Democracy Promotion Adv

1AC Advantage Democracy Promotion
[A.] Current policy toward Cuba destroys effective democracy and humans rights
promotion
Amash, 2012
[Brandon, Contributing writer of Prospect Journal of International Affairs at UCSD, EVALUATING
THE CUBAN EMBARGO, 7-22-12, http://prospectjournal.org/2012/07/23/evaluating-the-cuban-
embargo/] /Wyo-MB
Ayubi, Bissell, Korsah and Lerner suggest that the purpose of sanctions is to bring about behavior seen
as in conformity with the goals and standards of a society and to prevent behavior that is inconsistent with
these goals and standards (Ayubi 1). These goals and standards, in the Cuban context, would be
democracy and a vested interest in human rights. However, the sanctions that the United States has placed
on Cuba in the past half century have done little to address the systematic violations of human rights in
Cuba.
3.1: The American embargo is not sufficient to democratize Cuba and improve human rights. Without
the help and support of multilateral institutions, economic sanctions on Cuba have been ineffective. As
other states trade and interact freely with Cuba, the lack of partnership with America is only a minor
hindrance to Cubas economy. Moreover, the sanctions are detrimental to the United States economy, as
Cuba could potentially be a geostrategic economic partner. More importantly, since economic sanctions
are not directly related to the goal of improved human rights, the effect of these sanctions is also
unrelated; continued economic sanctions against Cuba create no incentive for the Cuban government to
promote better human rights, especially when the sanctions do not have international support.
Empirically, it is clear that since its inception, the policy has not succeeded in promoting democratization
or improving human rights. Something more must be done in order to improve the situation. 3.2:
American sanctions during the Cold War strengthened Castros ideological position and created
opportunities for involvement by the Soviet Union, thereby decreasing the likelihood of democratization
and improvement in human rights. Cubas revolution could not have come at a worse time for America.
The emergence of a communist state in the western hemisphere allowed the Soviet Union to extend its
influence, and the United States rejection of Cuba only widened the window of opportunity for Soviet
involvement. The embargo also became a scapegoat for the Castro administration, which laid blame for
poor human rights conditions on the embargo policy itself (Fontaine 18 22). Furthermore, as Ratliff and
Fontaine suggest, isolating Cuba as an enemy of democracy during the Cold War essentially made the
goals of democratization in the country unachievable (Fontaine 30). While the embargo may have been
strategic during the Cold War as a bulwark against communism, the long-term effects of the policy have
essentially precluded the possibility for democracy in Cuba. Even after the end of the Cold War,
communism persists in Cuba and human rights violations are systemic; Americas policy has not
achieved its goals and has become a relic of the Cold War era. The prospects for democracy and
improvement in human rights seem as bleak as ever.
[B.] Removing the embargo bolsters US-Cuban relations and solve the promotion of
democracy and human rights in Cuba and abroad
Amash, 2012
embargo/] /Wyo-MB
Although Americas previous policies of intervention, use of force and economic sanctions have all failed
at achieving democratization in Cuba, not all options have been exhausted. One policy alternative for
promoting democracy and human rights in Cuba that the United States has not attempted is the exact
opposite of the approach it has taken for the past half century. Namely, the United States should lift the
embargo on Cuba and reopen diplomatic relations in order to work internationally on improving human
rights in Cuba. Unless Cuba, as a rogue state, is isolated internationally, rather than merely by the United
States, the human rights situation in Cuba may never improve. A fresh policy of engagement towards
Cuba has been delayed long enough. 4.1: Reopening diplomatic relations with Cuba will decrease the
chances of conflict and will promote cooperation between the two countries economically, politically and
socially. Diplomatic relations and negotiations have proven to be effective in the past in similar situations,
such as the renewed relations between Egypt and Israel following the Camp David Accords. As
Huddleston and Pascual state, a great lesson of democracy is that it cannot be imposed; it must come
from within. [] Our policy should therefore encompass the political, economic, and diplomatic tools to
enable the Cuban people to engage in and direct the politics of their country (Huddleston 14). The
