the 1983 invasion of Grenada and has provided America's enemies with forewarning of impending U.S. operations.[5] Beijing is busy working to improve Cuban signals intelligence and electronic warfare facilities, which had languished after the fall of the Soviet Union, integrating them
into China's own global satellite network.

Appeasement policies fail they cause terrorism and democratic backsliding Diaz-Balart 2012(Mario Diaz-Balart is the U.S. Representative Mario Diaz-Balart from Florida's 25th district, Republican party.)
(8/21/12Mario Diaz-Balart: Obama Has Policy of Appeasement Toward Castro Regime http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2012/08/21/mario-diaz-balart-obama-has-pursued-policy-appeasement-toward-castro-regime/) In July, Hugo Chavez commented on the United States presidential election, saying that he thought Barack Obama was deep down a good guy. Earlier this summer, Mariela Castro, daughter of titular Cuban dictator Raul Castro, who taunts Cubas brave pro-democracy activists as despicable parasites, also praised President Obama after his administration allowed her to enter the United States to give a series of lectures and tour various U.S. cities. These compliments and the fact that they were not disavowed by the White House come as no surprise, given President Obamas appeasing stance regarding anti-American totalitarian regimes. Since he took office in January 2009, President

Obama has pursued a policy of appeasement toward the totalitarian Cuban dictatorship. Despite the Castro brothers harboring of international terrorists and their increasingly relentless oppression of the Cuban people, President Obama weakened U.S. sanctions and has increased the flow of dollars to the dictatorship. In response, the Castro brothers amped up their repression of the Cuban people and imprisoned American humanitarian aid worker Alan Gross for the crime of taking humanitarian aide to Cubas small Jewish community. Clearly, President Obama is not concerned about the threat posed by the Cuban dictatorship, nor has he manifested genuine solidarity with the pro-democracy aspirations of the Cuban people. The Cuban people are protesting in the streets and demanding freedom. But rather than supporting the growing, courageous pro-democracy movement, President Obama instead has chosen to appease their oppressors. While President Obama claims that his policies aim to assist the oppressed Cuban people, his actions betray that he is not on their side. You cannot credibly claim to care about the
oppressed while working out side deals with their oppressors and welcoming the oppressors elite into the United States with open arms. And you cannot claim to support political prisoners while increasing the flow of dollars to their jailers. The

failures of the Obama administration in Cuba are not an isolated foreign policy failure. Around the world, President Obama has taken an approach of appeasement when it comes to some of our most virulent enemies. In addition to Cuba, from Iran to Syria to Venezuela, President Obama has shown an unwillingness to stand firm when anti-American forces threaten our interests, and his weakness has emboldened

Americas enemies. If we are going to reassert our position in the world, we need a change at the top. Unlike President Obama, Mitt
Romney has consistently vowed to take a firm stance against the Castro regime and strongly support the growing pro-democracy movement in Cuba. That will start by tightening sanctions against the brutal Castro dictatorship and fully funding Cuban pro-democracy assistance programs. Similarly, after thoroughly and seriously studying the issue, Romneys running mate, my friend Rep. Paul Ryan, fully understands that a policy of appeasement and accommodation only emboldens the terrorist Castro regime. Seven or eight years ago, my brother Lincoln, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and I had long and thorough briefing sessions on the issue of Cuba with Paul Ryan, and, since then, Rep. Ryan has not only supported a vigorous U.S. pro-democracy policy toward Cuba, he has been one of the strongest supporters of a free Cuba in the U.S. Congress. The Romney-Ryan Administration will support pro-democracy movements throughout our hemisphere, work with our allies to fight criminal gangs and terrorists, and oppose the dangerous incursion of enemies such as Iran and Hezbollah into Americas backyard. The Castro brothers have oppressed the Cuban people and threatened U.S. security interests for far too long. Mitt Romney will reaffirm Americas dedication to the freedom of the Cuban people and refuse to assist their oppressors until the promise of a free, democratic Cuba is finally realized.

Impacts

Terrorism Impact Module

Cuba is a known sponsor of terrorism

Kasperowicz 13 (Pete, Staff Writer for the Hill, "State keeps Cuba on terror sponsors list", 5/30/13,
http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/americas/302609-cuba-remains-a-state-sponsor-of-terrordespite-some-improvements )
As expected, the

State Department on Thursday released a report that keeps Cuba on the list of state sponsors of terrorism, even as it acknowledged that some conditions on the island were improving. State's Country Reports on Terrorism for 2012 was widely expected to keep Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria on the list of countries that sponsor terrorism, despite some reports that incorrectly suggested that it might be used by Secretary of State John Kerry to shift policy on Cuba. In the case of Cuba, State listed three primary reasons for keeping the island nation on the list. First, it noted that Cuba continued to provide a safe haven for about two dozens members of Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA), a group charged with terrorism in Spain. State's report, though, seemed to give Cuba some credit
for hosting peace talks between the government of Colombia and members of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). The report notes that Cuba offered aid to FARC members "in past years," and indicates that Havana is no longer supporting the rebel group. A second major reason for listing Cuba was that the government "continued to harbor

fugitives wanted in the United States." That language is unchanged from last year's report. And thirdly, State said Cuba has deficiencies in the area of anti-money laundering and combating the financing of terrorism, just as it did in last years report.

Appeasement merely emboldens terrorist groups to act. Carrick 07 (Kenneth, Lieutenant Colonel, US Army War College, Master of Strategic Studies Degree;
3/30/07; WEAKNESS AGAINST TERRORISM: FIFTEEN YEARS OF FAILED U.S. POLICY; http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA467152 ) As President Reagan said to the nation and the world that night, there is no security, no safety in the appeasement of evil.3 Unfortunately for too many years since that bold military strike against terrorist activity, the United States and the West failed to stand up to terrorists despite continued attacks on innocent people and mounting evidence of a serious threat to U.S. national security. Of the more than 2,400 acts of anti-U.S. international terrorism that occurred from 1983-98, it is noteworthy the United States decided to apply overt military force in response to only three: President Reagans strikes against Libya in 1986; U.S. strikes against the Iraqi Intelligence Service Headquarters in June 1993 after a foiled plot to assassinate former President George Bush via a car bomb in Kuwait that April; and the U.S. missile attack against alleged bin Laden facilities in Sudan and Afghanistan following the bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.4 The attacks of 9/11 confirmed that indeed U.S. policies of the previous fifteen years had not only failed to stem the spread of violence against innocent people; but instead, had emboldened terrorists and permitted the largest unprovoked attack in American history.

Terrorism creates multiple scenarios for nuclear conflict Speice, 06

[Patrick F. Speice, Jr., JD Candidate at The College of William and Mary, NEGLIGENCE AND NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION: ELIMINATING THE CURRENT LIABILITY BARRIER TO BILATERAL U.S.-RUSSIAN NONPROLIFERATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS, William & Mary Law Review, February 2006, 47 Wm and Mary L. Rev. 1427]

Accordingly, there is a significant and ever-present risk that terrorists could acquire a nuclear device or fissile material from Russia as a result of the confluence of Russian economic decline and the end of stringent Soviet-era nuclear security measures. 39 Terrorist

groups could acquire a nuclear weapon by a number of methods, including "steal[ing] one intact from the stockpile of a country possessing such weapons, or ... [being] sold or given one by [*1438] such a country, or [buying or stealing] one from another subnational group that had obtained it in one of these ways." 40 Equally threatening, however, is the risk that terrorists will steal or purchase fissile material and construct a nuclear device on their own. Very little material is necessary to construct a highly destructive nuclear weapon. 41 Although nuclear devices are extraordinarily complex, the technical barriers to constructing a workable weapon are not significant. 42 Moreover, the sheer number of methods that could be used to deliver a nuclear device into the United States makes it incredibly likely that terrorists could successfully employ a nuclear weapon once it was built. 43 Accordingly, supply-side controls that are aimed at preventing
terrorists from acquiring nuclear material in the first place are the most effective means of countering the risk of nuclear terrorism. 44 Moreover, the end of the Cold War eliminated the rationale for maintaining a large military-industrial complex in Russia, and the nuclear cities were closed. 45 This resulted in at least 35,000 nuclear scientists becoming unemployed in an economy that was collapsing. 46 Although the economy has stabilized somewhat, there [*1439] are still at least 20,000 former scientists who are unemployed or underpaid and who are too young to retire, 47 raising the chilling prospect that these scientists will be tempted to sell their nuclear knowledge, or steal nuclear material to sell, to states or terrorist organizations with nuclear ambitions. 48 The

potential consequences of the unchecked spread of nuclear knowledge and material to terrorist groups that seek to cause mass destruction in the United States are truly horrifying. A terrorist attack with a nuclear weapon would be devastating in terms of immediate human and economic losses. 49 Moreover, there would be immense political pressure in the United States to discover the perpetrators and retaliate with nuclear weapons, massively increasing the number of casualties and potentially triggering a full-scale nuclear conflict. 50

Democracy Impact Module

Pushing Cuban reform through the Embargo is key to the spread of Democracy in Latin America
Arias-King 8 Fredo Arias-King, founder of the academic quarterly Demokratizatsiaya: The Journal of Post-Soviet Democratization, analyst with two regional think tanks: CEON (Miami) and CADAL(Buenos Aires), June 20, 2008, Latin America and European Soft Power Geopolitics, Documentos, Year VI, No. 86, online: http://www.cadal.org/pdf/download.asp?id_nota=2399
Cuba to the rescue? Para doxically, but quite realistically, Cuba

could become a source of inspiration for Latin America. But instead of time the island nation could give hope to those forces attempting to reform the hemisphere. It could also be the main conduit of European soft
inspiring misguided Rousseauean romantics, corrupt demagogues and guerrillas, this power into the rest of the region. So far, only Chile has provided (albeit reluctantly) a model for the reformist forces of the region. Costa Rica is also oftentimes touted as an example of a socially sensitive democracyalthough its still basically poor. All

the other examples are too deeply flawed to offer any kind of model. Cuba could use its pending transition from communism to escape the cultural pathologies of latinoamericanismo, just as several other nations did with the even more pernicious Central Europeanism of interethnic conflict, militarism, poverty and war. The only democracy
east of Switzerland in the interwar period was Tom Masaryks Czechoslovakia. However, today there are over a dozen functioning democracies in the regioncountries that took advantage of good leadership and a social consensus to dramatically reinvent themselves.

The transition from communism provides this opportunity, if the elites take advantage of what Leszek Balcerowicz calls the window of opportunity, before the honeymoon of extraordinary politics gives way to the restraining humdrum of ordinary politics. If a post-authoritarian Cuba decides to go further than a mediocre status-quo antetransition and finds the courage to model itself as a Caribbean Estonia, then the implications for the rest of the hemisphere will be profound. A Cuba with a Havel or a Mart Laar as president, that implements administrative reform, lustration, a flat tax, open trade, rigorous banking reforms, fiscal discipline, low indebtedness, property rights and fair privatisation, that maybe even joins NATOas a way to reform its bloated military this Cuba could see Asian-style growth rates and a dramatically better rank in the UNs Human Development Index

Latin American democracy is key to global democracy Fauriol and Weintraub, 95 - director of the CSIS Americas program and professor of Public Affairs
at the University of Texas (Georges and Sidney, The Washington Quarterly, U.S. Policy, Brazil, and the Southern Cone)
The democracy

theme also carries much force in the hemisphere today. The State Department regularly parades the fact that all countries in the hemisphere, save one, now have democratically elected governments. True enough, as long as the definition of democracy is flexible, but these countries turned to democracy mostly of their own volition. It is hard to determine if the United States is using the democracy theme as a club in the hemisphere (hold elections or be excluded) or promoting it as a goal. If
as a club, its efficacy is limited to this hemisphere, as the 1994 Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting in Indonesia demonstrated in its call for free trade in that region, replete with nondemocratic nations, by 2020. Following that meeting, Latin

Americans are somewhat cynical as to whether the United States really cares deeply about promoting democracy if this conflicts with expanding exports. Yet this triad of objectiveseconomic liberalization and free trade, democratization, and sustainable development/ alleviation of povertyis generally accepted in the hemisphere. The commitment to the latter two varies by country, but all three are taken as valid. All three are also themes expounded widely by the United States, but with more vigor in this hemisphere than anywhere else in the developing world.

Thus, failure to advance on all three in Latin America will compromise progress elsewhere in the world.
Global democracy solves multiple scenarios for war and extinction Diamond, 95 (Larry, Promoting Democracy in the 1990s, 1. Why Promote Democracy? wwics.si.edu/subsites/ccpdc/pubs/di/1.htm)
OTHER THREATS This hardly exhausts the lists of threats to our security and well-being in the coming years and decades. In the former Yugoslavia nationalist aggression tears at the stability of Europe and could easily spread. The flow of illegal drugs intensifies through increasingly powerful international crime syndicates that have made common cause with authoritarian regimes and have utterly corrupted the institutions of tenuous, democratic ones. Nuclear,

chemical, and biological weapons continue to proliferate. The very source of life on Earth, the global ecosystem, appears increasingly endangered. Most of these new and unconventional threats to security are associated with or aggravated by the weakness or absence of democracy, with its provisions for legality, accountability, popular sovereignty, and openness. LESSONS OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY The experience of this century offers important lessons. Countries that govern themselves in a truly democratic fashion do not go to war with one another. They do not aggress against their neighbors to aggrandize themselves or glorify their leaders. Democratic governments do not ethnically "cleanse" their own populations, and they are much less likely to face ethnic insurgency. Democracies do not sponsor terrorism against one another. They do not build weapons of mass destruction to use on or to threaten one another. Democratic countries form more reliable, open, and enduring trading partnerships. In the long run they offer better and more stable climates for investment. They are more environmentally responsible because they must answer to their own citizens, who organize to protest the destruction of their environments. They are better bets to honor international treaties since they value legal obligations and
because their openness makes it much more difficult to breach agreements in secret. Precisely because, within their own borders, they respect competition, civil liberties, property rights, and the rule of law, democracies

are the only reliable foundation on which a new world order of international security and prosperity can be built.

Obama credibility Impact Module

Relaxing sanctions on Cuba will kill Obamas credibility Rubin 11 (Jennifer, writer for the Washington Post, Obamas Cuba appeasement, Washington Post,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/obamas-cubaappeasement/2011/03/29/gIQAjuL2tL_blog.html ) The administrations conduct is all the more galling given the behavior of the Castro regime. Our willingness to relax sanctions was not greeted with goodwill gestures, let alone systemic reforms. To the contrary, this was the setting for Grosss imprisonment. So naturally the administration orders up more of the same. Throughout his tenure, President Obama has failed to comprehend the cost-benefit analysis that despotic regimes undertake. He has offered armfuls of goodies and promised quietude on human rights; the despots behavior has worsened. There is simply no downside for rogue regimes to take their shots at the United States. Whether it is Cuba or Iran, the administration reverts to engagement mode when its engagement efforts are met with aggression and/or domestic oppression. Try to murder a diplomat on U.S. soil? Well sit down and chat. Grab an American contractor and try him in a kangaroo court? Well trade prisoners and talk about relaxing more sanctions. Invade Georgia, imprison political opponents and interfere with attempts to restart the peace process? Well put the screws on our democratic ally to get you into World Trade Organization. The response of these thuggish regimes is entirely predictable and, from their perspective, completely logical. What is inexplicable is the Obama administrations willingness to throw gifts to tyrants in the expectation they will reciprocate in kind.

Obamas strength is uniquely key to solve conflict Ben Coes 11, a former speechwriter in the George H.W. Bush administration, managed Mitt Romneys
successful campaign for Massachusetts Governor in 2002 & author, The disease of a weak president, The Daily Caller, http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/30/the-disease-of-a-weak-president/

a weak president usually begins with the Achilles heel all politicians are born with the desire to be popular. It leads to pandering to different results in that very politician losing the trust and respect of friends and foes alike. In the case of Israel, those of us who are strong supporters can at least take comfort in the
The disease of audiences, people and countries and creates a sloppy, incoherent set of policies. Ironically, it ultimately knowledge that Tel Aviv will do whatever is necessary to protect itself from potential threats from its unfriendly neighbors. While it would be preferable for the Israelis to be able to count on the United States, in both word and deed, the fact is right now they stand alone. Obama and his foreign policy team have undercut the Israelis in a multitude of ways. Despite this, I wouldnt bet against the soldiers of Shin Bet, Shayetet 13 and the Israeli Defense Forces. But

Obamas weakness could in other places

have implications far, far worse than anything that might ultimately occur in Israel. The triangular plot of land that connects Pakistan, India and China is held together with much more fragility and is built upon a truly foreboding foundation of religious hatreds, radicalism, resource envy and nuclear weapons. If you can only worry about preventing one foreign policy disaster, worry about this one. Here are a few unsettling facts to think about: First, Pakistan and India have fought three wars since the British de-colonized and left the region in 1947. All three wars occurred before the two countries had nuclear weapons. Both countries now possess hundreds of nuclear weapons, enough to wipe each other off the map many times over. Second, Pakistan is 97% Muslim. It is a question of when not if Pakistan elects a radical Islamist in the mold of Ayatollah Khomeini as its president. Make no mistake, it will happen, and when it does the world will have a far greater concern than Ali Khamenei or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and a single nuclear device. Third, China sits at the northern border of both India and Pakistan. China is strategically aligned with Pakistan. Most concerning, China covets Indias natural resources.

it has slowly inched its way into the northern tier of India-controlled Kashmir Territory, appropriating land and resources and drawing little notice from the outside world . In my book, Coup DEtat, I consider this tinderbox of colliding forces in Pakistan, India and China as a thriller writer. But thriller writers have the luxury of solving problems by imagining solutions on the page. In my book, when Pakistan elects a radical Islamist who then starts a war with India and introduces nuclear weapons to the theater, America steps in and removes the Pakistani leader through a coup dtat. I wish it was that simple. The more complicated and difficult truth is that we, as Americans, must take sides. We must be willing to be unpopular in certain places. Most important, we must be ready and willing to threaten our military might on behalf of our allies . And our allies are Israel and India. There are many threats out there Islamic radicalism, Chinese technology espionage, global debt and half a dozen other things that smarter people than me are no doubt worrying about. But the single
Over the years,

The single greatest threat facing America and our allies is a weak U.S. president . It doesnt have to be this way. President Obama could if he chose develop a backbone and lead. Alternatively, America could elect a new president. It has to be one or the other. The status quo is simply not an option.
greatest threat to America is none of these.

Environment Impact Module

Pushing Cuban reform through the Embargo is key to the spread of Democracy in Latin America
Arias-King 8 Fredo Arias-King, founder of the academic quarterly Demokratizatsiaya: The Journal of Post-Soviet Democratization, analyst with two regional think tanks: CEON (Miami) and CADAL(Buenos Aires), June 20, 2008, Latin America and European Soft Power Geopolitics, Documentos, Year VI, No. 86, online: http://www.cadal.org/pdf/download.asp?id_nota=2399
Cuba to the rescue? Paradoxically, but quite realistically, Cuba

could become a source of inspiration for Latin America. But instead of inspiring misguided Rousseauean romantics, corrupt demagogues and guerrillas, this time the island nation could give hope to those forces attempting to reform the hemisphere. It could also be the main
conduit of European soft power into the rest of the region. So far, only Chile has provided (albeit reluctantly) a model for the reformist forces of the region. Costa Rica is also oftentimes touted as an example of a socially sensitive democracyalthough its still basically poor.