mobilization of the Cuban people on the issues of democratization, which are inherently linked to the
human rights violations in Cuba, is a first step to producing changes in Cuba. American engagement with
the Cuban people, currently lacking under the embargo policy, will provide the impetus in Cuban society
to produce regime change. Furthermore, integrating U.S.-Cuba relations on a multilateral level will ease
the burden on the United States in fostering democracy and a better human rights record in the country, as
other states will be more involved in the process. In contrast to a policy of isolation, normalized relations
will allow America to engage Cuba in new areas, opening the door for democratization and human rights
improvements from within the Cuban state itself. 4.2: With diplomatic relations in place, the United
States may directly promote human rights in the country through negotiations, conferences, arbitration
and mediation. Providing the support, resources, and infrastructure to promote democratic systems in
Cuba could produce immense improvements to the human rights situation in the nation. Normalizing
diplomatic relations with the state will also allow America to truly support freedom of opinion and
expression in Cuba, which it cannot currently promote under the isolationist policy. Furthermore, through
diplomatic relations and friendly support, Cuba will be more willing to participate in the international
system, as well as directly with the United States, as an ally. As the United States, along with the
international community as a whole, helps and supports Cubas economic growth, Cuban society will
eventually push for greater protection of human rights. 4.3: Lifting economic sanctions will improve
economic growth in Cuba, which correlates to democratization. Empirical evidence shows that a strong
economy is correlated to democracy. According to the Modernization Theory of democratization, this
correlation is a causal link: economic growth directly leads to democratization. Lifting the current
economic sanctions on Cuba and working together to improve economic situations in the state will allow
their economy to grow, increasing the likelihood of democracy in the state, and thus promoting greater
freedom of expression, opinion and dissent. 4.4: A policy of engagement will be a long-term solution to
promoting democracy and improving human rights in Cuba. This proposal, unique in that it is simply one
of abandoning an antiquated policy and normalizing relations to be like those with any other country,
does not present any large obstacles to implementation, either in the short run or the long run. The main
challenge is in continuing to support such a policy and maintaining the normal diplomatic, economic and
social relations with a country that has been isolated for such a long period of time. Although effects of
such a policy may be difficult to determine in the short term, promoting democracy and improving human
rights in Cuba are long-term solutions. As discussed above, engagement with the Cuban government and
society, along with support from the international community, will provide the spark and guidance for the
Cuban people to support and promote democracy, and thus give greater attention to human rights
violations. 5. Conclusions: Instead of continued economic sanctions on Cuba, the United States should
reopen diplomatic relations with Cuba, work multilaterally and use soft power to promote democracy and
greater attention to human rights. This policy approach will decrease the hostility between the United
States and Cuba, and cause Cuba to be more willing to participate internationally with attention to human
rights violations. After the end of the Cold War, United States foreign policy has found new directions,
and the embargo, as a relic of a different time, must be removed should the United States wish to gain any
true ground in promoting human rights in Cuba.
[C.] Lifting the embargo is key to the credibility of United States democracy
promotion and hemispheric relations
Huddleston and Pascual, 2010
[Vicki and Carlos, Leaders of Advisory group for policy recommendations on Cuba, Vicki is deputy
assistant secretary for Africa at the Department of Defense and Carlos is ambassador to Mexico, Learning
to Salsa: New Steps in U.S.-Cuba Relations, Brookings Institutions Press 2010] /Wyo-MB
U.S. policy toward Cuba should advance the democratic aspirations of the Cuban people and strengthen
U.S. credibility throughout the hemisphere. Our nearly 50-year-old policy toward Cuba has failed on both
counts: it has resulted in a downward spiral of U.S. influence on the island and has left the United States
isolated in the hemisphere and beyond. Our Cuba policy has become a bellwether, indicating the extent to
which the United States will act in partnership with the region or unilaterally and ineffectually.