All the other examples are too deeply flawed to offer any kind of model. Cuba could use its pending transition from communism to escape the cultural pathologies of latinoamericanismo, just as several other nations did with the even more pernicious Central Europeanism of interethnic conflict, militarism, poverty and war. The only democracy east of Switzerland in the interwar period was Tom Masaryks Czechoslovakia. However, today there are over
a dozen functioning democracies in the regioncountries that took advantage of good leadership and a social consensus to dramatically reinvent themselves. The

transition from communism provides this opportunity, if the elites take advantage of what Leszek Balcerowicz calls the window of opportunity, before the honeymoon of extraordinary politics gives way to the restraining humdrum of ordinary politics. If a postauthoritarian Cuba decides to go further than a mediocre status-quo antetransition and finds the courage to model itself as a Caribbean Estonia, then the implications for the rest of the hemisphere will be profound. A Cuba with a Havel or a Mart Laar as president, that implements administrative reform, lustration, a flat tax, open trade, rigorous banking reforms, fiscal discipline, low indebtedness, property rights and fair privatisation, that maybe even joins NATOas a way to reform its bloated militarythis Cuba could see Asian-style growth rates and a dramatically better rank in the UNs Human Development Index

Latin American democracy solves the environment Callejas 10 (Danny, Professor of Economics at the Universidad de Antioquia, Colombia, Democracy
and Environmental Quality in Latin America: A Panel System of Equations Approach, 1995-2008, November)

Democracy has a positive effect on environmental quality. The theory suggests that democracy sustains and encourages freedom of speech, freedom of press, political participation and social awareness. These elements provide a conduit for social demands. As urban population and income grow, citizens increase their demand for higher environmental standards and quality. The enactment of new policies and regulations that incentive individuals and firms may lead to a reduction in pollution, environmental degradation and deforestation; therefore, leading to a higher level of environmental quality. This study analyzed 19 Latin America countries for the period 1995-2008. A panel data system of equations estimates suggest that a 10% increase in democracy may reduce CO2 emissions per capita in 0.48% or 0.60% in Latin America. Similarly, a 10% increase in education may reduce emissions in 0.71% or 0.73%. These results suggest that democracy and education have a positive effect on environmental quality.

Extinction
Tonn 7 - Bruce E. Tonn, Urban Planning Prof @ Tennessee, November 2007, Futures v. 39, no. 9, Futures Sustainability, ln The first principle is the most important because earth-life is needed to support earth-life. Ecosystems are composed of countless species that are mutually dependent upon each other for nutrients directly as food or as by-products of earth-life (e.g., as carbon dioxide and oxygen). If the biodiversity of an ecosystem is substantially compromised, then the entire system could collapse due to destructive negative nutrient cycle feedback effects. If enough ecosystems collapse worldwide, then the cascading impact on global nutrient cycles could lead to catastrophic species extinction. Thus, to ensure the survival of earth-life into the distant future the earth's biodiversity must be protected.

2NC AT:

Venezuela Appeasement DA
By: Lia Isono and Mark

1NC Shell
1. UniquenessObama taking hardline stance against Maduro Weisbrot 5/2 Mark Weisbrot, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, What Does the Future Hold for U.S.-Venezuela Relations?
Latin America Advisor, May 3, 2013 Originally published in the Inter-American Dialogue's daily Latin America Advisor. http://www.thedialogue.org/page.cfm?pageID=32&pubID=3297

According to a New York Times report on April 15, Maduro

reached out to the Obama administration through Bill Richardson just before the election. The administration gave its answer within 48 hours, and it was a lot worse than 'no, thank you.' By refusing to recognize Venezuela's election results, and saying that a '100 percent audit' of the vote count was 'necessary,' the Obama administration was saying, 'we hate you, and we are going to do everything we can to undermine your ability to govern.' It was really an escalation of Washington's involvement in Venezuelan politics not seen since its support for the military coup of 2002. It was also
disingenuous: given the results of the election-day audit of votes from 53 percent of the voting machines, a further audit could not possibly change the result. A statistical analysis we did shows that the probability of getting the April 14 audit result if the true winner were Capriles is far less than one in 1 quadrillion. The Obama administration's attempt completely isolated in the world, indicates that

to delegitimize Venezuela's election, although it was there is no inclination from Washington to significantly improve relations with Venezuela in the foreseeable future. This is regardless of what Maduro does . As for
businesses' political risk, I don't see any reason these would increase. The risk of expropriation has always been very small compared to normal investment risks such as prices of outputs or inputs.

2. Engagement with Venezuela is appeasement Sends the signal that America is weak and emboldens aggression Ros-Lehtinen 2013, (Ileana, Represents the 27th district of Florida, Fox News Latino, Failed Policies
in LatAm Emboldens Rogue Regimes, accessed 7/8/13, http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/opinion/2013/01/16/ileana-ros-lehtinen-failed-policies-in-latamemboldens-rogue-regimes/) The Obama administration has ignored the very serious issues that threaten our national security in the Western Hemisphere for the past four years. The violations of human rights, constitutional order, suppression of democracy and increased
relations with some of the most vile dictators in the world by the rogue regimes of Venezuelan President Hugo Chvez, the Castro brothers in Cuba, and Ecuador President Rafael Correa stands in direct opposition to the ideals of the American people. One cannot detract from the ongoing crises facing the Middle East or growing concerns in North Africa, but this administration must realize that ignoring what is happening in our own hemisphere will only encourage other rogue regimes to increase their presence in Latin America and, in turn, threaten our national security and economic well-being. This administration has made clear that Latin America and the Caribbean are an afterthought by failing to take a proactive leadership role in the region and increase cooperation with responsible democratic nations. This lack of and attention to the region has allowed

leadership the likes of Iran and Syria to take a much more active role in the region, not only in a diplomatic and economic capacity, but also by creating a foothold for extremist organizations that openly target Americans and U.S. interests. The Obama administration must end its failed Latin American policies and seriously address the issues that the U.S. faces before its too late. The administrations approach of appeasement and engagement with brutal dictatorships in Cuba and Venezuela has only emboldened their abuse and suppression of democracy and human rights. In Cuba, the administration has eased restrictions on travel and remittances as political detentions by the Castros forces dramatically rose in 2012 and will likely increase again in 2013. The Castro regimes thugs have taken it a step further by brutally beating members of human rights opposition groups like the Ladies in White, and subjecting political prisoners to the most inhumane and unsanitary conditions imaginable. These savage tactics have been the same playbook for Fidels protg in Venezuela, Hugo Chvez, where human rights and
freedom of speech are under siege. For example, a constitutional crisis has ensued due to Chvez remaining in a Cuban hospital and unable to attend the inauguration on January 10 as mandated by the Venezuelan Constitution. The administration should seize this opportunity to

demand freedom and transparency for the Venezuelan people, and not succumb to Chvezs ploys to maintain power. It would be nave to think that engaging a Chavista regime that openly facilitates the illicit narcotics trade, assists the Iranian and Syrian regimes and is a gross human rights violator will yield positive results. Another extremely troubling issue has been the administrations failure to adequately address Irans expansion into the Western Hemisphere. Over

the last few years Tehran has increased its subversive actions and diplomatic and economic relations with radical regimes in Latin America. Last year, Ahmadinejad made two visits to the region in an attempt to gain support from like-minded tyrants, such as the Castros in Cuba, Daniel Ortega in
Nicaragua, Correa in Ecuador, Chvez in Venezuela, and Evo Morales in Bolivia. The administration has failed to produce sensible, effective policies to counter Irans influence in Latin America. We cannot allow the Iranian regime to parade around the region in direct defiance of responsible democracies in the region, exporting hate and violence to the brutal tyrannies of Venezuela, Cuba, and others in the region who seeks to subvert American ideals and suppress their populations. However, these actions, or inactions, are not limited to a few countries in the region. In Nicaragua, Ecuador, and Bolivia, the administration has extended the proverbial olive branch only to see no forthcoming changes in these establishments repressive and coercive policies. The harsh truth is that these despots would do anything to maintain their grip on power and will use any means at their disposal to do so. The administration must finally see the truth that these

regimes will continue their nefarious ways as long as President Obama and his advisors fail to stand up to these dictators. These failures by the administration will not stay in the Western Hemisphere. For every brutal act President Obama ignores, for every human right that is denied, the rest of the world will be watching and taking note. The failure to address these very real issues in our region will only embolden regimes elsewhere and diminish our standing abroad. It is our duty to provide strong leadership that will support our allies, defend our interests, and ensure that human rights and freedom are being respected. These goals can only be achieved through true democratic reforms and responsible rule of law and not through the appeasement of sadistic power-hungry tyrants who
have held their nations hostage for so long.

regimes capable of intimidating its neighbors and exercising significant influence in the region.

3. Hardlining key- Iran has already started aggressive action Tobin 4/26 (Johnathan; Jonathan S. Tobin is Senior Online Editor of Commentary magazine with responsibility for managing the editorial
content of the website as well as serving as chief politics blogger. From January 2009 to April 2011, he was executive editor of the magazine. Prior to coming to Commentary, Tobin was editor in chief of the Jewish Exponent in Philadelphia and the Connecticut Jewish Ledger. His writing has appeared in the New York Post, the Jerusalem Post, the Weekly Standard, the New York Times, the Christian Science Monitor, USA Today and many other publications. Over the course of his career, he has won more than 50 journalism awards for commentary, editorial writing, and arts criticism. He has been named the top columnist and editorial writer for Jewish newspapers in North America several times, as well as the top weekly columnist and editorial writer in Pennsylvania and Connecticut. In 2006, he received the unique distinction of being named both the best editorial columnist and the best arts critic in Philadelphia by the Society of Professional Journalists. He has lectured on campuses and to organizations around the country and has appeared on CNN, FOX News Channel, the FOX Business Channel, the BBC, PBS, Pacifica and numerous other media outlets.; If Obamas Syria Promises Mean Nothing, How Can We Trust Him on Iran?; http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/04/26/if-obamas-syria-promises-mean-nothing-how-can-we-trust-him-on-iran/) But there is another angle to the decision that the administration will have to make on Syria that has wider implications for the region. With

even ardent Obama supporters like Jeffrey Goldberg reminding the president he has made it crystal clear that chemical weapons use would be a red line that would trigger a strong U.S. response, what
follows will not only tell us whether that promise would be kept. It will also illustrate just how seriously to take other pledges the administration has made, specifically its vow never to allow Iran to go nuclear. With

the White House desperately trying to buy time before making a decision on Syria, its fair to ask why anyone should regard American rhetoric on Iran as anything more than an elaborate bluff if Obama wont keep his word about Assads behavior. Judging by the reaction in Washington to the news about the proof of the Assad regime using chemical weapons, many in the
administration may now regret the presidents willingness to make promises about Syria. It is likely that he and his foreign policy team naively believed that Assad would fall long before they were called to account for their loose talk about being willing to act if the dictator went too far in trying to preserve his regime. Moreover, having

largely been propelled into office by American war weariness, it will be difficult for a president who prefers to lead from behind to convince his supporters to back American involvement in Syria. But if after his trademark slow decision-making process unfolds, the

president decides that the U.S. will still not do anything to prevent the future use of chemical weapons or to limit Assads ability to use them, a crucial red line will have been crossed.

4. Iran prolif leads to Middle East war Kaufman 10 Robert Kaufman (a political scientist specializing in American foreign policy, national security, international relations, and various aspects of
American politics. Kaufman received his JD from Georgetown University Law School in Washington, D.C., and his BA, MA, M. Phil., and PhD from Columbia University in the city of New York. Kaufman has written frequently for scholarly journals and popular publications, including The Weekly Standard, Policy Review, The Washington Times, the Baltimore Sun, The Philadelphia Inquirer, and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. He is the author of three books. His most recent book In Defense of the Bush Doctrine was published by the University Press of Kentucky in May 2007. In 2000, his biography, Henry M Jackson: A Life in Politics received the Emil and Katherine Sick Award for the best book on the history of the Pacific Northwest. His first book, Arms Control During the Prenuclear Era, which Columbia University Press published, studied the interwar naval treaties and their linkage to the outbreak of World War II in the Pacific. Kaufman also assisted President Richard M. Nixon in the research and writing of Nixon's final Book, Beyond Peace. He is currently in the research phase of a biography of President Ronald Reagan, focusing on his presidency and his quest for it. Kaufman is a former Bradley Scholar and current adjunct scholar at the Heritage Foundation. He has taught at Colgate University, The Naval War College, and the University of Vermont.) February 1, 2010, The Foreign Policy Initiative, The Perils of President Obamas National Security Policy - See more at: http://www.foreignpolicyi.org/node/15511#sthash.vgZ9wYHX.dpuf

Iran is the gravest foreign policy challenge the Obama Administration faces in the Middle East. The militant mullahs of
Tehran strive relentlessly to acquire nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. Time is not on our side. The Iranian regime has 3000 centrifuges in operation; 6000 more will become operational soon. The Iranian regime has an active ballistic missile program. The launch last year of an Iranian satellite warns ominously that Iran is close to achieving the capability to deploy and weaponize long range ballistic missiles. With mounting frequency and intensity, this Iranian regime has fomented strife throughout the Middle East though its surrogates: Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Hamas on the Gaza strip. Almost certainly, Iran had a large hand in the Syrian nuclear facility that Israel, in a huge favor to the rest of the world, bombed preemptively in the fall of 2007. Add to these ominous Iranian deeds the ominous words of the Iranian President advocating, among other atrocities, another Holocaust. We ignore these words and deeds at our peril, just as we paid a staggering price for ignoring what Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf, what Lenin wrote when he proclaimed Soviet aims of inciting worldwide revolution and making the whole world over in the image of the Soviet Gulag, and what Bin Laden wrote in his multiple fatwas declaring war on the United States. Granted, there is no good option for dealing with Iran. Yet President Obamas preferred strategy

of negotiations without preconditions while dismantling missile defense exemplifies Einsteins definition of insanitydoing the same thing again, and again, despite the miserable results. For more than 30 years, unconditional negotiations with this Iranian regime have yielded nothing but defiance. Simultaneously, the Obama Administrations hostility to missile defense will make us more vulnerable to Iranian nuclear blackmail, which the Administrations appeasement of the militant mullahs only encourages. Although the Obama Administration does not want to admit it, the President has probably
decided that, when push comes to shove, permitting Iran to acquire nuclear weapons is a lesser evil than regime change and the preemptive use of force. President Obama is wrong. A

nuclear Iran will trigger a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that will amplify the potential cost and risk of war. The Saudis and Egyptians will inevitably choose to go nuclear if Shiite Iran attains that capability. In desperation and threatened with a second Holocaust, Israel may resort to preemptive attacks on
Irans programwith much greater risk and much smaller chance of successthan had the United States done it in the first place. Senator John McCain was right, as he almost always is on questions of national security, when he said this: There

is only one thing worse than

the US exercising a military option, and that is a nuclear-armed Iran.

Uniqueness

Hardlining
The Kerry talks are mere lip servicethey wont go anywhere unless Venezuela makes major concessions Negroponte 7/2 Diana Villiers Negroponte (Formerly a trade lawyer and professor of history, Diana Negroponte is a nonresident senior fellow with
the Latin America Initiative under Foreign Policy at Brookings. She focuses on Latin America and researches and writes about the New Left, populism and the relationship between criminal gangs and state institutions.) | July 2, 2013 12:00am Consequences for Venezuela if Maduro Offers Asylum to Edward Snowden The Brookings Institute http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2013/07/02-snowden-venezuela-asylum-negroponte

Within these relations, Secretary of State Kerry met with Foreign Minister Elas Jaua on the margins of the recent OAS meeting in Guatemala.

The report of the meeting indicated that Kerry was firm and insisted that improvements had to be made in specific areas before diplomatic relations at the Ambassadorial level could resume. Among those areas of collaboration was Venezuelan permission for Drug Enforcement Agents to carry out counter-narcotics investigations and improvement of airport security. Without serious progress in these areas, relations with Washington would not improve. More recently, the State Department has sent the message to Jaua through his Charge dAffaire in Washington, Calixto Ortega, that the grant of asylum to Snowden would jeopardize all bilateral projects.

Relations unlikely to improve under Maduro Shifter 5/3 What Does the Future Hold for U.S.-Venezuela Relations? By Michael Shifter (president of the Inter-American Dialogue) Latin America Advisor,
May 3, 2013 Originally published in the Inter-American Dialogue's daily Latin America Advisor. http://www.thedialogue.org/page.cfm?pageID=32&pubID=3297

The prospects for

improved relations between the United States and Venezuela under the Maduro

administration now appear rather dim. Maduro's rhetoric directed at Washington has been notably tough and aggressive, as he seeks to shore up support among the Chavista base. Arresting a U.S. citizen and accusing him of stirring up trouble in Venezuela is a vintage Chvez tactic, aimed at diverting attention from the country's myriad, fundamental problems. Lacking Chvez's political skills and common touch, Maduro is in a particularly shaky position, compounded by questions of legitimacy following the April 14 elections. To date, personnel picks and policy signals coming out of the administration have been confusing and mixed. Some in Maduro's team are hardliners, while others, such as Calixto Ortega--the recently appointed representative in Washington--are more open and moderate. Ortega, for example, was very active in the so-called Boston Group, an effort that sought to facilitate dialogue between Chavista and opposition lawmakers. As

long as Maduro's political standing remains precarious, he will be severely constrained in his ability to pursue closer ties with the United States. There is no appetite or interest in Washington to adopt punitive measures and apply sanctions against Venezuela. In light of Maduro's confrontational rhetoric and actions--and disturbing incidents of violence--no one is calling for a rapprochement. Still, assuming that things begin to settle down, and given that other governments have already recognized Maduro, it
would be surprising if Washington didn't eventually come around and deal with the practical reality.

US refusal to recognize Maduros election proves hardline stance against Venezuela Lopez and Watts 4/17 The Guardian, US calls for Venezuela election recount after narrow win for Nicols Maduro:
Hesitation over recognising Hugo Chvez's successor as president is likely to enrage left in Latin America Virginia Lopez in Caracas and Jonathan Watts, Wednesday 17 April 2013 14.50 EDT

The United States is

hesitating to recognise Nicols Maduro as president of Venezuela and has called for a recount of the vote from Sunday's closely fought election. The procrastination is likely to embolden Venezuela's opposition and enrage many on the left in Latin America, who have long accused the US of interfering in the region's politics. The US secretary of state, John Kerry, said he had yet to evaluate whether the disputed result was legitimate when asked about the matter by members of the House of Representatives. "We think there ought to be a recount," he told the
foreign affairs committee in reference to Venezuelan opposition demands for a full audit of the vote.

US is incredibly belligerent towards Venezuela now Weisbrot 4/22 Mark Weisbrot (Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Centre for Economic and Policy Research in Washington DC. He is also president of
Just Foreign Policy. He co-wrote of Oliver Stone's documentary South of the Border), The Guardian, The United States shows its contempt for Venezuelan democracy Washington's clumsy efforts to de-legitimise Venezuela's election mark a escalation of its push for regime change, Monday 22 April 2013 13.53 EDT, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/22/united-states-contempt-venezuelan-democracy

While most of the news on Venezuela in the week since the 14 April presidential election focused on

the efforts of losing candidate

Henrique Capriles to challenge the results, another campaign, based in Washington, was quite revealing and the two were most definitely related. Without Washington's strong support the first time it had refused to recognise a Venezuelan election result it is unlikely that Capriles would have joined the hardcore elements of his camp in pretending that the election was stolen. Washington's efforts to de-legitimise the election mark a significant escalation of US efforts at regime change in Venezuela. Not

since its involvement in the 2002 military coup has the US government done this much to promote open conflict in Venezuela. When the White House first announced on Monday that a 100% audit of the votes was "an important, prudent and necessary step", this was not a genuine effort to promote a recount. It amounted to telling the government of Venezuela what was necessary to make their elections legitimate. They also had to know that it would not make such a recount more likely. And
this was also their quick reply to Nicols Maduro's efforts, according to the New York Times of 15 April, to reach out to the Obama administration for better relations through former Clinton energy secretary, Bill Richardson.