Inevitably, strategic contact and dialogue with the Cuban government will be necessary if the United
States seeks to engage the Cuban people. This book proposes a new goal for U.S. policy toward Cuba: to
support the emergence of a Cuban state where the Cuban people determine the political and economic
future of their country through democratic means. A great lesson of democracy is that it cannot be
imposed; it must come from within. The type of government at the helm of the islands future will depend
on Cubans. Our policy should therefore encompass the political, economic, and diplomatic tools to enable
the Cuban people to engage in and direct the politics of their country. This policy will advance the
interests of the United States in seeking stable relationships based on common hemispheric values that
promote the well-being of each individual and the growth of civil society. To engage the Cuban
government and Cuban people effectively, the United States will need to engage with other governments,
the private sector, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). In so doing, U.S. policy toward Cuba
would reflect the hemispheres and our own desire to encourage the Cuban government to adopt
international standards of democracy, human rights, and transparency.
[D.] Effective democracy promotion is key to solve global conflict
Lagon, 2011
[Mark, adjunct Senior Fellow for Human Rights Council of Foreign Relations, February 2011, Promoting
Democracy: The Whys and Hows for the United States and the International Community,
http://www.cfr.org/democracy-promotion/promoting-democracy-whys-hows-united-states-international-
community/p24090] /Wyo-MB
Furthering democracy is often dismissed as moralism distinct from U.S. interests or mere lip service to
build support for strategic policies. Yet there are tangible stakes for the United States and indeed the
world in the spread of democracynamely, greater peace, prosperity, and pluralism. Controversial means
for promoting democracy and frequent mismatches between deeds and words have clouded appreciation
of this truth. Democracies often have conflicting priorities, and democracy promotion is not a panacea.
Yet one of the few truly robust findings in international relations is that established democracies never go
to war with one another. Foreign policy realists advocate working with other governments on the basis
of interests, irrespective of character, and suggest that this approach best preserves stability in the world.
However, durable stability flows from a domestic politics built on consensus and peaceful competition,
which more often than not promotes similar international conduct for governments.
[E.] Democracy promotion solves terrorism
Curtis, 2011
[Lisa, Senior Research Fellow for South Asia in the Asian Studies Center at The Heritage Foundation,
Championing Liberty Abroad to Counter Islamist Extremism, 2-9-11,
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/02/championing-liberty-abroad-to-counter-islamist-
extremism] /Wyo-MB
The Obama Administration needs to prioritize the promotion of democracy and individual freedom as part
of its foreign policy agenda. This is particularly important in Muslim countries where repression and
intolerance can foster development of extremist movements that feed global terrorism. Recent statements
from President Obama and other senior Administration officials signaling strong support for democratic
development in other countries are encouraging. The Administration should continue to demonstrate its
commitment to nurturing democratic development both through public statements and through aid
programs that account for the particular circumstances of individual countries. In doing so, the U.S.
would not only adhere to its founding principles and help to secure freedom for others, but also protect its
national security by uprooting support for extremist ideologies that lead to global terrorism.
[F.] Relations with Cuba is key to winning the war on terror
US-Cuba Policy and Business Blog 10
("United States Cuba Relations - Terror Designation," January 5,
http://uscuba.blogspot.com/2010/01/unitedstates-cuba-relations-terrorist.html)
As long as we have poor relations with Cuba, we are effectively opening the door to our adversaries. It is
in the strategic interests of our country to have normal relations with Cuba. As long as we deprive Cuba
of socioeconomic engagement, Cuba will seek it elsewhere. Why do you think our adversaries are gaining
a foothold on our doorstep in the Western hemisphere? That Cuba has a government we do not agree with
or like how it treats its own citizens, our embargo and preventing U.S. citizens from freely visiting Cuba
has not accomplished anything to change our island neighbor. Keeping Cuba on this list is simply an
obstacle and not any real protection from our true enemy, Al Qaeda, and its weapon, terrorism. That is
who we are at war with, not Cuba.
ns in Havana.
[G.] Nuclear terrorist attack causes super power war
Robert Ayson, Professor of Strategic Studies and Director of the Centre for Strategic Studies: New
Zealand at the Victoria University of Wellington, 2010 (After a Terrorist Nuclear Attack: Envisaging
Catalytic Effects, Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, Volume 33, Issue 7, July, Available Online to
Subscribing Institutions via InformaWorld)
A terrorist nuclear attack, and even the use of nuclear weapons in response by the country attacked in the first place, would not necessarily represent the worst of the nuclear worlds imaginable.
Indeed, there are reasons to wonder whether nuclear terrorism should ever be regarded as belonging in the category of truly existential threats. A contrast can be drawn here with the global
catastrophe that would come from a massive nuclear exchange between two or more of the sovereign states that possess these weapons in significant numbers. Even the worst terrorism that the
twenty-first century might bring would fade into insignificance alongside considerations of what a general nuclear war would have wrought in the Cold War period. And it must be admitted that
as long as the major nuclear weapons states have hundreds and even thousands of nuclear weapons at
their disposal, there is always the possibility of a truly awful nuclear exchange taking place precipitated entirely by state possessors themselves. But these two nuclear worldsa
non-state actor nuclear attack and a catastrophic interstate nuclear exchangeare not necessarily separable. It is just possible that some sort of terrorist attack, and especially an act of
nuclear terrorism, could precipitate a chain of events leading to a massive exchange of nuclear
weapons between two or more of the states that possess them. In this context, todays and tomorrows terrorist groups might assume the
place allotted during the early Cold War years to new state possessors of small nuclear arsenals who were seen as raising the risks of a catalytic nuclear war between the superpowers started by
third parties. These risks were considered in the late 1950s and early 1960s as concerns grew about nuclear proliferation, the so-called n+1 problem. t may require a considerable amount of
imagination to depict an especially plausible situation where an act of nuclear terrorism could lead to such a massive inter-state nuclear war. For example, in the event of a terrorist nuclear attack
on the United States, it might well be wondered just how Russia and/or China could plausibly be brought into the picture, not least because they seem unlikely to be fingered as the most obvious
state sponsors or encouragers of terrorist groups. They would seem far too responsible to be involved in supporting that sort of terrorist behavior that could just as easily threaten them as well.
Some possibilities, however remote, do suggest themselves. For example, how might the United States react if it was thought or discovered that the fissile material used in the act of nuclear
terrorism had come from Russian stocks,40 and if for some reason Moscow denied any responsibility for nuclear laxity? The correct attribution of that nuclear material to a particular country
might not be a case of science fiction given the observation by Michael May et al. that while the debris resulting from a nuclear explosion would be spread over a wide area in tiny fragments, its
radioactivity makes it detectable, identifiable and collectable, and a wealth of information can be obtained from its analysis: the efficiency of the explosion, the materials used and, most important
some indication of where the nuclear material came from.41 Alternatively, if the act of nuclear terrorism came as a complete surprise, and
American officials refused to believe that a terrorist group was fully responsible (or responsible at all) suspicion would shift
immediately to state possessors. Ruling out Western ally countries like the United Kingdom and France, and probably Israel and India as well, authorities in
Washington would be left with a very short list consisting of North Korea, perhaps Iran if its program continues, and possibly Pakistan.