Relations
No chance of solving relations Our card assumes recent talks between US and Venezuelan ambassadors Neuman 7/20/13 (William Neuman is a New York Times Andes Region correspondent) (Venezuela
stops efforts to improve U.S Relations http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/21/world/americas/venezuela-stops-efforts-to-improve-usrelations.html?_r=0) CARACAS, Venezuela Venezuela announced late Friday that it was stopping the latest round of off-again-onagain efforts to improve relations with the United States in reaction to comments by the Obama administrations
nominee for United Nations ambassador. The nominee, Samantha Power, speaking before a Senate committee on Wednesday, said part of her role as ambassador would be to challenge a crackdown on civil society in several countries, including Venezuela. President Nicols Maduro

had already lashed out on Thursday at Ms. Power for her remarks, and late on Friday the Foreign Ministry said it was terminating efforts to improve relations with the United States. Those efforts had inched forward just last month
after Secretary of State John Kerry publicly shook hands with the Venezuelan foreign minister, Elas Jaua, during an international meeting in Guatemala one of the highest-level meetings between officials of the two countries in years. Venezuela

will never accept interference of any kind in its internal affairs, the Foreign Ministry said in a statement, adding that it considered
terminated the process begun in the conversations in Guatemala that had as their goal the regularization of our diplomatic relations. Relations with Venezuela have long been troubled, although the country has remained a major supplier of oil to the United States. Under the previous president, Hugo Chvez, a longtime nemesis of the United States, relations were bumpy, especially after the Bush administration tacitly supported a coup that briefly ousted him. Mr. Maduro, Mr. Chvezs handpicked successor, has

given mixed messages about relations with the United States. In March, when Mr. Maduro was vice president, he kicked out two American military
attachs, accusing them of seeking to undermine the government. After he was elected in April, he ordered the arrest of an American documentary filmmaker whom officials accused of trying to start a civil war. The filmmaker, Tim Tracy, was later expelled from the country. And in recent days, in

a sharp escalation of the war of words with Washington, Mr. Maduro has said he would give asylum to Edward J. Snowden, the former American intelligence contractor who leaked secrets about American
intelligence programs and is staying at a Moscow airport. The United States and Venezuela have not had ambassadors in each others capitals since 2008, when Mr. Chvez expelled the American envoy, accusing the United States of backing a group of military officers he said were plotting against him. The United States responded at the time by expelling Venezuelas ambassador. In the Guatemala meeting, Mr.

Kerry said he hoped the two countries could rapidly move toward exchanging ambassadors again. But those talks never had time to gain traction. On July 12, Mr. Kerry telephoned Mr. Jaua to express concern over the asylum offer to Mr.
Snowden. This is not the first time that Venezuela has backed off the idea of renewed relations with the United States. The two countries quietly began talks late last year aimed at improving relations, although those ground to a halt after the health of Mr. Chvez, who had cancer, deteriorated in December. After Mr. Chvezs death in March, a State Department official said the United States hoped that the election to replace him would meet democratic standards prompting Mr. Jaua to angrily announce that Venezuela was halting the talks between the two countries. Venezuelan

officials have repeatedly said relations with the United States should be conducted on a basis of respect.

Zero change of relations Snowden

Minaya 7/20/13 (Ezequiel Minaya is a graduate from the University of California Berkeley and is a writer for the Wall Street Journal) (Venezuela Ends Attempt to Repair Diplomatic Relations With U.S. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323993804578618223346497776.html) CARACASThe Venezuelan government has ended fledgling efforts to repair diplomatic relations with Washington in protest of comments made earlier in the week by Samantha Power, the nominee for U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, who grouped the South American country among nations carrying out a "crackdown on civil society." Venezuela's foreign ministry released a statement late Friday that "categorically rejected" Ms. Power's statement and criticized the State Department for backing U.S.

President Barack Obama's choice for envoy to the U.N. amid the controversy. The ministry statement said that steps that began last month to normalize diplomatic ties between Washington and Caracas have been shelved. In June, Secretary of State John Kerry met with his Venezuelan counterpart on the sidelines of the general assembly of the Organization of American States held in Guatemala. The meeting brought together the most senior officials from the estranged countries since Mr. Obama shook hands with Venezuela's then-leader Hugo Chvez in 2009. After the meeting between the top diplomats, both sides expressed hope that more talks would follow aimed at repairing relations. The countries have not traded ambassadors since 2010. "With the backing of the state department for the interventionist agenda presented by the candidate for ambassador, Samantha Power, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela leaves for finished the processes initiated in the conversations of Guatemala," Venezuela's foreign ministry statement said. During her nomination hearing before the U.S. senate committee on foreign relations Wednesday, Ms. Power said that as ambassador to the U.N., she would "stand up against repressive regimes, fight corruption, and promote human rights and human dignity." Part of that battle meant "contesting the crackdown on civil society being carried out in countries like Cuba, Iran, Russia, and Venezuela," she added, according to an official transcript. In a Friday briefing with reporters in Washington, State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf called Ms. Power an "outstanding nominee," and added that "we fully stand by her." Relations between Caracas and Washington have been strained since Mr. Chavez assumed the presidency in 1999. The fiery socialist called longtime U.S. foe Fidel Castro his mentor and was among the loudest opponents of U.S. influence in the region, often referring to the U.S. as the "empire." Mr. Chavez routinely accused the U.S. of plotting to overthrow his government and reserved some of his most scathing comments for former U.S. President George W. Bush. Mr. Chavez died in March after a nearly two-year battle with cancer. Mr. Chavez's political heir, recently elected President Nicols Maduro, has followed in the footsteps of his predecessor and aimed harsh rhetoric at Washington, which angered the new leader by backing calls for a recount of his slim election victory in April. Despite the campaign-trail saber-rattling directed toward the U.S., Mr. Maduro and his government sent signals hinting at hopes for better relations with the U.S. that culminated in the June meeting with Mr. Kerry. Those hopes were seriously jeopardized when Caracas stepped into the middle of the controversy surrounding U.S. National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden and offered him asylum in early July. Venezuela is widely seen as among Mr. Snowden's most likely destinations.

Relations are freezing over between the US and Venezuela Ramsey 7/22/13 (Geoffrey Ramsey is a researcher for the Open Society Institutes Latin America
Program. He has worked as a researcher and writer for InSight Crime, a think tank dedicated to tracking organized crime and corruption in the Americas) (Venezuela-U.S. Relations Return to Chilly Normalcy http://panamericanpost.blogspot.com/2013/07/venezuela-us-relations-back-to-normal.html) Venezuela has officially ended a process of rapprochement with the United States it, citing a series of critical remarks by President Obamas United Nations ambassador nominee Samantha Power. On Friday, Venezuelas Foreign Ministry issued a statement announcing that it was ending an effort to restore diplomatic ties with the U.S. after the State Department endorsed Powers claim that the Venezuelan government was orchestrating a crackdown on civil society. The statement claimed that the remarks contradicted the tone and content of the message relayed by Secretary of State John Kerry to Venezuelan Foreign Minister Elias Jaua in a brief June 5 meeting at the OAS General Assembly in Guatemala. After stressing that Venezuelas commitment to human rights guarantees had been vouched for by the United Nations on many occasions, the Foreign Ministry went on to allege that the international community consistently expresses concern over the policies of the U.S. Among the practices singled out in the statement were the inhumane treatment of detainees in Guantanamo Bay, civilian deaths in drone attacks, the effort to capture NSA leaker Edward Snowden and the violations of the right to privacy

that he denounced. While Powers remarks were Venezuelas primary public reason for ending the rapprochement, there may have been other forces at work, particularly linked to President Nicolas Maduros asylum offer to Snowden. A Thursday report by Spanish newspaper ABC cited a source which claimed that, in a July 12 phone call, Kerry told Jaua that no plane carrying Snowden from Moscow would be allowed to cross over U.S. or NATO airspace. If Snowden were to make it to Venezuela, the source claimed that Kerry told Jaua that federal courts would file charges against Venezuelan officials with alleged ties to drug trafficking, money laundering and organized crime, and all sales of gasoline and other refined-oil products to Venezuela would be halted. Its worth pointing out, however, that ABC has a history of citing dubious sources. In January the paper prematurely reported Chavezs imminent demise, and in
October 2012 it claimed Fidel Castro was on his deathbed, a report which the Cuban leader directly denied in a public letter. On Saturday, State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf confirmed that Kerry and Jaua spoke about Snowden by telephone on July 12, but claimed that the ultimatums reported by ABC were completely false.

Maduro is not willing to accept further relations Bercovitch 7/21/13 (Sascha Bercovitch is an editor at the Harvard Crimson with a major in Latim
American History from Harvard University. He also writes for Venezulanalysis.com) (With Zero Tolerance to Gringo Aggression, Maduro Cuts Off Venezuela-U.S. Talks) Caracas, July 21st 2013 (Venezuelanalysis.com) The conversations that were started a month and a half ago between Venezuela and the United States have definitively ended, Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro announced yesterday at an event of the Strategic Regions of Integral Defense (REDI) in Cojedes state. My policy is zero tolerance to gringo aggression against Venezuela. I'm not going to accept any aggression, whether it be verbal, political, or diplomatic. Enough is enough. Stay over there with your empire, don't involve yourselves anymore in Venezuela, he said. The
announcement comes after controversial statements from Samantha Powers, President Barack Obamas nominee for U.S. envoy to the United Nations, who testified to the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on Wednesday that she would fight against what she called a crackdown on civil society being carried out in countries like Cuba, Iran, Russia, and Venezuela. In a statement written on Friday that marks the last communication between the two countries, Venezuelan

Foreign Minister Elias Jaua wrote, The preoccupation expressed by the U.S. government regarding the supposed repression of civil society in Venezuela is unacceptable and unfounded. To the contrary, Venezuela has amply demonstrated that it possesses a robust system of
constitutional guarantees to preserve the unrestricted practice and the respect of fundamental human rights, as the UN has recognized on multiple occasions. Jaua spoke with US Secretary of State John Kerry in a meeting in Guatemala last month that Kerry described as the beginning of a good, respectful relationship. However, relations

cooled after Bolivian President Evo Morales presidential plane was prevented from entering the airspace of four European countries following false information that U.S. whistleblower Edward Snowden was on board, and Maduros subsequent offer of political asylum to Snowden. I told Jaua to convey to Kerry *in June+ that we are ready to have relations within the framework of equality and respect, Maduro said yesterday. If they respect us, we respect them. But the time has run out for them to meddle in the internal affairs of our countries and publically attack us. Their time has run out, in general in Latin America, and in particular with us. Neither country has had an ambassador in the other nation since
2010, when late Venezuelan President Hugo Chvez refused the entrance of newly-appointed US Ambassador to Venezuela Larry Palmer for blatantly disrespectful remarks, and Venezuelan Ambassador to the US Bernardo Alvarez was expelled from the country several days later.

Link
US must avoid taking any action, such as plan, to legitimize Maduro Rubio 4/22 Marco Rubio, United States Senator from Florida, Rubio Urges Obama Administration To Not Legitimize Maduro Government In Venezuela
April 22, 2013, http://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=00f9f8fb-df74-4c1e-9b34-911c15c9ae80

I am deeply concerned that the interim government of Venezuela moved forward with the swearing in ceremony for Nicolas Maduro before a full recount of the votes to ensure the will of the Venezuelan people has been accurately expressed. I

urge the Obama administration to refrain from taking any actions that would legitimize the Maduro government until all allegations of electoral fraud are genuinely investigated. This crisis must be resolved peacefully through dialogue and not by incitement to violence. I
deplore the attacks on opposition figures and the interim governments attempts to blame the opposition for the violence that has occurred thus far. The end result in Venezuela needs to be a democratic process that respects the rights and aspirations of the Venezuelan people. America looks forward to the day when Venezuela ends its security relationship with the Cuban regime, ousts and prosecutes drug kingpins who now hold senior government posts and dismantles, rather than expands, the Iranian and terrorist networks it has welcomed into the hemisphere. We should base our relationship on these actions, not fraudulent elections and rushed inaugurations. This is

an important moment in Venezuelas history and it is essential that the Obama administration ensure America is on the side of the Venezuelan people.

Engaging with Venezuela is appeasement Harper, 10 a journalist for Americas Quarterly (Liz, Venezuelas Formal Rejection of AmbassadorDesignate Larry Palmer, Americas Quarterly, 12/21, http://americasquarterly.org/taxonomy/term/2741) On one side, you have those espousing "strategic engagement," keeping in line with the Obama administration's stated foreign policy and national security objectives. In short and broadly speaking, these proponents might argue, with an irrational state, you shouldn't turn your back. Look where that got us with North Korea, Iran and Syria. Instead you want a seat at the table to start a dialogue based on mutual respect and to build on areas of mutual interest. You raise concerns discretely and express disapproval quietly or through third parties. As one person said, engagement should be subversive," because you seek to assert positive influence by being present and through cooperation on areas such as business development, financial opportunities, or culture and sports. Indeed, Palmer was the right guy to carry out this mission. But, the engagement policy, as it is practiced with Venezuela, is more like "appeasement," say people clamoring for a tougher approach. After all, for years now, we have witnessed a democracy's death by a thousand cuts. This past week, Hugo Chvez got one of his Christmas wishes with the approval of new decree powers, thereby further eroding the country's once well-established institutional checks and balances. Chvez threatens more than human rights and democratic norms; the U.S. has legitimate national security concerns, such as nuclear proliferation, terrorism and narcotrafficking. Yet, as Chvez runs roughshod over international norms, is the U.S. working to halt the downward spiral?

US needs to actively oppose Venezuela Suchlicki 12 Jamie Suchlicki is Emilio Bacardi Moreau Distinguished Professor and Director, Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies, University of
Miami. He is author of Cuba: From Columbus to Castro, now in its fifth edition. July 16, 2012, An Information Service of the Cuba Transition Project Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies University of Miami, Does Venezuela Represent a Threat to the United States? http://ctp.iccas.miami.edu/FOCUS_Web/Issue169.htm

For the past years, U.S. policy has either ignored or mildly chastised Chvez for his policies and activities. That policy is no longer viable or prudent. The

United States needs to develop policies that undermine the Chvez regime, organize the opposition and accelerate the end of his rule. Covert operations to strengthen opposition groups and civil society are hopefully being implemented. Vigilance and denunciation of Venezuelan-Iranian activities and Chvezs meddling in Colombia and elsewhere are critical to gain international support for U.S. policies. While regime change in Venezuela may be a difficult policy objective, U.S. policy makers need to understand that the long-term consolidation of Chavista power in Venezuela may present a greater threat than the one posed in the 1960s by the Castro regime. Unlike Cuba, Chvez has significant oil wealth and Venezuela is a large country that borders on several South American neighbors.
Chvezs alliances with Iran, Syria and other anti-American countries, and his support for terrorist groups, while representing an asymmetrical threat, are as formidable a challenge as the Cuba-Soviet alliance.

Impacts

Drug trade impact

Weak foreign policy towards Venezuela worsens the drug war hardline stance is needed Walser 11 ( Ph.D., a Senior Policy Analyst at The Heritage Foundation (Ray, Weakness on Chavez,
Drugs and Terror Plague Obamas Latin America Policy, The Heritage Foundation, 5/10, http://blog.heritage.org/2011/05/10/weakness-on-chavez-drugs-and-terror-plague-obamas-latinamerica-policy/ ) The record will show that the May 9 extradition by Colombia of Walid Makled Garcia to Venezuela constitutes a major lost opportunity for the Obama Administration to interrogate and prosecute a Venezuelan drug kingpin with close ties to high-level Venezuelan officials and to expose the depth of narco-corruption within the Hugo Chavez regime in Venezuela. Makleds extradition follows the decision by Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos and the Colombian courts to honor the Venezuelan request for extradition over a similar request made by the U.S. In exchange for Makled, the Colombians are banking on closer commercial and security ties, including reduced support for the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), with the imperious and unpredictable Chavez. The relationship between Chavez and the narco-terrorists of the FARC is again the subject of careful international scrutiny following release of a detailed examination and analysis of links between the FARC and Venezuela by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS). The study includes the most complete set of documents recovered from the laptop of Raul Reyes, the FARCs chief of staff, who was killed during a daring military strike by Colombian forces in March 2008 in his safe haven on Ecuadors soil. The study reviews the long record of collaboration by Chvez and his top confidants with the FARC, which they viewed as an ally that would keep U.S. and Colombian military strength in the region tied down in counterinsurgency, helping to reduce perceived threats against Venezuela. The return of Makled to Venezuela and the release of the IISS study are important reminders of the serious regional security threat posed by the Chavez regime, a threat the Obama Administration has routinely downplayed. The persistent Chavez threat prompted the introduction for debate and passage on May 4 of H.R. 247, which reviews Chavezs record of support for terrorism and (1) condemns the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela for its state-sponsored support of international terrorist groups; (2) calls on the Secretary of State to designate Venezuela as a state sponsor of terrorism; and (3) urges increased and sustained cooperation on counter-terrorism initiatives between the Government of the United States and allies in the region. Placing Chavez on the list of state sponsors of terrorism is a measure that is long overdue. Overall, the highly contentious nature of the U.S.Chavez relationship is also being increasingly documented in further releases of cables from the U.S. embassy in Caracas. Following President Obamas trip to Latin America, the Administration has moved into reorganize mode as the State Departments Assistant Secretary for Western Hemisphere Arturo Valenzuela recently announced that he is returning to academia later this summer. During Valenzuelas nearly two-year tenure at State, improvements in regional policy for the Western Hemisphere have been difficult to identify, as Chavez appeared to run roughshod over the region with little reaction from the Administration. Former Foreign Policy editor Moises Naim described U.S. policy for Latin America as well-sounding, well-meaning, but clich-ridden and, ultimately, irrelevant. Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (RFL), chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, did not mince words. She argued that Valenzuelas time at State has been marked by abject failure by the U.S. to stand up to the attacks against democracy and fundamental freedoms. U.S. interests have suffered as a result.

Drug cartels form alliances with extremist groups, causes nuclear terrorism Anderson, 08 (10/8/2008, Curt, Associated Press writer, US officials fear terrorist links with drug
lords, http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-10-08-805146709_x.htm) There is real danger that Islamic extremist groups such as al-Qaida and Hezbollah could form alliances with wealthy and powerful Latin American drug lords to launch new terrorist attacks, U.S. officials said Wednesday. Extremist group operatives have already been identified in several Latin American countries, mostly involved in fundraising and finding logistical support. But Charles Allen, chief of intelligence analysis at the Homeland Security Department, said they could use well-established smuggling routes and drug profits to bring people or even weapons of mass destruction to the U.S. "The presence of these people in the region leaves open the possibility that they will attempt to attack the United States," said Allen, a veteran CIA analyst. "The threats in this hemisphere are real. We cannot ignore them." Added U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration operations chief Michael Braun: "It is not in our interest to let that potpourri of scum to come together." Their comments came at a twoday conference on the illegal drug threat in the Americas hosted by the U.S. Southern Command and the 35,000-member AFCEA International, a trade group for communications, intelligence and national security companies. Much as the Taliban tapped Afghanistan's heroin for money, U.S. officials say the vast profits available from Latin American cocaine could provide al-Qaida and others with a ready source of income. The rebel group known as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, has long used drug money to pay for weapons, supplies and operations -- and is also designated as a terrorist organization by the U.S. "We've got a hybrid that has developed right before our eyes," Braun said. Latin America's drug kingpins already have well-established methods of smuggling, laundering money, obtaining false documents, providing safe havens and obtaining illicit weapons, all of which would be attractive to terrorists who are facing new pressures in the Middle East and elsewhere.

Nuclear terrorism leads to extinction Ahmed 4 (Mohamed Sid, political analysis, Extinction!, Al-Abram Weekly Online, August 26
September 1, http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/705/op5.htm, ) A nuclear attack by terrorists will be much more critical than Hiroshima and Nagazaki, even if -- and this is far from certain -the weapons used are less harmful than those used then, Japan, at the time, with no knowledge of nuclear technology, had no choice but to capitulate. Today, the technology is a secret for nobody. So

far, except for the two bombs dropped on Japan, nuclear weapons have been used only to threaten. Now we are at a stage where they can be detonated. This completely changes the
rules of the game. We have reached a point where anticipatory measures can determine the course of events. Allegations of a terrorist connection can be used to justify anticipatory measures, including the invasion of a sovereign state like Iraq. As it turned out, these allegations, as well as the allegation that Saddam was harbouring WMD, proved to be unfounded. What would be the consequences of a nuclear attack by

Even if it fails, it would further exacerbate the negative features of the new and frightening world in which we are now living. Societies would close in on themselves, police measures would be stepped up at the expense of human rights, tensions between civilisations and religions would rise and ethnic conflicts would proliferate. It would also speed up the arms race and develop the awareness that a different type of world order is imperative if humankind is to survive. But the still more critical scenario is if the attack succeeds. This could lead to a third world war, from which no
terrorists? one will emerge victorious. Unlike a conventional war which ends when one side triumphs over another, this war will be without winners and losers. When

nuclear pollution infects the whole planet, we will all be losers.

Terrorism impact module

Venezuela funds terrorists and drug traffickers Bloomberg 12 Bloomberg News, By Laura Zelenko & Matthew Bristow - Apr 26, 2012 11:42 AM CT, Colombia Uribe Says Venezuela Is Paradise for
Terrorist http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-26/colombia-uribe-says-venezuela-is-paradise-for-terrorist.html

Venezuela is a haven for drug traffickers and terrorists and needs a new government to restore democratic values, former Colombian President Alvaro Uribe said. Venezuela is a paradise for terrorists from Colombia, for narco-trafficking, Uribe said today at the Bloomberg Latin America Investing Conference in New York. It needs a new government, a new orientation in Venezuela, for this country to get rid of narco-trafficking, to get rid of terrorism and to get rid of dictators. Uribe clashed often with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez during his time in office, accusing his neighbor of
harboring drug-funded guerrilla groups. Chavez, who is undergoing cancer treatment before he seeks another term in October elections, ordered tanks to the countries border in 2008 after a bombing raid by Colombias air force on a rebel camp inside Ecuador, which he called a threat to regional sovereignty

Venezuela is a haven for villains Shinkman 13 Paul Shinkman (National Security Reporter for US News & World Report), US News & World Report, April 24, 2013, Iranian-Sponsored
Narco-Terrorism in Venezuela: How Will Maduro Respond? New Venezuelan president at a crossroads for major threat to U.S. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/04/24/iranian-sponsored-narco-terrorism-in-venezuela-how-will-maduro-respond

Maduro's immediate attention after claiming victory was drawn to remedying widespread blackouts and food shortages. One expert on the region says the

new leader may need to tap into a shadow world of transnational crime to maintain the stability his countrymen expect. "Venezuela is a really nice bar, and anybody can go in there and pick up anybody else," says Doug Farah, an expert on narco-terrorism and Latin American crime. He compares the country to the kind of establishment where nefarious actors can find solutions to a problem. AntiAmerican groups can find freelance cyber terrorists, for example, or potential drug runners can make connections with the FARC, the Colombian guerilla organization, he says. "Sometimes it creates a long-term relationship, and
sometimes it creates a one-night stand," says Farah, a former Washington Post investigative reporter who is now a senior fellow at the Virginiabased International Assessment and Strategy Center. Under Chavez, Venezuela also created strong ties with Cuba, which for decades has navigated treacherous financial waters and desperate economic straits, all while dodging U.S. influence. But the help Venezuela receives is not limited to its own hemisphere. Farah

produced a research paper for the U.S. Army War College in August 2012 about the "growing alliance" between state-sponsored Iranian agents and other anti-American groups in Latin America, including the governments of Venezuela and Cuba. This alliance with Iran uses established drug trade routes from
countries in South and Central America to penetrate North American borders, all under a banner of mutual malevolence toward the U.S. The results of this access are largely secret, though security experts who spoke with U.S. News believe the attempted assassination of the Saudi Arabian ambassador in Washington, D.C.'s Georgetown neighborhood was carried out by Iranian intelligence operatives.

Venezuela gives aid to terroristsshould be placed on State Sponsors of Terror List Walser 10 Ray Walser (Ray Walser, a veteran Foreign Service officer, is a Senior Policy Analyst specializing in Latin America at The Heritage Foundation.
PhD in Naval Policy from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.) The Heritage Foundation, January 20, 2010, State Sponsors of Terrorism: Time to Add Venezuela to the List http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/01/state-sponsors-of-terrorism-time-to-add-venezuela-to-the-list

As of 2009, the

U.S. listed four nations--Syria, Cuba, Sudan, and Iran--as state sponsors of terrorism. A fifth country, Venezuela, merits a place on this list because of its support for acts of terrorism and subversion committed by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and because of its strategic alignment with the other four state sponsors of terrorism, particularly Iran. The continuing decay of democratic governance in Venezuela, the loss of political checks and balances, and the decline of transparency coupled with the
militarization of society and unparalleled concentration of power in the hands of Venezuela's authoritarian populist president, Hugo Chvez, is

converting Caracas into more than a second Havana. Venezuela is emerging as a mecca for anti-U.S. hostility and the gateway for anti-American extremism into the Americas. Under Chvez's leadership, Venezuela
makes its chief international mission the challenging of U.S. interests in the Americas and around the globe

Venezuela-Iran alliance creates major terrorist risk Powell 12 Stewart Powell (Writer for Hearst Newspapers), The Houston Chronicle, August 12, 2012, Venezuela as Iranian Terror Route Worries US
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2012/08/13/venezuela-as-iranian-terror-route-worries-us.html

Ever since Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad struck a deal with Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez for weekly air service between the nations' capitals, American officials have worried that Iranian-backed terrorists could reach to the rim of Latin America, pick up fake Venezuelan passports and sneak into the United States. Now, with
growing talk of a pre-emptive Israeli attack to slow Iran's suspected nuclear arms program, Iran has threatened that it would retaliate across the globe. And its easy access to the Western Hemisphere has the U.S. particularly concerned. The commercial service between Tehran and Caracas by Iran Air and Conviasa Air Venezuela, including a stop in Damascus, Syria, is so secretive that there's confusion among intelligence agencies about whether the flights are continuing. Israel believes they are; the U.S. isn't so sure. Nevertheless, American fears are elevated. "Some Iranian officials -- probably including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei -- have changed their calculus and are now more willing to conduct an attack in the United States in response to real or perceived U.S. actions that threaten the regime," James Clapper, director of National Intelligence, warned the Senate Intelligence Committee in his latest threat assessment. If that attack comes, experts see it being staged by Iranian operatives who have entered the U.S. through Latin America. "There's pretty much of a

general consensus within the intelligence community that Iranian-backed cells providing financial support to Hezbollah could easily convert to operational cells and light up the place," says U.S. Rep. Mike McCaul, a Republican whose district stretches from
Austin to Houston. McCaul, chairman of investigations for the House Committee on Homeland Security, led a seven-day fact-finding mission across Latin America last week. "From our observations on this trip, the

Iranian threat to the United States is very real and it would be difficult to defend against all of these operatives." Iranian retaliation would likely fall to pre-positioned
operatives drawn from the ranks of the 15,000-strong Iranian Revolutionary Guards Quds Force or 10,000-member, Iranian-backed Hezbollah based in southern Lebanon. McCaul said Hezbollah is fundraising with impunity in the tri-border area surrounded by Paraguay, Argentina and Brazil, where some 30,000 Lebanese expatriates and immigrants live among a population of 800,000. He said enterprising businesses there are being required to tithe as much as 2 percent of gross revenues to the Lebanon-based terrorist organization.

Terrorism creates multiple scenarios for nuclear conflict Speice, 06

*Patrick F. Speice, Jr., JD Candidate at The College of William and Mary, NEGLIGENCE AND NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION: ELIMINATING THE CURRENT LIABILITY BARRIER TO BILATERAL U.S.-RUSSIAN NONPROLIFERATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS, William & Mary Law Review, February 2006, 47 Wm and Mary L. Rev. 1427]
Accordingly, there is a significant and ever-present risk that terrorists could acquire a nuclear device or fissile material from Russia as a result of the confluence of Russian economic decline and the end of stringent Soviet-era nuclear security measures. 39 Terrorist

groups could acquire a nuclear weapon by a number of methods, including "steal[ing] one intact from the stockpile of a country possessing such weapons, or ... [being] sold or given one by [*1438] such a country, or [buying or stealing] one from another subnational group that had obtained it in one of these ways." 40 Equally threatening, however, is the risk that terrorists will steal or purchase fissile material and construct a nuclear device on their own. Very little material is necessary to construct a highly destructive nuclear weapon. 41 Although nuclear devices are extraordinarily complex, the technical barriers to constructing a workable weapon are not significant. 42 Moreover, the sheer number of methods that could be used to deliver a nuclear device into the United States makes it incredibly likely that terrorists could successfully employ a nuclear weapon once it was built. 43 Accordingly, supply-side controls that are aimed at preventing
terrorists from acquiring nuclear material in the first place are the most effective means of countering the risk of nuclear terrorism. 44 Moreover, the end of the Cold War eliminated the rationale for maintaining a large military-industrial complex in Russia, and the nuclear cities were closed. 45 This resulted in at least 35,000 nuclear scientists becoming unemployed in an economy that was collapsing. 46 Although the economy has stabilized somewhat, there [*1439] are still at least 20,000 former scientists who are unemployed or underpaid and who are too young to retire, 47 raising the chilling prospect that these scientists will be tempted to sell their nuclear knowledge, or steal nuclear material to sell, to states or terrorist organizations with nuclear ambitions. 48 The

potential consequences of the unchecked spread of nuclear knowledge and material to terrorist groups that seek to cause mass destruction in the United States are truly horrifying. A terrorist attack with a nuclear weapon would be devastating in terms of immediate human and economic losses. 49 Moreover, there would be immense political pressure in the United States to discover the perpetrators and retaliate with nuclear weapons, massively increasing the number of casualties and potentially triggering a full-scale nuclear conflict. 50

Iran Prolif Impact XT

Venezuela poses a major threat to the United StatesIran alliance bad Suchlicki 12 Jamie Suchlicki is Emilio Bacardi Moreau Distinguished Professor and Director, Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies, University of
Miami. He is author of Cuba: From Columbus to Castro, now in its fifth edition. July 16, 2012, An Information Service of the Cuba Transition Project Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies University of Miami, Does Venezuela Represent a Threat to the United States? http://ctp.iccas.miami.edu/FOCUS_Web/Issue169.htm

The emergence of the Chvez regime in Venezuela

represents the most important threat to U.S. national interest and security in Latin America. Emboldened by Venezuelas vast oil resources and his close relationship with Iran and Russia, Chvez has laid claim to the leadership of the anti-American movement in the region. The collapse of the Soviet Union, Fidel Castros illness and Cubas weak economic situation, thrusted the leadership of the Latin America left onto Chvez . If Fidel was the
godfather of revolutionary/terrorist/anti-American groups, Chvez is the trusted capo, the heir to the struggle against Yankee imperialism. The Venezuelan leader has no desire to relinquish power. He has manipulated past elections, and will manipulate future ones. He is increasingly deepening his Bolivarian revolution by weakening and subverting Venezuelas democratic institutions. In the process of consolidating his authoritarian rule, he is now aiming his control at the culture-conserving democratic institutions. The press, the church, the education system and the family are all under attack, in a relentless move toward establishing a unipersonal dictatorship. Chvezs threat is not only internal.

The militarization of Venezuela and the ambitions of its leader represent a major threat to neighboring Colombia. Chvez has threatened Colombia, a close ally of the United States, and has warned of a possible military conflict. The border dispute between Guyana and Venezuela also offers Chvez an opportunity to flex his muscles with a much
weaker neighbor. At best, Venezuelas weapons purchases are leading to a major arms race in the region, with Colombia acquiring U.S. weapons and Brazil turning to France. Other countries, such as Ecuador and Peru, are also spending their much-needed resources in the acquisition of weapons. A coalition

of Venezuela and its allies, Ecuador, Bolivia and Nicaragua, may develop into a club of well-armed, anti-American regimes capable of intimidating its neighbors and exercising significant influence in the region.

Venezuelan Anti-Americanism leads to an Iranian alliance and proliferation. Suchlicki 12 Jamie Suchlicki is Emilio Bacardi Moreau Distinguished Professor and Director, Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies, University of
Miami. He is author of Cuba: From Columbus to Castro, now in its fifth edition. July 16, 2012, An Information Service of the Cuba Transition Project Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies University of Miami, Does Venezuela Represent a Threat to the United States? http://ctp.iccas.miami.edu/FOCUS_Web/Issue169.htm

The emergence of the Chvez regime in Venezuela

represents the most important threat to U.S. national interest and

security in Latin America. Emboldened by Venezuelas vast oil resources and his close relationship with Iran and Russia, Chvez has laid claim to the leadership of the anti-American movement in the region. The collapse of the Soviet Union, Fidel Castros illness and Cubas weak economic situation, thrusted the leadership of the Latin America left onto Chvez . If Fidel was the
godfather of revolutionary/terrorist/anti-American groups, Chvez is the trusted capo, the heir to the struggle against Yankee imperialism. The Venezuelan leader has no desire to relinquish power. He has manipulated past elections, and will manipulate future ones. He is increasingly deepening his Bolivarian revolution by weakening and subverting Venezuelas democratic institutions. In the process of consolidating his authoritarian rule, he is now aiming his control at the culture-conserving democratic institutions. The press, the church, the education system and the family are all under attack, in a relentless move toward establishing a unipersonal dictatorship. Chvezs threat is not only internal.

The militarization of Venezuela and the ambitions of its leader represent a major threat to neighboring Colombia. Chvez has threatened Colombia, a close ally of the United States, and has warned of a possible military conflict. The border dispute between Guyana and Venezuela also offers Chvez an opportunity to flex his muscles with a much
weaker neighbor. At best, Venezuelas weapons purchases are leading to a major arms race in the region, with Colombia acquiring U.S. weapons and Brazil turning to France. Other countries, such as Ecuador and Peru, are also spending their much-needed resources in the acquisition of weapons. A coalition

of Venezuela and its allies, Ecuador, Bolivia and Nicaragua, may develop into a club of

well-armed, anti-American

LA Prolif Impact
A nuclear program in Venezuela will cause Brazil to proliferate and jeopardize USRussian Relations Garner 2010 (Calvin Garner is a staff editor for the International Affairs Review) (12/13/10
Venezuelas nuclear program the alarmists are right http://www.iar-gwu.org/node/240) Venezuelas national assembly recently ratified a measure that allows for civilian nuclear energy cooperation with Russia. The vote was part of an agreement made two years ago between Venezuelan President Hugo Chvez and Russian President Dmitri Medvedev. The deal calls for Russia to provide Venezuela with technical support to develop two reactors for power generation and a third smallscale research reactor. It might seem alarmist to equate a civilian nuclear program with the weakening of the non-proliferation regime, the threat of a nuclear arms race, or the further deterioration of U.S.-Russia relations. Unfortunately, history and the facts support such a conclusion. A Venezuelan nuclear program is bad for global non-proliferation efforts. The civilian program is a necessary precondition for a weapons program and makes such a program possible. Venezuelas close ties with Syria and Iran should cause observers to doubt just how seriously it will take its nonproliferation requirements under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Treaty of Tlatelolco, the 1967 treaty making all of Latin America a nuclear weapons-free zone. Assuming that Chvez has the best of intentions now, there is the possibility that in the future he will choose to pursue nuclear weapons as a way to blunt U.S. power, shore up domestic support by rallying his people behind a nuclear crusade, or assert Venezuelas role in the Americas. It is worth noting that leaders rarely announce that they plan to use peaceful nuclear technology as a stepping stone to a weapons program. Given Venezuelas rich oil, gas, and hydroelectric resources, the need for a nuclear power program seems questionable. Considering Chvezs willingness to stand with those who snub the global non-proliferation regime and his hostility towards the United States and western institutions, he must be considered a candidate to say one thing and do another on the nuclear issue. Playing cat-andmouse with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has proven to be a good way to win international attention, exact concessions from the West, or raise fears in neighbors minds about the possibility that a country has nuclear weapons capabilities. Unfortunately, the IAEA has not come up with a good way to keep leaders from stonewalling or punish those who do so. Even if Chvez neither has nor develops the intention to pursue nuclear weapons, he will find it increasingly attractive to evade or complicate the IAEA inspection regime for other reasons. In so doing, he will provide yet another example of ways to exploit weaknesses in the global non-proliferation regime. Mixed signals from a nuclear Venezuela would have troubling implications for keeping Latin America free of nuclear weapons. Brazil and Argentina would most likely seriously reconsider their earlier decisions to forgo nuclear weapons in the face of a Venezuela with ambiguous nuclear priorities. If either country concluded it could not trust Venezuelas statements on its nuclear program, a South American nuclear arms race could quite likely happen. Proliferation on the continent may start in Caracas but it would almost certainly spread, ending the international success story of Latin America as a nuclear-weapons free zone. Lastly, a nuclear deal between Russia and Venezuela will lock Russia into behavior and rhetoric that are inherently anti-American, jeopardizing the progress that has been made in U.S.Russia relations since 2009. The history of this deal explains why this is the case. Russia offered Venezuela nuclear power in 2008, the absolute low-point in U.S.-Russia relations, when Russia was fighting a shooting war with Georgia, a U.S. partner that was supporting the NATO coalition in Afghanistan. The realization of the nuclear partnership will place Russia back into a position of confronting the West as it did two years ago when tensions were running high. Additionally, it will

move Russia away from those nations that seek to prevent the spread of nuclear capabilities. In light of Russias large nuclear weapons stockpile, knowledge, and technology, this would be a costly development for global non-proliferation efforts. As a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Venezuela is within its rights to receive and operate civilian nuclear facilities. But observers who buy Chvezs line that the program is intended for peaceful power generation may be nave. Regardless, they miss an important point: the implications of the program are damaging, even if the intentions are sound.

Venezuela is a risk to regional stability its nuclear allies prove Hirst and Pearl 2010 (Joel D. Hirst is an International Affairs Fellow in Residence and Jonathan Pearl
is a Stanton Nuclear Security Fellow) (10/28/10 Venezuelas troubling nuclear ties http://www.cfr.org/venezuela/venezuelas-troubling-nuclear-ties/p23267) Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez returned to Caracas last Sunday after completing a whirlwind tour of Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Iran, Syria, Libya, and Portugal. Chavez's goal was to advance agreements "to accelerate the fall of imperialist (read American) hegemony and the birth of the new world of equilibrium and peace," as he stated in Damascus. While the rhetoric is familiar, the initiatives pursued on this trip could pose major challenges to the Obama administration. Washington must develop sensible policy options, particularly when it comes to Venezuela's cooperation with Iran and Chavez' own nuclear ambitions. Starting his tour in Moscow, Chavez finalized negotiations for Russia's state nuclear power company, Rosatom, to supply Venezuela with two 1,200 megawatt (BBC) nuclear power reactors and a smaller research reactor. This deal is the successor to a general agreement on nuclear cooperation signed in November 2008. Though completion of these reactors may take more than a decade, the possibility of an increasingly autocratic Chavez gaining access to nuclear technology should raise concern for Washington and its allies. The reactors may be of limited direct proliferation threat, but Venezuela's close ties with Iran and its significant untapped deposits of uranium--which might total as much as fifty thousand tons--raise questions about whether Caracas could pose a proliferation risk in the future. U.S. policymakers seem unsure of how to respond to the deal. As Chavez will be the first to remind Washington, Venezuela is well within its rights under the 1968 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to access nuclear technology for civilian purposes. Administration officials likely fear that vocal opposition to the deal could provide Chavez with a propaganda windfall at a time when President Barack Obama is seeking to reduce bilateral tensions (BBC). There may also be a concern that attempts to derail this deal could impede future progress with Moscow on arms control, missile defense, and other important issues. The Obama administration's response to the reactor deal has so far been limited to affirming Venezuela's right to peaceful nuclear power while urging (AFP) on October 19 that Caracas "act responsibly." Chavez retorted two days later (AFP) that "President Obama has started a war by spreading doubt with his words" about Venezuelan nuclear intentions. Appointment in Iran Following his visit to Russia, Chavez made his ninth visit to Iran. While in Tehran, Chavez and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad continued to deepen their relationship, calling for the creation of a "new world order" and signing eleven different agreements. Iran and Venezuela have already signed over two hundred different memoranda of cooperation (ElUniversal). When it comes to uranium, cooperation might be a two-way street, with Iran helping Venezuela (NYT) locate deposits and Venezuela helping Iran (FP) acquire some portion of them. According to an Iranian energy sector official, one of the bilateral agreements between Caracas and Tehran would see Venezuela's state oil company Petroleos de Venezuela SA (PDVSA) invest $780 million (SydneyMorningHerald) in Iran's South Pars gas field. Should this agreement be implemented, it would raise questions as to whether PDVSA or its wholly owned subsidiary, CITGO Corporation, would be punished under the current sanctions regimes against Iran. Washington should also take note of Chavez's language with respect to Iran (Reuters). "We will always stand together," said Chavez before departing Tehran for Damascus. "We will not only resist, we will also stand victorious beside one another." This is not the first time Chavez

has declared his allegiance with Iran. In the past, Chavez's representatives have said that Venezuela will violate U.S. and EU sanctions and sell gas to Iran "should they request it." Syria and the Bolivarian Alliance From Tehran, Chavez flew to Damascus, where he continued his push for closer VenezuelanSyrian relations. The highlight of the trip for Chavez was likely Syria's formal acceptance of his invitation to sit as an observer state in the Venezuela-sponsored Bolivarian Alliance of the Americas (ALBA). The ALBA is an anti-United States pact of eight member countries including Ecuador, Cuba, Nicaragua, and Bolivia, whose stated goal is to reduce U.S. influence in the world. Coming at a time when Syria is stonewalling International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) efforts to determine whether it was clandestinely building a plutonium-producing reactor at Dair al Zour with North Korean help (the facility was destroyed by an Israeli bombing raid in September 2007), and when Obama is attempting to woo the Syrian leadership away from Iran and Hezbollah, this largely unnoticed development indicates that, at the least, U.S.-Syrian relations have a long way to go. Chavez's recent trip has raised a number of important questions that U.S. policymakers will need to address. Inaction could usher in a much more complicated scenario for Washington and its allies. But finding solutions to these issues will require a nuanced and pragmatic approach. The Obama administration should consider the following actions: - Appeal to Moscow to make its nuclear contract with Venezuela contingent upon Caracas signing a model Additional Protocol agreement (AP) with the IAEA. This supplementary safeguards measure was developed in response to discoveries after the first Gulf War that Saddam Hussein had been attempting to reconstitute his WMD program. A Venezuelan AP would provide broad access to IAEA inspectors, which could increase the world's confidence in the completeness and correctness of Venezuela's nuclear declarations and help to ensure that its civilian nuclear program remains civilian in nature. - Continue to carefully examine (ElUniversal) the proposed PDVSA involvement in the South Pars gas field development project--as well as other areas of Iran-Venezuela cooperation--to ascertain whether they run afoul of U.S., Security Council, or EU sanctions against Iran. To the extent that such information is made public, the potential for sanctions might serve as a positive incentive for Chavez to modify behavior that the Obama administration has labeled as unhelpful. - Finally, Washington should put in place contingency plans for a temporary disruption in oil supplies of the more than one million barrels per day imported from Venezuela, the United State's fifth-most important supplier. Disruptions could stem from any of several factors--from sanctions violations to Venezuela's diversification of its oil clients (particularly as Chinese facilities capable of refining Venezuela's high-sulfur crude come online). Such an outcome should not be allowed to harm the U.S. economy or national security interests.