But at what stage would Russia and China be definitely ruled out in this high stakes game of nuclear Cluedo? In particular, if the act of nuclear terrorism occurred
against a backdrop of existing tension in Washingtons relations with Russia and/or China, and at a time when threats had already been traded between these major powers, would officials and
political leaders not be tempted to assume the worst? Of course, the chances of this occurring would only seem to increase if the United States was already involved in some sort of limited armed
conflict with Russia and/or China, or if they were confronting each other from a distance in a proxy war, as unlikely as these developments may seem at the present time. The reverse
might well apply too: should a nuclear terrorist attack occur in Russia or China during a period of
heightened tension or even limited conflict with the United States, could Moscow and Beijing resist the pressures that might rise domestically to
consider the United States as a possible perpetrator or encourager of the attack? Washingtons early response to a terrorist nuclear
attack on its own soil might also raise the possibility of an unwanted (and nuclear aided) confrontation with Russia
and/or China. For example, in the noise and confusion during the immediate aftermath of the terrorist
nuclear attack, the U.S. president might be expected to place the countrys armed forces, including its nuclear arsenal, on a higher stage of alert. In such a tense environment, when
careful planning runs up against the friction of reality, it is just possible that Moscow and/or China might mistakenly read this as a sign of U.S. intentions to use force (and possibly nuclear force)
against them. In that situation, the temptations to preempt such actions might grow, although it must be admitted that any preemption would probably still meet with a devastating response.
[H.] Lashout will be widespread and cause extinction
Nicole Schwartz-Morgan, Assistant Professor of Politics and Economics at Royal Military College of
Canada, 10/10/2001, Wild Globalization and Terrorism, http://www.wfs.org/mmmorgan.htm
The terrorist act can reactivate atavistic defense mechanisms which drive us to gather around clan
chieftans. Nationalistic sentiment re-awakens, setting up an implacable frontier which divides "us" from
"them," each group solidifying its cohesion in a rising hate/fear of the other group. (Remember
Yugoslavia?) To be sure, the allies are trying for the moment to avoid the language of polarization,
insisting that "this is not a war," that it is "not against Islam," "civilians will not be targeted." But the
word "war" was pronounced, a word heavy with significance which forces the issue of partisanship. And
it must be understood that the sentiment of partisanship, of belonging to the group, is one of the strongest
of human emotions. Because the enemy has been named in the media (Islam), the situation has become
emotionally volatile. Another spectacular attack, coming on top of an economic recession could easily
radicalize the latent attitudes of the United States, and also of Europe, where racial prejudices are
especially close to the surface and ask no more than a pretext to burst out. This is the Sarajevo syndrome:
an isolated act of madness becomes the pretext for a war that is just as mad, made of ancestral rancor,
measureless ambitions, and armies in search of a war. We should not be fooled by our expressions of
good will and charity toward the innocent victims of this or other distant wars. It is our own comfortable
circumstances which permit us these benevolent sentiments. If conditions change so that poverty and
famine put the fear of starvation in our guts, the human beast will reappear. And if epidemic becomes a
clear and present danger, fear will unleash hatred in the land of the free, flinging missiles indiscriminately
toward any supposed havens of the unseen enemy. And on the other side, no matter how profoundly
complex and differentiated Islamic nations and tribes may be, they will be forced to behave as one clan by
those who see advantage in radicalizing the conflict, whether they be themselves merchants or terrorists.