Russian Arms Race Impact Module

A nuclear program in Venezuela would start an arms race and put a strain in USRussian Relations. Causes war. Garner 2010 (Calvin Garner is a staff editor for the International Affairs Review) (12/13/10
Venezuelas nuclear program the alarmists are right http://www.iar-gwu.org/node/240) Venezuelas national assembly recently ratified a measure that allows for civilian nuclear energy cooperation with Russia. The vote was part of an agreement made two years ago between Venezuelan President Hugo Chvez and Russian President Dmitri Medvedev. The deal calls for Russia to provide Venezuela with technical support to develop two reactors for power generation and a third smallscale research reactor. It might seem alarmist to equate a civilian nuclear program with the weakening of the non-proliferation regime, the threat of a nuclear arms race, or the further deterioration of U.S.-Russia relations. Unfortunately, history and the facts support such a conclusion. A Venezuelan nuclear program is bad for global non-proliferation efforts. The civilian program is a necessary precondition for a weapons program and makes such a program possible. Venezuelas close ties with Syria and Iran should cause observers to doubt just how seriously it will take its nonproliferation requirements under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Treaty of Tlatelolco, the 1967 treaty making all of Latin America a nuclear weapons-free zone. Assuming that Chvez has the best of intentions now, there is the possibility that in the future he will choose to pursue nuclear weapons as a way to blunt U.S. power, shore up domestic support by rallying his people behind a nuclear crusade, or assert Venezuelas role in the Americas. It is worth noting that leaders rarely announce that they plan to use peaceful nuclear technology as a stepping stone to a weapons program. Given Venezuelas rich oil, gas, and hydroelectric resources, the need for a nuclear power program seems questionable. Considering Chvezs willingness to stand with those who snub the global non-proliferation regime and his hostility towards the United States and western institutions, he must be considered a candidate to say one thing and do another on the nuclear issue. Playing cat-andmouse with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has proven to be a good way to win international attention, exact concessions from the West, or raise fears in neighbors minds about the possibility that a country has nuclear weapons capabilities. Unfortunately, the IAEA has not come up with a good way to keep leaders from stonewalling or punish those who do so. Even if Chvez neither has nor develops the intention to pursue nuclear weapons, he will find it increasingly attractive to evade or complicate the IAEA inspection regime for other reasons. In so doing, he will provide yet another example of ways to exploit weaknesses in the global non-proliferation regime. Mixed signals from a nuclear Venezuela would have troubling implications for keeping Latin America free of nuclear weapons. Brazil and Argentina would most likely seriously reconsider their earlier decisions to forgo nuclear weapons in the face of a Venezuela with ambiguous nuclear priorities. If either country concluded it could not trust Venezuelas statements on its nuclear program, a South American nuclear arms race could quite likely happen. Proliferation on the continent may start in Caracas but it would almost certainly spread, ending the international success story of Latin America as a nuclear-weapons free zone. Lastly, a nuclear deal between Russia and Venezuela will lock Russia into behavior and rhetoric that are inherently anti-American, jeopardizing the progress that has been made in U.S.Russia relations since 2009. The history of this deal explains why this is the case. Russia offered Venezuela nuclear power in 2008, the absolute low-point in U.S.-Russia relations, when Russia was fighting a shooting war with Georgia, a U.S. partner that was supporting the NATO coalition in Afghanistan. The realization of the nuclear partnership will place Russia back into a position of

confronting the West as it did two years ago when tensions were running high. Additionally, it will move Russia away from those nations that seek to prevent the spread of nuclear capabilities. In light of Russias large nuclear weapons stockpile, knowledge, and technology, this would be a costly development for global non-proliferation efforts. As a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Venezuela is within its rights to receive and operate civilian nuclear facilities. But observers who buy Chvezs line that the program is intended for peaceful power generation may be nave. Regardless, they miss an important point: the implications of the program are damaging, even if the intentions are sound.

Venezuela aggressive
Venezuelan foreign relations are centered around undermining the US Robertson 7/14/13 (Ewan Robertson is a journalist and writer for Venezuelaanalysis.com who
focuses on the progressive politics of Venezuela and Latin America) (Venezuela: An Ethical Foreign Policy http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/9852) Of course, it would be mistaken to understand Venezuelan foreign relations as solely motivated by ethical or altruistic considerations. Even solidarity-based policies have clear "soft" benefits such as raising the government's diplomatic and international standing. Venezuela's foreign relations have also been shaped by concrete strategic interests.
Chief among these are energy interests, which are woven throughout foreign policy, as Venezuela holds the largest crude oil reserves in the world. The Bolivarian government has sought to increase ties with other energy powers for the extraction of Venezuelan crude and to diversify its oil export markets. In the context of the deterioration of relations with the United States, strategic

policy goals have also included creating a robust network of international alliances and securing alternative sources of financing, technological assistance, and military hardware. In the first years of Chvez's presidency the state oil company PDVSA was brought under greater government control. At the same time the government pushed for the revitalisation of OPEC, advocating the policy of production quotas to help ensure that world oil prices rose to levels favourable to exporting countries. The elevation of oil prices in the 2000s gave the Venezuelan government flexibility to pursue active energy diplomacy abroad while funding a wave of new social programs at home. The government has built what it calls "strategic alliances" with several energy powers, including Russia and China. Russian
energy giant Gazprom now works with PDVSA to explore gas deposits in the Gulf of Venezuela and Russian firms are active in the extraction of oil in Venezuela's Orinoco Belt. Russia is also useful to Venezuela as a source of military hardware, with Chvez's government becoming Russia's biggest customer of military goods after India.11 Meanwhile China has provided Venezuela with a new market for its petroleum exports. Oil exports to China rose from almost zero in 2004 to 460,000 bpd in 2010, a number that officials want to increase to one million.12 The relationship has also resulted in over 300 bilateral agreements and 80 major projects, and has allowed the Venezuelan government access to financing and technology, the latter exemplified by the launching of Venezuela's first satellites with Chinese assistance in 2008 and 2012. Venezuela

has formed a web of links with other countries enjoying oil and gas reserves,

such as Iran, Syria, Brazil, and certain African countries. Given their relatively independent diplomatic stance in world affairs,
strengthening ties with these nations has also fitted within the ideological goal of building "south-south cooperation" and a "multi-polar world order." Meanwhile relations with Venezuela's traditional commercial partner and top recipient of crude exports, the United States, have been frozen at the charge de affairs level since 2010. Venezuelan

officials blame this on the U.S. government's belligerence and lack of respect for Venezuela's independence and sovereignty, including support for and alleged involvement in the short-lived coup attempt to topple the Chvez administration in 2002. For its part, the United States has accused Venezuela of failing to sufficiently cooperate with counter-narcotics and anti-terrorism efforts, and of acting against U.S. interests by pursuing relations with "enemy" states such as Iran.
Nevertheless, there are signs that the relationship is improving under the presidency of Nicolas Maduro, after Venezuelan foreign minister Elias Jaua met with Secretary of State John Kerry during an OAS summit in early June. "We would like to see our countries find a new way forward, to establish a more constructive and positive relationship," said Kerry following the meeting. However, it remains to be seen whether the recent decision by President Maduro to offer asylum to ex-NSA intelligence leaker Edward Snowden will have an impact on efforts to improve bilateral relations.

Aggressive rhetoric in Venezuela can easily transition to real aggression from the Maduro Administration Toro 3/6/13 (Francisco Toro is a blogger and co-author of Blogging the Revolution, Caracas
Chronicles and the Hugo Chavez Era) (Dead but Alive http://latitude.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/06/even-after-chavez%E2%80%99s-death-the-venezuelangovernment-will-hold-to-its-aggressive-line/?_r=0)

MONTREAL Hugo Chvezs death, following a battle with cancer, has left Venezuela teetering on the edge. The relentlessly divisive leader left power in the hand of a dauphin, Nicols Maduro, who is also wedded to the kind of aggressive rhetoric that was the cornerstone of his mentors government. Just hours before announcing Chvezs death, Maduro gave a bracing, combative speech, blaming Chvezs illness on his historic enemies. You might expect that, at a time like this, with their beloved leader on his deathbed, Chvezs closest followers would try to create space for quiet reflection, dignified grief and national reconciliation. But no. In the speech, which brimmed with insults and accusations, Maduro expelled two U.S. diplomats for plotting to destabilize the country and called on the presidents supporters to close ranks ahead of an imagined, imminent U.S. invasion and various other unspecified plots. The paranoia and incitement were deeply unsettling to witness in a country where civil peace, more often than not, feels like it hangs by a thread. You see, Hugo Chvezs 14 years in power were marked by a basic contradiction: In his public addresses and his partys propaganda, Chvez adopted the kind of extremist discourse that, in other times and places, tends to precede large-scale human rights abuses. A streak of contempt ran through his public pronouncements on the enemies of the revolution. The imagery of annihilation came back again and again. Yet for all the bark, there was remarkably little bite. There are no gulags in Venezuela. No mass political killings. Political prisoners are numbered in the dozens, not the hundreds or the thousands. North Korea it aint. For years now, this gap between outright totalitarianism in discourse and mere heavy-handedness in political action has felt unsustainable to me. Either the aggressiveness of the discourse would need to be dialed down, Ive thought, or the violence on the streets would need to be dialed up. Maduros seething speech on Tuesday, dripping with anger at enemies real and imagined, made one thing clear: In the post-Chvez era, rhetorical violence wont be toned down. Does that mean actual violence will be ratcheted up? Venezuelan dissidents are only too well aware that the cult of personality around Chvez has reached extremes. We realize the comandantes followers idolized their leader with a mystical fervor that, deep down, wasnt political at all. Chavismo, by now, is well on its way to becoming Venezuelas state religion. And now, Chvezs hand-picked successor is telling the mans grieving followers that we those who disagree with him are responsible for the illness that took his life. Within hours of the presidents death being announced, gangs of motorcycle-riding Chvez supporters burned down an encampment where opposition-minded students had been demanding that the government tell the truth about his condition. Rumors of riots circulated feverishly on Twitter throughout Tuesday evening, still unverified. Its a deeply frightening time to be an independent-minded Venezuelan. None of the old trump cards that allowed Chvez to maintain his grip on power without resorting to mass-scale violence seems to be available to his successor. Without Chvezs charisma, his personal authority or his magnetic hold over the masss imagination, all that Maduro brings to the table is eliminationist rhetoric. Chvez has left Venezuela peering down into a precipice.

Maduro is carrying out aggressive policies now Baverstock 5/2/13 (Alasdair Baverstock is a freelance journalist and British Guild of Travel Writers
member.) (Schotsman: Venezuelas aggressive president http://alasdairbaverstock.com/2013/05/02/scotsman-venezuelas-aggressive-president/) Following his razor-thin election victory, Venezuelas newly elected president has set an aggressive tone for the start of the post-Hugo Chavez era in the socialist country. President Nicolas Maduro, who defeated his opponent by 1.8 percent of the vote in the recent elections, has caused controversy both at home and internationally, continuing the polarization strategy that kept Hugo Chavezs socialist supporters at odds with their fellow countrymen. Reacting to reports of economic sanctions planned by Washington in the absence of a full electoral recount, the new premier has threatened to cease the countrys daily exports of 900,000 barrels of crude oil the United States. The USA is determined to get rid of this socialist government, said Mark Weisbrot, co-director of the Center for Economic and

Policy Research, an independent think-tank in Washington DC. Its a perfectly legitimate response. If you engage in economic warfare against a country, you should expect retaliation. Other

Venezuelans are less impressed by President Maduros anti-US posturing. The anti-imperialist rhetoric made Hugo Chavez a popular figure amongst poorer Venezuelans, but many fear that President Maduros attempts to imitate this political style may land the country in further economic turmoil. Our economy is based entirely on petroleum, said Julio Cesar Hernandez, a 42-year-old lawyer from central Caracas, Hugo
Chavez kept the oil flowing no matter what the state of international relations was. If Maduro slows the petroleum exports, he could make unwanted trouble for Venezuela and himself. President Maduros opportunities to alter the economic status quo will be fewer than he claims. The new premier must attempt to balance a vastly overvalued currency and rising inflation rates with the expectations of a country over petroleum prices, which have remained the same for over ten years. Eighty litres of petrol in Venezuela cost US $0.50. President Maduro has been left with a difficult economic situation on his hands following an expensive period for Venezuela. International borrowing under Hugo Chavez rose exponentially during his fourteen-year tenure, with twenty-three percent of Chinas total overseas loans ($42.5 billion) absorbed by the socialist country, entirely collateralized by the worlds largest oil reserves. The governments newly appointed cabinet, which the new president has named the government of the streets, has also vowed to tackle the electricity problem in the country, which sees regular statewide blackouts. Corpoelec, the countrys nationalized electric company, has declared a ninety-day state of emergency, which means more frequent and unpredictable powercuts while the problem is dealt with. The country also faces vast shortages of other basic products. Household staples such as oil, flour and toilet paper are lacking, particularly outside the capital Caracas. In Barinas, a western agricultural state, supermarket waiting times to buy basic goods can be up to four hours. Its the price of socialism, Leonardo Osoyardo told The Scotsman in Barinas last week. Mr Osoyardo, a socialist supporter like many in Hugo Chavezs home state, had spent two hours waiting in line to buy two bottles of cooking oil. We are happy to see the revolution continue, that is the most important thing, he proclaimed, proudly proffering his socialist armband. Other

Venezuelans are less supportive of the new premier, who has stamped his authority on the country following his slim victory. Much of the country is still reeling from post-election protests which
saw eight deaths, riot police throwing tear gas canisters and reports of the countrys National Guard beating opposition protesters behind closed doors. A

president shouldnt bully his people, said Fernando Jalon, a 56-year-old welder speaking from the Sabana Grande district of Caracas, we want to see leadership that inspires confidence, not to have to live in fear.

For Both

Uniqueness
Obama is a hard liner new cabinet Gray 13 Managing Editor of Air Force Times at Army Times Publishing (Mel, Senate Republicans:
Obama's Nominees Too Hard-Line, January 28 of 2013, Newsmax, http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/obama-liberal-cabinet-nominations/2013/01/28/id/487676) The GOP lawmakers, who play key roles in the confirmation process, contend the new team Obama is putting together is supremely suited to carry out his agenda, but are all hard-liners better at alienation than conciliation, the Wall Street Journal reported Monday. Perhaps the best example of what Republicans are complaining about is the president's appointment Friday of longtime aide Denis McDonough to be chief of staff. McDonough has a reputation for being personable but has no strong ties to Republicans or their constituencies, which is a sharp contrast to
William Daley, who served as Obama's top aide during a portion of his first term. Daley's appointment was viewed as an overture at the time to Republicans, who liked Daley's corporate connections as a former commerce secretary under President Bill Clinton and his position as an executive committee member of JP Morgan Chase. John Podesta, who was Clinton's last chief of staff, told the

Journal that it's important for a president to surround himself in a second term with people he knows "can execute his strategy." "Execution is everything in a second term," he said. But former Ronald Reagan chief of staff Ken Duberstein told the Journal
Obama might have an easier second term if he reaches out to Republicans with some of his nominations. "He has to do it if he is to accomplish his broad agenda," he said. "You can't just do it by sticking your finger in people's eyes." So far, Obama has made six nominations that require Senate approval and only one, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry for secretary of state, has wide support on both sides of the aisle. Even former Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel, a Republican, is

getting tough scrutiny from his old colleagues as the nominee for defense secretary, especially Arizona Sen. John McCain. Republicans are concerned about his past statements and positions regarding Israel and Iran, not to mention the fact that he endorsed Obama over McCain in the
2008 presidential campaign.

Obama is a Hardliner Chapman 12 contributed articles to Slate and the National Review, Harvard graduate (Steve,
Appease This!, February 9 of 2012, http://reason.com/archives/2012/02/09/appease-this)
Yes, Obama. The same president

who ordered the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, ordered a military surge in Afghanistan, took out dozens of jihadists in Pakistan with drone missiles, used American air power to topple Moammar Gadhafi and stuck to the Iraq timetable set by his predecessor. Rick Santorum agrees with Romney on Obama, saying that for every thug and hooligan, for every radical Islamist, he
has had nothing but appeasement. Newt Gingrich accuses the president of weakness, appeasement and timidity. The problem with Romney and other Republican leaders is not so much that they are wrong but that they have taken up residence in a bizarre fantasy world where concepts like true and false have no meaning. They operate on the model suggested by Bush political adviser Karl Rove, who famously ridiculed those in the reality-based community. Reality,

however, has a way of trumping delusions. Calling Obama an appeaser is like calling Eli Manning a klutz. The only thing odder than saying it is expecting anyone to believe it. But the appeasement line is a treasured and durable GOP theme. Republicans used it successfully in
the 1970s against George McGovern and Jimmy Carter. They revived it to pummel Democrats who opposed aid to the Nicaraguan rebels in the 1980s, the first war with Iraq in 1991 and the second war with Iraq in 2003. Whenever Democrats resisted military action favored by Republicans, they got painted bright yellow. The Republicans tried it again in 2008, accusing Obama of pathetic naivete in offering to talk with North Korea and Iran without preconditions. But the tactic didnt have its intended effect. Obama

was the guy who said he

would go into Pakistan if necessary to get bin Laden -- while GOP nominee John McCain was preaching the need to get along with Pakistani dictator Pervez Musharraf. Its a mystery why they expect this claim to work in 2012. In his approach to

foreign policy and national security, Obama has done many things that, if President McCain had done them, would evoke thunderous ovations at this years Republican convention . In Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. policy under Obama is not much, if any, different from what we would have expected had Bush stayed for a third term. Even when Obama has diverged from previous policy on other issues, the change cannot be detected without a microscope.

Obama is hard lining on Foreign Policy now Harris 12 (Paul, U.S. correspondent for the Guardian and Observer. Drone wars and state secrecy
how Barack Obama became a hardliner http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/02/drone-warssecrecy-barack-obama )

That hard line should perhaps surprise only the naive. "He's expanded the secrecy regime in general," said Radack. Yet it is the drone programme and "kill list" that have emerged as most central to Obama's hardline national security policy. In January 2009, when Obama came to power, the drone programme existed only for Pakistan and had seen 44 strikes in five years. With Obama in office it expanded to Afghanistan, Yemen and Somalia with more than 250 strikes.
Since April there have been 14 strikes in Yemen alone. Civilian casualties are common. Obama's first strike in Yemen killed two families who were neighbours of the target. One in Pakistan missed and blew up a respected tribal leader and a peace delegation. He has deliberately killed American citizens, including the radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki in September last year, and accidentally killed others, such as Awlaki's 16-year-old son, Abdul-Rahman. The drone operation now operates out of two main

bases in the US, dozens of smaller installations and at least six foreign countries. There are "terror Tuesday" meetings to discuss targets which Obama's campaign manager, David Axelrod,
sometimes attends, lending credence to those who see naked political calculation involved. Yet for some, politics seems moot. Obama has shown himself to be a ruthless projector of national security powers at home and abroad, but the alternative in the coming election is Republican Mitt Romney.

Impacts

Human Rights Impact module

Appeasing Cuba and Venezuela threatens human rights policies and national security Diaz-Balart 2012 (Mario Diaz-Balart is the U.S. Representative Mario Diaz-Balart from Florida's 25th district, Republican party.)
(7/11/12 Obama's Policies Toward Cuba and Venezuela: Ignorance is NOT Blisshttp://mariodiazbalart.house.gov/media-center/pressreleases/obamas-policies-toward-cuba-and-venezuela-ignorance-is-not-bliss)

Washington, D.C. Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL) responds to an interview by Oscar Haza which aired last night on the program, A Mano Limpia on Amrica TeVe, in which President Barack Obama commented on his failed policies toward Cuba and Venezuela. President Obama clearly wants to continue his failed policy of providing unilateral concessions to the Castro dictatorship, and expects that the murderous regime will in turn recognize that their system is no longer working. Yet during his three and a half years in office, the regime has responded by holding hostage American humanitarian aid worker Alan Gross, murdering four political prisoners of conscience, and increasing its brutal oppression against the Cuban people. That President Obama continues to reach out a hand to the Cuban dictatorship, and ignores the brave pro-democracy movement in Cuba, is an outrage. It is deeply disturbing that in the face of the regimes demonstrated depravity, President Obama continues to expect that his acts of appeasement will somehow convince the regime to recognize that their system is no longer working. Miraculously, the President fails to notice that it is precisely his policies which have increased the channeling of U.S. dollars to the Cuban dictatorship and have only emboldened it further. Clearly President Obamas policies are working just fine for the Castro brothers. As to Venezuela, President Obama said that Chavez has not had a serious national security impact on the United States. His willful ignorance on this matter is shocking from a U.S. president. The President must have forgotten that his own State Department expelled the Venezuelan consul general in Miami for plotting against U.S. security interests, and that Chavez fiercely supports the State Sponsors of Terrorism Iran, Syria, and Cuba, and the terrorist organizations, the FARC and Hezbollah, with his vast petroleum resources, safe harbor, and access to credit. It is dangerous that President Obama is utterly blind to the brutal nature of the Castro dictatorship, and to the grave threats posed by Hugo Chavezs committed support for terrorist states and organizations. The Castro dictatorship and Chavez actively work against U.S. interests and in coordination with other U.S. foes. In our dangerous world, it is appalling that the United States has a President who completely fails to appreciate serious threats within our own hemisphere.

Human rights credibility solves war everywhere---best predictor of states propensity for aggression Burke-White 04 William W. Burke-White, Lecturer in Public and International Affairs and Senior
Special Assistant to the Dean, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University, Spring 2004, Harvard Human Rights Journal, 17 Harv. Hum. Rts. J. 249, p. 279-280) This Article presents a strategic--as opposed to ideological or normative--argument that the promotion of human rights should be given a more prominent place in U.S. foreign policy. It does so by suggesting a correlation between the domestic human rights practices of states and their propensity to engage in aggressive international conduct. Among the chief threats to U.S. national security are acts of aggression by other states. Aggressive acts of war may directly endanger the United States, as did the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941, or they may require U.S. military action overseas, as in Kuwait fifty years later. Evidence from the post-Cold War period [*250] indicates that states that systematically abuse their own citizens' human rights are also those most likely to engage in

aggression. To the degree that improvements in various states' human rights records decrease the likelihood of aggressive war, a foreign policy informed by human rights can significantly enhance U.S. and global security. Since 1990, a state's domestic human rights policy appears to be a telling indicator of that state's propensity to engage in international aggression. A central element of U.S. foreign policy has long been the preservation of peace and the prevention of such acts of aggression. n2 If the correlation discussed herein is accurate, it provides U.S. policymakers with a powerful new tool to enhance national security through the promotion of human rights. A strategic linkage between national security and human rights would result in a number of important policy modifications . First, it changes the prioritization of those countries U.S. policymakers have identified as presenting the greatest concern. Second, it alters some of the policy prescriptions for such states. Third, it offers states a means of signaling benign international intent through the improvement of their domestic human rights records. Fourth, it provides a way for a current government to prevent future governments from aggressive international behavior through the institutionalization of human rights protections. Fifth, it addresses the particular threat of human rights abusing states obtaining weapons of mass destruction(WMD). Finally, it offers a mechanism for U.S.-U.N. cooperation on human rights issues.

Economy Impact
Appeasement leads to predatory Chinese economic tactics. That causes economic decline. Morici 7-3 - American macroeconomist and Professor of International Business at the R.H. Smith
School of Business at the University of Maryland, College Park (Peter, Obama's Appeasement of China, Japan Still Wrecking Recovery, July 3 of 2013, MoneyNews, http://www.moneynews.com/PeterMorici/trade-deficit-energy-China/2013/07/03/id/513244) Other Asian governments, most recently Japan, have adopted similar currency strategies to boost exports . For
example, the jump in the value of the dollar against the yen gives Toyota at least a $2,000 advantage pricing of the Camry against the Ford Fusion. That may not show up in the list price, but it gives Toyota's importing arm in the United States the latitude to pack cars with better features and more aggressively discount them. Economists

across the ideological and political spectrum have offered strategies to combat predatory currency policy and force China and others to abandon mercantilism. However, China, Japan and others, offering only token gestures and deflecting rhetoric, exploit President Obama's weakness on economic issues the Obama policy of appeasement handicaps the U.S. recovery. Cutting the annual trade deficit by $300 billion, through domestic energy development and conservation and forcing China and others' hands on protectionism would increase gross domestic product (GDP) by about $500 billion a year and create about 5 million jobs.

Economic decline causes war and miscalculation Royal 10 Jedidiah Royal, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of
Defense, M.Phil. Candidate at the University of New South Wales, 2010 (Economic Integration, Economic Signalling and the Problem of Economic Crises, Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives, Edited by Ben Goldsmith and Jurgen Brauer, Published by Emerald Group Publishing, ISBN 0857240048, p. 213-215) 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 defence behaviour 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 preeminent power and the often bloody transition from one pre-eminent leader to the next. As such, exogenous shocks such as economic crises could usher in a redistribution of relative power (see also Gilpin. 1981) that leads to uncertainty about power balances, increasing the risk of miscalculation (Feaver, 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). Separately, 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 behaviour 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 [end page 213] 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. Crises could potentially be the trigger for decreased trade expectations either on its own or because it triggers protectionist moves by interdependent states.4 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 favour. Moreover, the presence of a recession tends to amplify the extent to which international and external conflicts self-reinforce each other. (Blomberg &

Hess, 2002. p. 89) Economic decline has also 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 increased incentives to fabricate external military conflicts to create a
'rally around the flag' effect. Wang (1996), DeRouen (1995).

Appeasement Doesnt Work

Engagement doesnt workdictators view it as weakness Traub 10 James Traub (a contributing writer for The New York Times Magazine, where he has worked since 1998. From 1994 to 1997, he was a staff writer
for The New Yorker. He has also written for The New York Review of Books, The Atlantic Monthly, National Review and Foreign Affairs. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations), April 20, 2010, Foreign Policy Magazine, Hows That Appeasement Working Out? Barack Obama's Sudan strategy is more sophisticated than his detractors will admit. But that doesn't mean it is working http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/04/19/sudan_elections

Engagement is a currency that can buy some things and not others. Engagement

does not work because dictators want to be treated respectfully, or respond more readily to the carrot than the stick. Petty tyrants like Bashir treat concessions as a sign of weakness. This is why the Obama administration's besetting problem has not been "expediency," but naivete. Engagement only works when it helps bring dictators to do what is in their own interest. That's why all Obama's fine words were wasted on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: nothing the United States was prepared to offer was
ever going to equal the value of Iran's nuclear program, at least in his mind. Likewise, Bashir saw the revolt in Darfur as a threat to his very existence. He was going to burn the entire region to the ground unless he was forced to stop -- and the world wasn't prepared to compel him, whether through sanctions of the threat of force.

Appeasement emboldens enemies Investors Business Daily 13 Editorial for Investors Business Daily, Obama Surrenders Just As Islamic Jihad Intensifies
Posted 05/24/2013 07:10 PM ET http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/052413-657752-obama-shows-enemy-weakness-in-war-

As jihadists bomb Boston, behead a soldier in London and firebomb police in Sweden, President Obama has decided America's actions have offended them and it's time to retreat. In arguably the

weakest national security speech by a commander in chief, Obama denied Thursday that our terrorist enemy is inspired by Islam while at the same time appeasing Islamic critics by apologizing for drone strikes and agreeing to throttle back on such precision bombings, and close down the terrorist prison at
Guantanamo. He vowed to wind down further military actions in the war on terror, arguing he can protect America through law enforcement actions, instead, as if the threat comes from bank robbers or other common criminals. His mea lowlights

culpas and capitulations will only

embolden the Islamist enemy. In case you missed the interminably long and rambling speech, here are some of its many pusillanimous

Appeasement emboldens the enemy turns the case and makes all of their impacts more likely West 12 - (Allen, former United States Congressman, Masters degree in political science from Kansas
State University, LOOKING THE OTHER WAY: PRESIDENT OBAMAS DANGEROUS FOREIGN POLICY, October 9 of 2012, http://www.humanevents.com/2012/10/09/allen-west-looking-the-other-waypresident-obamas-dangerous-foreign-policy/) Americas enemies are emboldened This presidents foreign policy failure has made Americas enemies ever more emboldened and our allies feeling even more abandoned. In his recent speech to the U.N. General Assembly,
President Obama repeated six times that the recent attacks on Sovereign United States territories across the Islamic w orld were caused by a Youtube movie. He refused to use the words terrorist attack in referring to the events

He is either incapable or unwilling to acknowledge a radical fundamental Islamist enemy that will stop at nothing to destroy our way of life . These statements, and others like them, play right into the hands of our enemies. When President Obama infers America deserves blame for unprovoked attacks, our enemies see their horrendous actions justified, making them ever move brazen. The fact that a U.S. Ambassador was in such a thinly guarded, unsecure facility on Sept. 11 demonstrates an administration completely disengaged from the reality of the world and his own foreign policy. Several attacks leading up to this incident should have provided a last minute warning. Documented reports show Egypt knew an attack was being planned and alerted the Obama Administration days before, yet this President ignored it and looked the other way. Looking the other way seems to be the cornerstone of President Obamas approach to foreign policy. Russia continues to grow its nuclear arsenal as the president gives in to Moscow on missile defense and the Strategic Arms Treaty. The president has offered a reset
in Benghazi. He also warned to the assembled nations The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.

with Russia at a time when a Russian attack submarine was stationed in the Gulf of Mexico, undetected for two months. President Obamas response is to whisper to Russian President Medvedev that after his reelection he would have more flexibility. Iran, a sworn enemy to the United States and Israel, is on a path to developing a nuclear weapon. When the pro-democracy movement in Iran began to stir, the Obama Administration could have taken steps to help ignite that spark. Instead, President Obama looked the other way. Now as a consequence, we see Iran funding the bloodshed in Syria and continuing to support the growing radical terrorist organizations in Iraq and around the Middle East, including Hamas, Al Qaeda and Hezbollah, some of the very organizations that have been responsible for killing Americans over and over again in terrorist attacks in America and around the globe. Both Russia and Iran have made it no secret they see America and Western democracy as their enemy, while President Obama has yet to outline any strategy to address this obvious danger to the American way of life.

Appeasement and engagement fail in the context of Cuba and Venezuela Ros-Lehtinen 13 (Ileana Chairman Emeritus of the House Foreign Affairs, Failed Policies in LatAm
Emboldens Rogue Regimes, January 16th of 2013, http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/opinion/2013/01/16/ileana-ros-lehtinen-failed-policies-in-latamemboldens-rogue-regimes/) The administrations approach of appeasement and engagement with brutal dictatorships in Cuba and Venezuela has only emboldened their abuse and suppression of democracy and human rights. In Cuba, the administration has eased restrictions on travel and remittances as political detentions by the Castros forces dramatically rose in 2012 and will likely increase again in 2013. The Castro regimes thugs have
taken it a step further by brutally beating members of human rights opposition groups like the Ladies in White, and subjecting political prisoners to the most inhumane and unsanitary conditions imaginable. These

savage tactics have been the same playbook for Fidels protg in Venezuela, Hugo Chvez, where human rights and freedom of speech are under siege. For example, a constitutional crisis has ensued due to Chvez remaining in a Cuban hospital and unable to attend the inauguration on January 10 as mandated by the Venezuelan Constitution. The administration should seize this opportunity to demand freedom and transparency for the Venezuelan people, and not succumb to Chvezs ploys to maintain power. It would be nave to think that engaging a Chavista regime that openly facilitates the illicit narcotics trade, assists the Iranian and Syrian regimes and is a gross human rights violator will yield positive results. Another extremely troubling issue has been the administrations failure to adequately address Irans expansion into the Western Hemisphere. Over
the last few years Tehran has increased its subversive actions and diplomatic and economic relations with radical regimes in Latin America. Last year, Ahmadinejad made two visits to the region in an attempt to gain support from like-minded tyrants, such as the Castros in Cuba, Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, Correa in Ecuador, Chvez in Venezuela, and Evo Morales in Bolivia. The

administration has failed to produce sensible, effective policies to counter Irans influence in Latin America. We cannot allow the Iranian regime to parade around the region in direct defiance of responsible democracies in the region, exporting hate and violence to the brutal tyrannies of Venezuela, Cuba, and others in the region who seeks to subvert American ideals and suppress their populations. However, these actions, or
inactions, are not limited to a few countries in the region. In Nicaragua, Ecuador, and Bolivia, the administration has extended the proverbial olive branch only to see no forthcoming changes in these establishments repressive and coercive policies.

The harsh truth is that these despots would do anything to maintain their grip on power and will use any means at their disposal to do so. The administration must finally see the truth that these regimes will continue their nefarious ways as long as President Obama and his advisors fail to stand up to these dictators. These failures by the administration will not stay in the Western Hemisphere. For every brutal act President Obama ignores, for every human right that is denied, the rest of the world will be watching and taking note. The failure to address these very real issues in our region will only embolden regimes elsewhere and diminish our standing abroad. It is our duty to provide strong leadership that will support our allies, defend our interests, and ensure that human rights and freedom are being respected. These goals can only be achieved through true democratic reforms and responsible rule of law and not through the appeasement of sadistic power-hungry tyrants who have held their nations hostage for so long.

Aff Answers

Cuba

Non-Unique
Obama is weak on Cuba now Oppel 12 Richard Oppel, The New York Times, September 22, 2012, Ryan Criticizes Obamas Cuba Policy and Explains His Shift on the Issue
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/us/politics/ryan-criticizes-obamas-cuba-policy-and-explains-his-shift-on-the-issue.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

In a separate local television interview, Mr. Ryan also explained how he had come to change his mind and since 2007 has supported the embargo. You learn

from friendships, Mr. Ryan told the crowd at Versailles, explaining that his Florida friends in Congress had brutal the Castro regime is, just how this presidents policy of appeasement is not working. Mr. Ryan argues that the Obama administration has been too willing to engage with Cuba and has made it too easy to travel back and forth and send money to Havana from the United States. He vowed that a Romney-Ryan administration would be tough on Castro as well as on Hugo Chvez, the Venezuelan
shown him just how leader. An aide said Mr. Ryans evolution was not hard to understand: when he began in Congress he considered the issue primarily through the prism of constituents in southern Wisconsin who worried about export markets for agricultural products. But gradually, the aide said, Mr. Ryans views evolved to consider more heavily the embargos national security implications, and that he has explicitly supported the embargo for the past five years.

Non-uniqueObama appeasing Cuba now Diaz-Balart 12 (Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart represents the 21st congressional district in South Florida; August 21, 2012; Mario Diaz-Balart:
Obama has Pursued Policy Appeasement; Fox News Latino; http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2012/08/21/mario-diaz-balart-obamahas-pursued-policy-appeasement-toward-castro-regime/)
These compliments and the fact that they were not disavowed by the White House come as no surprise, given President Obamas appeasing stance regarding anti-American totalitarian regimes. Since he took office in January 2009, President

Obama has pursued a policy of appeasement toward the totalitarian Cuban dictatorship. Despite the Castro brothers harboring of international terrorists and their increasingly relentless oppression of the Cuban people, President Obama weakened U.S. sanctions and has increased the flow of dollars to the dictatorship. In response, the Castro brothers amped up their repression of the Cuban people and imprisoned American humanitarian aid worker Alan Gross for the crime of taking humanitarian aide to Cubas small Jewish community. Clearly, Presiden t Obama is not concerned about the threat posed by the Cuban dictatorship, nor has he manifested genuine solidarity with the pro-democracy aspirations of the Cuban people. - U.S. Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, R-Fla. The Cuban people are protesting in the streets and demanding freedom. But rather than supporting the growing, courageous pro-democracy
movement, President Obama instead has chosen to appease their oppressors. While President Obama claims that his policies aim to assist the oppressed Cuban people, his actions betray that he is not on their side. You

cannot credibly claim to care about the oppressed while working out side deals with their oppressors and welcoming the oppressors elite into the United States with open arms. And you cannot claim to support political prisoners while increasing the flow of dollars to their jailers. The failures of the Obama administration in Cuba are not an isolated foreign policy failure. Around the world, President
Obama has taken an approach of appeasement when it comes to some of our most virulent enemies. In addition to Cuba, from Iran to Syria to Venezuela, President Obama has shown an unwillingness to stand firm when anti-American forces threaten our interests, and his weakness has emboldened Americas enemies. If we are going to reassert our position in the world, we need a change at the top.

No Link
There is minimal evidence to support appeasement failurestheir authors are speculating Rock 2Kprofessor of political science @ Vassar College, Ph.D., Government, Cornell University, 1985;
M.A., Government, Cornell University, 1982; A.B., Political Science, Miami University, 1979 (Stephen R, Appeasement in International Politics, p. 5)//BJ Although this critique of appeasement is deeply ingrained in the American consciousness, there is surprisingly little evidence to support it [the failure of appeasement]. No systematic analysis of cases of attempted appeasement exist, and there is no reason to believe, a priori, that concessions never work, that it is impossible to satisfy a dissatisfied state or leader. Indeed, simple logic suggests otherwise. Not every statesman is a Hitler or even a Stalin. Not every state that makes demands has unlimited ambitions. As Robert Jervis notes, Our memories of Hitler have tended to obscure the fact that most statesmen are unwilling to pay an exorbitant price for a chance at expansion. More moderate leaders are apt to become defenders of the status quo when they receive significant concessions. Of course the value of these concessions to the status quo power may be high enough to justify resistance and even war, but the demands are not always the tip of an iceberg. To use the more common metaphor, the appetite does not always grow with the eating. As I shall argue later, cases of successful appeasement can be found. But even if they could not, this would not in itself prove the futility of the strategy. Defenders of deterrence have recently argued that, contrary to claims made by critics, most deterrence failures can be attributed mainly to improper implementation of deterrent policy, rather than to flaws in the underlying model of state behavior on which the policy is based. While this dispute remains unresolved, it offers an important lesson to those who would reject appeasement because of its failures, without investigating their causes. Failed attempts at appeasement must be scrutinized in order to determine whether the outcome was primarily the result of policy mistakeswhich could presumably be remedied by policymakersor the consequences of erroneous assumptions made by appeasement about the nature of states and of their interactions. There is also only minimal evidence to support the second major criticism of appeasement: that by undermining a states credibility, it renders later attempts at deterrence futile.