Democracy Promotion Inherency Transition Now
Cuban government reforms happening nowremoval of the embargo key to sustain
Cuban governmental and economic transition
BBC Worldwide, 2011
[BBC Monitoring Latin America Political Supplied by BBC Worldwide Monitoring, November 16,
2011 Wednesday, Think tank urges United States to do more for Cuba, Lexis] Wyo-MB
Washington, 15 November: The Washington-based think tank, Centre for Democracy in the Americas, is
urging the United States to do more to encourage market reforms and restructuring now underway in
Cuba. "After fifty years of sanctions, and a generation after the demise of the Cold War, it is incumbent
upon US policy makers to understand the changes taking place in Cuba today and respond accordingly," it
said in a new report, adding that "the success or failure of the reform process will largely be determined in
Havana, not Washington". Although Cuba's economy is still largely state-controlled, under President
Raul Castro it has taken steps to reduce the size of government by allowing Cuban citizens to operate
their own small businesses and form cooperatives. Castro has also ended some state subsidies and began
phasing out others, such as the ration card. Other market-oriented reforms, such as allowing Cubans to
buy and sell homes and cars, were enacted this fall. But the report notes advocates for reform of US
policy towards Cuba, the big change announced by Castro - laying off more than one million workers,
about a fifth of the state payroll - was "halted before it ever really got underway". The report says that
Cuba's problems "stem from the limited ways in which its economy produces wealth, its heavy reliance
on imports to feed its population, growing domestic economic inequality, and the lack of opportunities for
citizens to productively use knowledge acquired through advanced education". This year, the Cuba
government is expecting economic growth of 2.9 per cent, an improvement over 2010 when the economy
grew by 2.1 per cent. The study notes that many in the United States question the sincerity of Cuba's
reform efforts and whether they are permanent. Cuba experimented with economic liberalization in the
1990s after the collapse of the Soviet bloc sent its economy into a downward spiral. It allowed self-
employment in 160 occupations, and by 1996 more than 200,000 Cubans had licenses to work for
themselves. But as Cuba emerged from the post-Soviet crisis in the late 1990s, it began to roll back the
reforms . "Despite doubts on both sides of the Florida Straits, the evidence leads us to conclude that
Cuba's reform process is here to stay," the report noted, recommending that US policymakers
acknowledge that Cuba's reforms are real. For more than 50 years, the centrepiece of US policy on Cuba
has been the embargo against the Spanish-speaking Caribbean island in an effort to choke off the
government economically. "In the final analysis, ending the embargo and normalizing relations with Cuba
ought to be a foreign policy priority of the United States," says the report. To lift the embargo would take
an act of Congress.
Democracy Promotion Solvency New Strategy Key
US Policy to Cuba fails to promote human rights and democracy, removing
embargo is key to a new strategy
Amash, 2012
embargo/] /Wyo-MB
Cuba has a long record of violating the fundamental human rights of freedom of opinion, thought,
expression, and the right to dissent; the Universal Declaration of Human Rights clearly protects these
rights in Articles 19 and 21. Article 19 states that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and
expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and
impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. Article 21 similarly states
that everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country [] (UDHR). The purpose of
this proposal is to provide the United States with an alternative foreign policy approach toward Cuba that
will improve human rights conditions and foster democracy in the country. Namely, I argue that the
embargo policy should be abandoned and replaced with a policy based on modeling appropriate behavior,
providing support and resources to developing democratic systems and encouraging participation in
multilateral institutions. In the following pages, I will describe the historical context of the situation,
critique the embargo policy and advocate for the normalization of relations with Cuba as a stronger
approach to improving human rights and espousing democracy. It is essential to carefully consider this
proposal as a viable policy alternative for promoting democracy and protecting human rights in Cuba
because the current embargo policy has proven to be ineffective in advancing these goals. Developing
more effective approaches to similar situations of democratization and promotion of ideals has been a
foreign policy goal of the United States since before the Cold War. However, despite the vast shifts in the
international climate following the end of the Cold War, U.S. policy towards Cuba has not adapted. As
such, this proposal highlights the need for a fresh policy toward our neighbor and bitter rival.
Squo embargo tanks US-Cuban relations, and the embargo fails to promote
democracy and human rights
Amash, 2012
embargo/] /Wyo-MB
The United States and Cuba have been on unstable terms since the colonization of both countries by the
British and Spanish Empires, respectively. Following Cubas independence from Spain and the ensuing
Spanish-American War, Cuban-American relations began to deteriorate: Cubans resented American
intervention in their independence, afraid of leaving one empire only to be conquered by another.