Engagement is NOT appeasement Larison, 12 Senior editor for The American Conservative (Daniel, Engagement is not Appeasement,
The American Conservative, 12/17, http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/engagement-isnot-appeasement/) The former Republican Senator from Nebraska could have been speaking to his former colleagues when he insisted, Engagement wont fix all problems, but engagement isnt appeasement or surrender or even negotiationits a bridge-building process, an opportunity to better understand others on the basis of mutual self-respect. Cutting off contacts with other regimes doesnt hasten their downfall or weaken their hold on power. On the contrary, such regimes can take advantage of attempts at isolation to suppress dissent, consolidate power, and rally their nations behind them. It is not the purpose of engagement to undermine other regimes. The purpose is and should be to advance the interests of the United States. It is more likely that authoritarian regimes will gradually lose their grip on power if the people in their countries are exposed more regularly to contacts with other nations than if they are shut off from them.

Repressive regimes will engage in brutal crackdowns and will violently suppress challenges to their control. That isnt going to change, and it will happen no matter who occupies different Cabinet posts or the White House. That isnt something that the U.S. can normally prevent, nor does the U.S. have the resources to police how all these regimes act in their own countries, but it is something that the U.S. might be able to limit to some degree if it were in a position to influence these regimes. Refusing to engage with these regimes deprives the U.S. of influence. It deprives these regimes of nothing.

No Impact
Appeasement doesnt always mean conflict Daniel Treisman 2004 (Daniel Treisman studies Russian politics, the political economy of
development, democratic transitions, and political corruption. Rational appeasement, http://slantchev.ucsd.edu/courses/pdf/treisman-io2004v58n2.pdf)
Both these articles make compelling points about how appeasement

can be rational in isolated interactions+ But they do not address the arguments about reputation and deterrence that inform most critiques of appeasement+ When there is only one challenger, such questions cannot arisethere is no one to deter+ An isolated domino cannot start a cascade+ If the Hirshleifer or Powell models were adapted to include many potential challengers, appeasement wouldby the usual chain-store logicerode the appeasers reputation for resolve and provoke challenges, even if aggression were an inferior good or the rst challenger had clearly limited aims+ By contrast, I show how, given resource constraints, appeasement
can be rational for states facing multiple potential challengers where questions of reputation are critical+ 11 Because state leaders do usually face multiple threats and worry about international reputation and deterrence, this renders the model broadly relevant+

Rational deterrence theoryand the presumption that states must always ght to preserve reputationhas come under more fundamental criticism in recent decades+ Empirically, scholars have found only sketchy evidence that
states that fail to ght challenges are judged irresolute+ Backing out of confrontations, averting ones eyes, and offering secret concessions have been common practices of all the great powers+ Reputations appear far more context-dependent and resilient than the standard models suggest+ 12 One response has been to reject the rationalistic assumptions of deterrence models and explain behavior as the result of cognitive biases+ 13While such biases may indeed exist, the approach in this article is less radical+ I show that minor modications of current rational reputation models can render them substantially more realistic and convincing+ 14 Many points that classical deterrence theorists are criticized for neglecting can be incorporated quite naturally+ In

fact, once resource constraints are introduced, predictions about reputation formation become sensitive to key aspects of the context the central actors initial reputation, the stakes involved, the costs of ghting, and how rapidly conict depletes resources+ Fighting and appeasing have very different consequences for a states reputationand payoffswhen these circumstances are different+ Appeasing in one context does not imply one will appease in others+.

Venezuela

Non-Unique

No-link

Turn
Venezuela doesnt want better relations with the USMaduro has to prove himself as Chavez successor OGrady 7/7 MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY (Member of the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board, co-editor of the Index of Economic Freedom) July 7, 2013
Why Venezuela Offers Asylum to Snowden http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324399404578590503856740838.html

Venezuela has reason to fear increasing irrelevance as North America becomes more energy independent. This makes Iran crucial. Mr.

Maduro may be trying to establish himself as a leader as committed to the anti-American cause as was his predecessor, Hugo Chvez, who had a strong personal bond with former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He also needs to establish his own place in South American politics. Reaching out to Mr. Snowden is a way to send a message to the world that notwithstanding Secretary of State John Kerry's feeble attempt at rapprochement with Caracas last month, post-Chvez Venezuela has no intention of changing the course of the Bolivarian revolution. Rather, as the economy of the once-wealthy oil nation deteriorates, Mr. Maduro is signaling that Venezuela wants to become an even more loyal geopolitical ally and strategic partner of Russia and Iran.

Venezuela doesnt want improved relationsConsider as no solvency for 1NC Meachem 6/21 The Kerry-Jaua Meeting: Resetting U.S.-Venezuela Relations? By Carl Meacham (director of the CSIS Americas Program. He joined
CSIS from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC), where he served on the professional staff for Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) for over a decade. He served as the senior adviser for Latin America and the Caribbean on the committee, the most senior Republican Senate staff position for this region. In that capacity, he travelled extensively to the region to work with foreign governments, private-sector organizations, and civil society groups. He was also responsible for managing the committees relationship with the State Department regarding the Western Hemisphere and overseeing its $2 billion budget. ) JUN 21, 2013 Center for Strategic and International Studies http://csis.org/publication/kerry-jaua-meeting-resetting-us-venezuela-relations

Does the Venezuelan government want good relations? A2: Despite recent discussions with the United States, it doesnt seem to be the case. Earlier this year, the Venezuelan government suspended talks between the U.S. State Department and Venezuelan Foreign Ministry that had begun in late 2012, citing alleged U.S. meddling in Venezuelas April election. The Maduro government has also largely followed the Chvez playbook, constantly accusing the United States of assassination plots, spying, and economic and political sabotage. While the Kerry-Jaua meeting may have made for nice headlines, its difficult to imagine that the Venezuelan government will not play the anti-U.S. card
again, if needed. This week, Calixto Ortegaappointed to handle matters with the United Stateswill meet with Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Roberta Jacobson to continue discussions and establish a new set of concrete goals to guide the relationship forward. These good-faith gestures made by the Venezuelan government are neither new nor unheard of. Despite recent efforts, U.S.

policymakers should temper any positive expectations, as a core basis of Chavismo is its anti-U.S. ideology. Its of course difficult to improve relations with a government that consistently defines itself as vehemently against your foreign policy agenda. This suggests that Venezuela may be looking to reestablish a purely economic relationshipone that will eliminate U.S. sanctions. Still, even if certain positive steps are taken, history suggests that the Venezuelan government could quickly scuttle progress made, likely with the goal of Maduro shoring up support within his own ranks.

Framing Venezuela as a threat only emboldens it further Larison 12 Daniel Larison (a senior editor at TAC, where he also keeps a solo blog. He has been published in the New York Times Book Review, Dallas
Morning News, Orthodox Life, Front Porch Republic, The American Scene, and Culture11, and is a columnist for The Week. He holds a PhD in history from the University of Chicago, and resides in Dallas. ) , Rubio vs. Obama on Chavez and the Venezuelan Threat July 11, 2012, The American Conservative, http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/rubio-vs-obama-on-chavez-and-the-venezuelan-threat/

Marco Rubio isnt happy with Obamas description of the Venezuelan threat (via Scoblete). Obama said: *O+verall my sense is that what Mr. Chvez has done over the last several years has not had a serious national security impact on us.

Obama didnt ignore Venezuelas ties to Iran, but he correctly refused to blow them out of proportion or pretend that they pose a major threat to U.S. security when they dont. For his part, Rubio insists on blowing the Venezuelan-Iranian relationship out of
proportion, and treating his inflation of the threat as the reality. Rubio accuses Obama of living under a rock, but it couldnt be more clear that Rubio inhabits a hawkish bubble in which even the most minor annoyances such as Chavez are imagined to be region-wide menaces. Once

Santorum lost in the primaries, I had hoped that we wouldnt have to keep hearing about the growing Venezuelan threat. It seems that Rubio intends to carry on Santorums work of mistakenly seeing enormous threats behind every corner. Scoblete asks: If

youre Hugo Chavez whose rhetoric do you prefer? One that makes you out to be an impressive figure challenging a superpower, or the other that dismisses you as ineffectual? Chavez probably enjoys being portrayed as the regional power-broker that some Republicans make him out to be. Then again, the gap between this
imaginary Chavez and the much more pitiful reality of Chavezs current international reach is so large that all of these warnings about Venezuelan power must be a bit embarrassing. The threat-inflating rhetoric from some American politicians doesnt change the fact that Chavezs influence has been waning for years. Another question comes to mind. Whose rhetoric should Americans prefer? Should they want the President publicly engaging in alarmism over the virtually non-existent threat from an extremely weak state, or should they want their leaders to be able to distinguish between major and minor threats and respond accordingly? One

reason that the public incorrectly believes that we are living in a more dangerous world than during the Cold War is that our political class consistently overstates minor irritants as huge, alarming threats. Politicians that engage in this threat inflation are doing the public a disservice.

QPQs with Venezuela always backfirethey improve the Venezuelan position Smith 7 PREPARED STATEMENT OF MR. PETER H. SMITH, SIMON BOLIVAR PROFESSOR OF LATIN AMERICAN STUDIES, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT SAN
DIEGO, HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION JUNE 19, 2007 Serial No. 11085: South America and the United States: How to Fix a Broken Relationhip

We should strengthen multilateral institutions and approaches toward the region. In particular, we should coordinate our
efforts with the European Union and we should work to strengthen the OAS. This will require thoughtful diplomacy. As mentioned above, we should make a clear distinction between Hugo Chavez and the pink tide. With

regard to Chavez, the United States should: Avoid tit-for-tat exchanges, which almost always redound to his advantage; Maintain open lines of
communication with members of his movement and his government, even if the short-term results are not rewarding; Uphold freedoms of speech and the press and political organization in Venezuela, but only in explicitly transparent wayswithout supporting or appearing to support extra-legal action against his government (as appeared to be the case in 2002).

Venezuela not agressive

Venezuela is not changing their aggressive stance towards the United States Robertson 7/14 (Ewan Robertson is a journalist and writer for Venezuelaanalysis.com who focuses on
the progressive politics of Venezuela and Latin America) (Venezuela: An Ethical Foreign Policy http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/9852)
Critics point to contradictions in the conduct of Venezuela's foreign policy, and question the existence of an ethical dimension to Venezuelan foreign relations. An

accusation which emanates principally from the United States is that rather than seeking "world peace," Venezuela in fact pursues an aggressive policy of building up its arms stockpile while forming alliances seen as threatening to U.S. national security. In September 2009 then-Secretary of State Hilary Clinton raised concerns over Venezuela's arms purchases from Russia, arguing that the Chvez administration was engaging in a military build-up which could trigger a South American "arms race." "They [Venezuela] outpace all other countries in South America [in military purchases] and certainly raise the question as to whether there is going to be an arms race in the region," she said.13 Further, some conservative politicians and analysts have argued that Venezuela should be considered a "national security threat" due to its ties with countries regarded as hostile to the U.S, such as Iran and Syria.14 However, neither the figures nor events bear out fears that
Venezuela is unduly arming itself or seeking military-style alliances with U.S. adversaries. According to the CIA World Factbook, in 2009 Venezuela put 1.4 percent of GDP toward military spending, the 5thhighest in the region and less than the U.S., Colombia, and Chile. By 2012, military spending in Venezuela had halved as a percentage of GDP to 0.7 percent, with the country spending less than most major countries in the region, being only 153rd out of 173 countries measured globally for military spending.15 Venezuelan government officials meanwhile state that its international alliances are "about peace" and not in any way an aggression toward a third party. This point was highlighted during the visit from former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinajad to Venezuela in January 2012. Nicolas Maduro, in his capacity of foreign minister, said to press at the time that bilateral ties between the two countries were part of a "peaceful relationship...we have a relationship of cooperation for development... and above all, for peace".16 This appraisal of Venezuela's diplomatic and defence policy appears to be shared by the U.S. military establishment. In August 2012 General Douglas Fraser, chief of U.S. Southern Command, said that although he would like greater cooperation from Venezuela against drug trafficking, he did not consider Venezuela a security threat to the United States. When asked if he thought Venezuela's arms purchases constituted a danger to the U.S., Fraser replied, "From my standpoint, noI don't see them [Venezuela] as a national security threat." Further, when asked whether Venezuela's relationship with Iran amounted to a "military alliance," the general disagreed, stating, "As I look at Iran and their connection with Venezuela, I see that still primarily as a diplomatic and economic relationship."17 President Barack Obama has taken a similar stance, announcing in an interview in July 2012, "Overall my sense is that what Mr. Chvez has done over the last several years has not had a serious national security impact on us."18 Thus the notion that Venezuelan military purchases and bilateral relationships represent a threat to the United States appears to be an overreaction from certain observers within U.S. political and media spheres, who confuse Venezuela's independent foreign policy with one threatening U.S. security. Others argue that

there exists a contradiction in Venezuelan foreign policy between claims to pursue the values of democracy, humanitarianism, and solidarity, while supporting governments considered authoritarian or with poor human rights records. In 2011, political sociologist and author Gregory Wilpert argued that Venezuela ran a "significant" risk of losing legitimacy among progressives when Chvez continued to support former Libyan president Muammar Gaddafi against an insurgency in that country, a point that could be extended to several other of Venezuela's allies in the Middle East.19 Another seemingly contradictory move by a government purporting to promote ethical values in its foreign policy is Venezuela's decision to withdraw from the OAS' Inter-American Court and Human Rights Commission (IACHR) in 2012, on the basis of the body's alleged "shameful" bias against the Chvez administration.
The decision is also part of a shifting focus toward Latin American autonomy and integration, with several states in the region pushing for the formation of new mechanisms to promote human rights within the UNASUR and CELAC. 20 A final question for Venezuela's foreign relations is the extent to which policies pursued under Chvez will continue under the presidency of Nicolas Maduro, who was elected to power in April, following Chvez's death in March. Maduro was Chvez's foreign minister from 20062012, and in that role helped to build Venezuela's contemporary foreign relations. The new president has pledged to continue these policies and his active foreign diplomacy over the previous three months seems to confirm this. Present challenges for Maduro include assuming the presidency of the Mercosur trade bloc this summer, and seeking productive relationships with the U.S. and Europe; steps toward which appear to have already been taken.

Even if Venezuela is building up their military capabilities they wont be belligerent Robertson 7/14 (Ewan Robertson is a journalist and writer for Venezuelaanalysis.com who focuses on
the progressive politics of Venezuela and Latin America) (Venezuela: An Ethical Foreign Policy http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/9852)
Critics point to contradictions in the conduct of Venezuela's foreign policy, and question the existence of an ethical dimension to Venezuelan foreign relations. An accusation which emanates principally from the United States is that rather than seeking "world peace," Venezuela in fact pursues an aggressive policy of building up its arms stockpile while forming alliances seen as threatening to U.S. national security. In September 2009 then-Secretary of State Hilary Clinton raised concerns over Venezuela's arms purchases from Russia, arguing that the Chvez administration was engaging in a military build-up which could trigger a South American "arms race." "They [Venezuela] outpace all other countries in South America [in military purchases] and certainly raise the question as to whether there is going to be an arms race in the region," she said.13 Further, some conservative politicians and analysts have argued that Venezuela should be considered a "national security threat" due to its ties with countries regarded as hostile to the U.S, such as Iran and Syria.14 However, neither

the figures nor events bear out fears that Venezuela is unduly arming itself or seeking military-style alliances with U.S. adversaries. According to the CIA World Factbook, in 2009 Venezuela put 1.4 percent of GDP toward military spending, the 5thhighest in the region and less than the U.S., Colombia, and Chile. By 2012, military spending in Venezuela had halved as a percentage of GDP to 0.7 percent, with the country spending less than most major countries in the region, being only 153rd out of 173 countries measured globally for military spending.15 Venezuelan government officials meanwhile state that its international alliances are "about peace" and not in any way an aggression toward a third party. This point was highlighted during the visit from former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinajad to Venezuela in January 2012. Nicolas Maduro, in his capacity of foreign minister, said to press at the time that bilateral ties between the two countries were part of a "peaceful relationship...we have a relationship of cooperation for development... and above all, for peace".16
This appraisal of Venezuela's diplomatic and defence policy appears to be shared by the U.S. military establishment. In August 2012 General Douglas Fraser, chief of U.S. Southern Command, said that although

he would like greater cooperation from Venezuela against drug trafficking, he did not consider Venezuela a security threat to the United States. When asked if he thought Venezuela's arms purchases constituted a danger to the U.S., Fraser replied, "From my standpoint, noI don't see them [Venezuela] as a national security threat." Further, when asked whether Venezuela's relationship with Iran amounted to a "military alliance," the general disagreed, stating, "As I look at Iran and their connection with Venezuela, I see that still primarily as a diplomatic and economic relationship."17 President Barack Obama has taken a similar stance, announcing in an interview in July 2012, "Overall my sense is that what Mr. Chvez has done over the last several years has not had a serious national security impact on us."18 Thus the notion that Venezuelan military purchases and bilateral relationships represent a threat to the United States appears to be an overreaction from certain observers within U.S. political and media spheres, who confuse Venezuela's independent foreign policy with one threatening U.S. security.

Generic

Non-Unique
The Disad is terminally non-uniqueObama bent on relations reset Washington Post 6/11 Venezuela gets a lifeline from the United States By The Washington Post Editorial Board, Published: June 11
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/venezuela-gets-a-lifeline-from-the-united-states/2013/06/11/ab20c178-d2b1-11e2-8cbe1bcbee06f8f8_story.html?hpid=z3

Perhaps most alarming for Mr. Maduro, an energized opposition has refused to accept the election outcome; its capable leader, Henrique Capriles, has been gaining sympathy around the region. The president of neighboring Colombia, Juan Manuel Santos, met with Mr. Capriles on May 29, prompting paroxysms of rage from Mr. Maduro and his aides. Other Latin

American governments, while avoiding a confrontation with Caracas, have made it clear they regard the new leaders legitimacy as questionable; the regional group Unasur called for an audit of the election results. One government, however, has chosen to toss Mr. Maduro a lifeline: the United States. Last week Secretary of State John F. Kerry took time to meet Venezuelan Foreign Minister Elias Jaua on the sidelines of an Organization of American States meeting, then announced that the Obama administration would like to find a new way forward with the Maduro administration and quickly move to the appointment of ambassadors. Mr. Kerry even thanked Mr. Maduro for taking steps toward this encounter words that the state-run media trumpeted. What did Mr. Maduro do to earn this assistance from Mr. Kerry? Since Mr. Chvezs death in March, the Venezuelan leader has repeatedly used the United States as a foil. He expelled two U.S.
military attaches posted at the embassy in Caracas, claiming that they were trying to destabilize the country; he claimed the CIA was provoking violence in order to justify an invasion; and he called President Obama the big boss of the devils. A U.S. filmmaker, Timothy Tracy, was arrested and charged with plotting against the government a ludicrous allegation that was backed with no evidence. Though Mr. Tracy was put on a plane to Miami on the day of the Kerry-Jaua encounter, Mr. Kerry agreed to the meeting before that gesture. Theres nothing wrong, in principle, with diplomatic meetings or even in dispatching an ambassador to a country such as Venezuela. The State Department has also been meeting with senior opposition leaders and has yet to say it recognizes the presidential election results. But Mr. Kerrys

words amounted to a precious endorsement for Mr. Maduro and the Obama administration appears bent on cultivating him regardless of his actions. Perhaps the increasingly desperate new leader has secretly promised concessions to
Washington on matters such as drug trafficking. But with senior government and military officials involved in the transhipment of cocaine to the United States and Europe, he is unlikely to deliver. In short, this regard for good timing or the cause of Venezuelan democracy.

looks like a reset for the sake of reset, launched without

Kerry talks prove US trying to work with new govt in SQ Meachem 6/21 The Kerry-Jaua Meeting: Resetting U.S.-Venezuela Relations? By Carl Meacham (director of the CSIS Americas Program. He joined
CSIS from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC), where he served on the professional staff for Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) for over a decade. He served as the senior adviser for Latin America and the Caribbean on the committee, the most senior Republican Senate staff position for this region. In that capacity, he travelled extensively to the region to work with foreign governments, private-sector organizations, and civil society groups. He was also responsible for managing the committees relationship with the State Department regarding the Western Hemisphere and overseeing its $2 billion budget. ) JUN 21, 2013 Center for Strategic and International Studies http://csis.org/publication/kerry-jaua-meeting-resetting-us-venezuela-relations

On June 5, Secretary of State John Kerry

raised eyebrows when he met with his Venezuelan counterpart, Foreign Minister Elas Jaua. Both were in Guatemala to attend the recent General Assembly of the Organization of American States (OAS). The pairs meeting was the first high-level public meeting between the two countries since U.S. president Barack Obama and former Venezuelan president Hugo Chvez shook hands and had a brief exchange at the fifth Summit of the Americas in 2009. The Venezuelan government requested the meeting, which lasted 40 minutes and was followed by the announcement that the governments would embark on high-level talks aimed at improving bilateral relations. Of particular note, both sides expressed hope that the reciprocal appointment of ambassadors would take place in short order; Chvez expelled the U.S. ambassador in 2008 and the United States retaliated in kind. All of this is complicated by
the outcome of the Venezuelan presidential election on April 14. The official results have named Nicols Maduro the winner, having beaten opposition leader Henrique Capriles by a slim 1.5 percentage pointsthough the opposition continues to contest both the results and the audit. While much of the region moved quickly to recognize Maduro as the victor, the United States has yet to formally recognize the outcome and is waiting for the results of an audit that is satisfactory to all parties.

Iran proves that Obama foreign policy already not taken seriously Mead 13 Walter Russell Mead (B.A., Yale University. Henry A. Kissinger Senior Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy, Council on Foreign Relations. Author, Special
Providence: American Foreign Policy and How It Changed the World (2001, winner of the Lionel Gelber Prize and nominated for the 2002 Arthur Ross Book Award); Power, Terror, Peace, and War: America's Grand Strategy in a World at Risk (2004); God and Gold: Britain, America, and the Making of the Modern World (2008). Contributing editor to and writer on international affairs for Los Angeles Times; writes articles, book reviews, and op-ed pieces for Harper's, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, The New Yorker, The Atlantic, and other magazines and newspapers. Finalist, National Magazine Award (essays and criticism), 1997. President's Fellow, World Policy Institute at The New School (1987-97). At Bard: 2005-08; 2010-) The American Interest, February 13, 2013 As Americas Credibility Wanes, Iran Upgrades Its Nuclear Capacity http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/02/13/as-americas-credibility-wanes-iran-upgrades-its-nuclear-capacity/

Iran can sometimes be very hard to read, but the announcement that even as talks approach it is installing advanced and more capable centrifuges at its nuclear facility in Natanz doesnt need much interpreting: Iran

isnt afraid of Barack Obama. The Ayatollahs have looked at the clues, added up the numbers, and come to the conclusion that the President will not use military force as Iran presses forward with its nuclear plans. One of the clues that lead them to this conclusion is the U.S. decision to cut
back the number of aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf region. If Washington were serious, the Iranians believe, we would be building up our naval presence, not drawing it back. President Obamas life as

choice of one of the most prominent Iran doves in American public his new Defense Secretary is also being read in Tehran as a sign of the Presidents thinking. Surely, the mullahs appear to believe, if the President were really serious about using force to stop Irans nuclear program, he would be appointing someone who isnt deeply opposed to it. In any case, this kind of appointment is what people overseas often see as a signal. The President may not have meant to send it, but he did.

Turn
Turn: Engagement isnt appeasementcutting regimes off gives them cover to consolidate power and suppress dissidents Larison 12 Daniel Larison (Senior editor at the American Conservative, PhD in history from the University of Chicago), December 17, 2012, The American
Conservative, Engagement Is Not Appeasement http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/engagement-is-not-appeasement/

The most important error Rubin makes is the assumption that engagement mainly benefits the regime being engaged over the long term. Cutting off contacts with other regimes doesnt hasten their downfall or weaken their hold on power. On the contrary, such regimes can take advantage of attempts at isolation to suppress dissent, consolidate power, and rally their nations behind them. It is not the purpose of engagement to undermine other regimes. The purpose is and should be to advance the interests of the United States. It is more likely that authoritarian regimes will gradually lose their grip on power if the people in their countries are exposed more regularly to contacts with other nations than if they are shut off from them. Repressive regimes will engage in brutal crackdowns and will violently suppress challenges to their control. That isnt going to change, and it will happen no
matter who occupies different Cabinet posts or the White House. That isnt something that the U.S. can normally prevent, nor does the U.S. have the resources to police how all these regimes act in their own countries, but

it is something that the U.S. might be able to limit to some degree if it were in a position to influence these regimes. Refusing to engage with these regimes deprives the U.S. of influence. It deprives these regimes of nothing. Obviously, its false to say that Hagel lacks
a moral compass in international affairs. Hagel is reportedly wary of using force against Iran, which suggests a more serious understanding of the moral and practical implications of war than advocates of moral clarity possess. The sort of engagement Hagel appears to be endorsing is one that defuses tensions and reduces the chances of conflict.

No Impact
US credibility doesnt matter the concept is outdated
Walt 2012 (Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renee Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University) (9/11/12 Why are U.S leaders so obsessed with credibility? http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/09/11/the_credibility_fetish) What's the biggest mistake the United States has made since the end of the Cold War? Invading Iraq? Helping screw up the Israel-Palestine peace process? Missing the warning signs for 9/11, and then overreacting to the actual level of danger that Al Qaeda really posed? Not recognizing we had a bubble economy and a corrupt financial industry until after the 2007 meltdown? Those are all worthy candidates, and I'm sure readers can think of others. But today I want to propose another persistent error, which lies at the heart of many of the missed opportunities or sins of commission that we made since the Berlin Wall came down. It is in essence a conceptual mistake: a failure to realize just how much the world changed when the Soviet Union collapsed, and a concomitant failure to adjust our basic approach to foreign policy appropriately. I call this error the "credibility fetish." U.S. leaders have continued to believe that our security depends on convincing both allies and adversaries that we are steadfast, loyal, reliable, etc., and that our security guarantees are iron-clad. It is a formula that reinforces diplomatic rigidity, because it requires us to keep doing things to keep allies happy and issuing threats (or in some cases, taking actions) to convince foes that we are serious. And while it might have made some degree of sense during the Cold War, it is increasingly counterproductive today. One could argue that credibility did matter during the Cold War. The United States did face a serious peer competitor in those days, and the Soviet Union did have impressive military capabilities. Although a direct Soviet attack on vital U.S. interests was always unlikely, one could at least imagine certain events that might have shifted the global balance of power dramatically. For example, had the Soviet Union been able to conquer Western Europe or the Persian Gulf and incorporate these assets into its larger empire, it would have had serious consequences for the United States. Accordingly, U.S. leaders worked hard to make sure that the U.S. commitment to NATO was credible, and we did similar things to bolster U.S. credibility in Asia and the Gulf. Of course, we probably overstated the importance of "credibility" even then. Sloppy analogies like the infamous "domino theory" helped convince Americans that we had to fight in places that didn't matter (e.g., Vietnam) in order to convince everyone that we'd also be willing to fight in places that did. We also managed to convince ourselves that credible nuclear deterrence depended on having a mythical ability to "prevail" in an allout nuclear exchange, even though winning would have had little meaning once a few dozen missiles had been fired. Nonetheless, in the rigid, bipolar context of the Cold War, it made sense for the United States to pay some attention to its credibility as an alliance leader and security provider. But today, the United States faces no peer competitor, and it is hard to think of any single event that would provoke a rapid and decisive shift in the global balance of power. Instead of a clear geopolitical rival, we face a group of medium powers: some of them friendly (Germany, the UK, Japan, etc.) and some of them partly antagonistic (Russia, China). Yet Russia is economically linked to our NATO allies, and China is a major U.S. trading partner and has been a major financier of U.S. debt. This not your parents' Cold War. There are also influential regional powers such as Turkey, India, or Brazil, with whom the U.S. relationship is mixed: We agree on some issues and are at odds on others. And then there are clients who depend on U.S. protection (Israel, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Taiwan, etc.) but whose behavior often creates serious headaches for whoever is in the White House. As distinguished diplomat Chas Freeman recently commented, "the complexity and dynamism of the new order place a premium on diplomatic agility. Stolid constancy and loyalty to pre-existing alliance relationship are not the selfevident virtues they once were. We should not be surprised that erstwhile allies put their own interest

ahead of ours and act accordingly. Where it is to our long-term advantage, we should do the same." What might this mean in practice? As I've noted repeatedly, it means beginning by recognizing that the United States is both very powerful and very secure, and that there's hardly anything that could happen in the international system that would alter the global balance of power overnight. The balance is shifting, to be sure, but these adjustments will take place over the course of decades. Weaker states who would like U.S. protection need it a lot more than we need them, which means our "credibility" is more their problem than ours. Which in turn means that if other states want our help, they should be willing to do a lot to convince us to provide it. Instead of obsessing about our own "credibility," in short, and bending over backwards to convince the Japanese, South Koreans, Singaporeans, Afghans, Israelis, Saudis, and others that we will do whatever it takes to protect them, we ought to be asking them what they are going to do for themselves, and also for us. And instead of spending all our time trying to scare the bejeezus out of countries like Iran (which merely reinforces their interest in getting some sort of deterrent), we ought to be reminding them over and over that we have a lot to offer and are open to better relations, even if the clerical regime remains in power and maybe even if -- horrors! -- it retains possession of the full nuclear fuel cycle (under IAEA safeguards). If nothing else, adopting a less confrontational posture is bound to complicate their own calculations. This is not an argument for Bush-style unilateralism, or for a retreat to Fortress America. Rather, it is a call for greater imagination and flexibility in how we deal with friends and foes alike. I'm not saying that we should strive for zero credibility, of course; I'm merely saying that we'd be better off if other states understood that our credibility was more conditional. In other words, allies need to be reminded that our help is conditional on their compliance with our interests (at least to some degree) and adversaries should also be reminded that our opposition is equally conditional on what they do. In both cases we also need to recognize that we are rarely going to get other states to do everything we want. Above all, it is a call to recognize that our geopolitical position, military power, and underlying economic strength give us the luxury of being agile in precisely the way that Freeman depicts. Of course, some present U.S. allies would be alarmed by the course I'm suggesting, because it would affect the sweetheart deals they've been enjoying for years. They'll tell us they are losing confidence in our leadership, and they'll threaten to go neutral, or maybe even align with our adversaries. Where possible, they will enlist Americans who are sympathetic to their plight to pressure on U.S. politicians to offer new assurances. In most cases, however, such threats don't need to be taken seriously. And we just have to patiently explain to them that we're not necessarily abandoning them, we are merely 1) making our support more conditional on their cooperation with us on things we care about, and 2) remaining open to improving relations with other countries, including some countries that some of our current allies might have doubts about. I know: It's a radical position: we are simply going to pursue the American national interest, instead of letting our allies around the world define it for us. The bottom line is that the United States is in a terrific position to play realpolitik on a global scale, precisely because it needs alliance partners less than most of its partners do. And even when allies are of considerable value to us, we still have the most leverage in nearly every case. As soon as we start obsessing about our credibility, however, we hand that leverage back to our weaker partners and we constrain our ability to pursue meaningful diplomatic solutions to existing conflicts. Fetishizing credibility, in short, is one of the reasons American diplomacy has achieved relatively little since the end of the Cold War.

Appeasement doesnt always mean conflict factors change outcomes Daniel Treisman 2004 (Daniel Treisman studies Russian politics, the political economy of
development, democratic transitions, and political corruption. Rational appeasement,http://slantchev.ucsd.edu/courses/pdf/treisman-io2004v58n2.pdf, AC)

Both these articles make compelling points about how appeasement

can be rational in isolated interactions+ But they do not address the arguments about reputation and deterrence that inform most critiques of appeasement+ When there is only one challenger, such questions cannot arisethere is no one to deter+ An isolated domino cannot start a cascade+ If the Hirshleifer or Powell models were adapted to include many potential challengers, appeasement wouldby the usual chain-store logicerode the appeasers reputation for resolve and provoke challenges, even if aggression were an inferior good or the rst challenger had clearly limited aims+ By contrast, I show how, given resource constraints, appeasement
can be rational for states facing multiple potential challengers where questions of reputation are critical+ 11 Because state leaders do usually face multiple threats and worry about international reputation and deterrence, this renders the model broadly relevant+

Rational deterrence theoryand the presumption that states must always ght to preserve reputationhas come under more fundamental criticism in recent decades+ Empirically, scholars have found only sketchy evidence that
states that fail to ght challenges are judged irresolute+ Backing out of confrontations, averting ones eyes, and offering secret concessions have been common practices of all the great powers+ Reputations appear far more context-dependent and resilient than the standard models suggest+ 12 One response has been to reject the rationalistic assumptions of deterrence models and explain behavior as the result of cognitive biases+ 13While such biases may indeed exist, the approach in this article is less radical+ I show that minor modications of current rational reputation models can render them substantially more realistic and convincing+ 14 Many points that classical deterrence theorists are criticized for neglecting can be incorporated quite naturally+ In

fact, once resource constraints are introduced, predictions about reputation formation become sensitive to key aspects of the context the central actors initial reputation, the stakes involved, the costs of ghting, and how rapidly conict depletes resources+ Fighting and appeasing have very different consequences for a states reputationand payoffswhen these circumstances are different+ Appeasing in one context does not imply one will appease in others+ 15 I do not claim to be discovering a completely new idea+ Since the time of Thucydides,
many writers have noted the usefulness of what I call appeasement+ However,such notions have largely been eclipsed by the elegant formulations of theorists such as Schelling and the general horror at the consequences of Munich+ By presenting a simple model that includes resource constraints and rationalizes selective appeasement, I hope to suggest the need for reconsideration+

Miscellaneous
Maduro is struggling as President of Venezuela Baverstock 13 What's Behind Venezuela's Toilet-Paper Shortage? Maduro struggles to govern as Venezuelans reminisce about the more comedic
predecessor. ALASDAIR BAVERSTOCK (Venezuelan foreign correspondent) MAY 23 2013, 4:03 PM ET The Atlantic http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/05/whats-behind-venezuelas-toilet-paper-shortage/276191/
No one knows what they've got until they lose it," said Belkis Brito, the managing director of socialist televiseion channel Guatopo TV, which she and her team run from the chavista stronghold of Santa Teresa del Tuy, an industrial conurbation on the outskirts of Caracas. A member of one of the more radical factions of chavismo, Belkis works hard to propagate the ideologies of her comandante. From her radical perspective, she has little faith in President Maduro's commitment to the Bolivarian Revolution. "We voted for him because he spoke passionately about the

is not continuing the fight with the speed that we need. We want to see concrete action." President Maduro is not only feeling pressure from the chavistas who mourn his predecessor, he is also facing an opposition party that refuses to accept his victory in last month's elections. Citing over 3,000 counts of electoral fraud, the party's allegations range from multiple-voting in chavista-strong areas to polling booth
revolution," she said in an interview in the television studio, overlooking the asbestos roofs of intimidation. Such claims have been lent momentum by the U.S. government's refusal to legitimize Maduro's leadership on similar grounds. "He's fighting a battle on two fronts," said Mark Jones, professor of political science at Rice University in Texas, "with an opposition that denies his legitimacy as president and with the chavistas who supported him only because Chavez told them to." The crisis created by the opposition's refusal to legitimize the newly elected president has been magnified by a schism within the government itself. With the

the surrounding slum. "But Maduro

opposition barred

from participating in congress until Maduro is recognized, decisions

are being made by the shadowy "political-military

command" fronted by Diosdado Cabello, the congress president and military-backed political powerhouse currently embroiled in a
corruption scandal. Ultimately, the power wielded by Cabello within the government could turn into the most serious threat to Maduro. Polarizing the country further than ever, the opposition's position manifested a brawl in the National Congress and Capriles himself has been threatened with jail for his submission to the supreme court that Maduro's victory be annulled. Yet while

the politicians bicker,

Venezuela is suffering. The annual inflation rate is nearing 30 percent, the country's annual homicides exceed those of the United States and Europe's
combined, and the chronic shortages of basic goods are causing supermarket waiting times of up to three hours. "There's no sugar, flour, oil, or toilet paper," said Ricardo Mota, a 34-year-old publicist waiting in a Caracas store to buy four bags of rice, the maximum permitted due to short supply. "We're forced to stock up on these things because we don't know when there will be more." "It's the government's fault," he added. "The socialists have been fighting so hard to stay in power that they've ignored the needs of the people." Many observers doubt Maduro's

"Maduro looks like someone who just barely scraped a win after Chavez left him a 15 percentage point lead," says David Smilde,
ability to handle these problems. The new president's public confidence and political influence have suffered following a difficult post-election period for the socialists.

professor of sociology at the University of Georgia. "His lack of popularity gives him less power within the government, and therefore less mandate to be an effective president." Maduro has been left with no one but himself to blame for the country's worsening situation. The political strategy of passing the buck to the preceding government is unavailable to a politician who campaigned primarily on extolling the virtues of his predecessor. "Right from the beginning there was the danger that whoever had to follow Chavez would become the scapegoat for the problems he left behind", says Professor Smilde, "and it's

going to make Maduro go down in history as the man who couldn't keep up Chavez's legacy". "Chavez's charisma and popularity allowed him to get away with far more in terms of policy shortcomings," says Professor Jones. "Maduro gets none of that benefit because he lacks the built-up goodwill that Chavez enjoyed." "Maduro isn't being cut any slack", he says, "he's being forced to be one hundred percent accountable for the failings under Chavez. This would be difficult for anyone, but it's especially tough for a president who is seen as illegitimate." Others see little reason
to lose faith in Venezuelan socialism simply due to the loss of its posterboy. "Everyone says Chavez was popular because of his charisma," says Mark Weisbrot of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C., "but he won 15 elections because he delivered on his promises." "The government needs to stabilize the exchange rate, bring down inflation and handle the shortages," the co-director of the independent think tank continued, "the situation is very fixable. The economy isn't a question of charisma, it's a question of policy." As Venezuela takes stock following the loss of Hugo Chavez, the country is looking to the man charged with carrying the torch of the firebrand leader's legacy. But lacking the show-stealing, crowd-pulling, blamedodging charisma that Hugo Chavez exuded,

the irony is that having won the election, Maduro

must now win the country's

confidence if he is to lead his nation forward. "We don't need jokes, or songs, or dancing politicians," said Enzo Bogat, a 40year-old communications technician speaking from an opposition heartland in the district of Altamira in Caracas, "we've had fourteen years of that and look where it got us". "What Venezuela needs is sound policy and responsible government," he added, "that's something we haven't seen in a long time."

Weak US makes global wars inevitable; complete redraw of geopolitics likely Hanson 09 Senior Fellow in Residence in Classics and Military History @ Hoover Institution, Stanford University [Dr. Victor Davis Hanson,
Change, Weakness, Disaster, Obama: Answers from Victor Davis Hanson, Interview with the Oregon Patriots, Resistnet.com, December 7, 2009 at 3:52pm, pg. http://www.resistnet.com/group/oregon/forum/topics/change-weakness-disaster-obama/showLastReply.]

BC: Are we currently sending a message of weakness to our foes and allies? Can anything good result from President Obamas marked submissiveness before the world? Dr. Hanson: Obama

is one bow and one apology away from a circus. The world can understand a kowtow gaffe to some Saudi royals, but not as part of a deliberate pattern. Ditto the mea culpas. Much of diplomacy rests on public perceptions, however trivial. We are now in a great waiting game, as regional hegemons, wishing to

redraw the existing landscape whether China, Venezuela, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, Syria, etc. are

just waiting to see whos going to be the first to try Obama and whether Obama really will be as tenuous as they expect. If he slips once, it will be 1979 redux, when we saw the rise of radical Islam, the Iranian hostage mess, the communist inroads in Central America, the
Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, etc. BC: With what country then Venezuela, Russia, Iran, etc. do you believe his global repositioning will cause the most damage? Dr. Hanson: I think all three. I would expect, in the next three years, Iran to get the bomb and begin to threaten ever so insidiously its Gulf neighborhood; Venezuela

will probably cook up some scheme to do a punitive border raid into Colombia to apprise South America that U.S. friendship and values are liabilities; and Russia will continue its
energy bullying of Eastern Europe, while insidiously pressuring autonomous former republics to get back in line with some sort of new Russian autocratic commonwealth. Theres an outside shot that North Korea might do something really stupid near the 38th parallel and China will ratchet up the pressure on Taiwan. Indias borders with both Pakistan and China will heat up. I think we got off the back of the tiger and now no one quite knows whom it will bite or when.