However, the human rights violations in question did not become a problem until after the Cuban
Revolution in the 1950s, following the rise of Fidel Castros communist regime. After the revolution,
Cuban laws imposed limits on the freedoms of expression and association, effectively undermining the
basic human rights of freedom of opinion and dissent. According to Clark, De Fana and Sanchez, given
the totalitarian nature of the country, in which all communications media are in the hands of the
omnipotent State-Party, it is physically impossible to express any dissenting political opinion [] (Clark
65). Threatened by these blatantly antidemocratic policies, America had to do something. The United
States placed trade embargoes, economic sanctions, and travel bans on Cuba in an attempt to combat the
communist regime and human rights violations (Carter 334). Today, diplomatic relations with Cuba
remain extremely strained, although Americas embargo policy has tightened and relaxed in concert with
its domestic political climate. Most recently, President Obama has reversed tighter restrictions on Cuban
American family travel and remittances, as well as announcing that U.S. telecommunications
companies may seek licenses to do business in Cuba (Carter 336). However, despite the ever-evolving
policy and the fluid international climate, little progress has been made in improving the human rights
situation in Cuba, let alone the overall promotion of democratic ideals. The embargo policy is based on
the idea that economic denial will bring about continued economic failure in Cuba, thereby creating
popular dissatisfaction with the government while simultaneously weakening the governments ability to
repress this popular dissent, leading to the destabilization of the regime and, ultimately, its collapse
(Seaman 39). In the following section, I will explain how these objectives have not been realized.
Ending the embargo is the only way to mobilize the public in Cuba to push for
democratic reform
Perez, 2010
[Louis, e J. Carlyle Sitterson professor of history and the director of the Institute for the Study of the
Americas at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Want change in Cuba? End U.S. embargo, 9-
21-10, http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/09/20/perez.cuba.embargo/index.html] /Wyo-MB
The Obama administration, he said, wanted "to promote respect for human rights and fundamental
freedoms ... in ways that will empower the Cuban people and advance our national interests." Fine words.
But if the administration really wanted to do something in the national interest, it would end the 50-year-
old policy of political and economic isolation of Cuba. The Cuban embargo can no longer even pretend to
be plausible.On the contrary, it has contributed to the very conditions that stifle democracy and human
rights there. For 50 years, its brunt has fallen mainly on the Cuban people. This is not by accident. On the
contrary, the embargo was designed to impose suffering and hunger on Cubans in the hope that they
would rise up and overturn their government. "The only foreseeable means of alienating internal
support," the Department of State insisted as early as April 1960, "is through disenchantment and
disaffection based on economic dissatisfaction and hardship." The United States tightened the screws in
the post-Soviet years with the Torricelli Act and the Helms-Burton Act -- measures designed, Sen. Robert
Torricelli said, "to wreak havoc on that island." The post-Soviet years were indeed calamitous.
Throughout the 1990s, Cubans faced growing scarcities, deteriorating services and increased rationing.
Meeting the needs of ordinary life took extraordinary effort. And therein lies the problem that still
bedevils U.S. policy today. Far from inspiring the Cuban people to revolution, the embargo keeps them
down and distracted. Dire need and urgent want are hardly optimum circumstances for a people to
contemplate the benefits of democracy. A people preoccupied with survival have little interest or
inclination to bestir themselves in behalf of anything else. In Cuba, routine household errands and chores
consume overwhelming amounts of time and energy, day after day: hours in lines at the local grocery
store or waiting for public transportation. Cubans in vast numbers choose to emigrate. Others burrow
deeper into the black market, struggling to make do and carry on. Many commit suicide. (Cuba has one of
the highest suicide rates in the world; in 2000, the latest year for which we have statistics, it was 16.4 per
100,000 people.) A June 2008 survey in The New York Times reported that less than 10 percent of
Cubans identified the lack of political freedom as the island's main problem. As one Cuban colleague
recently suggested to me: "First necessities, later democracy." The United States should consider a
change of policy, one that would offer Cubans relief from the all-consuming ordeal of daily life.
Improved material circumstances would allow Cubans to turn their attention to other aspirations. Ending
the embargo would also imply respect for the Cuban people, an acknowledgment that they have the vision
and vitality to enact needed reforms, and that transition in Cuba, whatever form it may take, is wholly a
Cuban affair. A good-faith effort to engage Cuba, moreover, would counter the common perception there
that the United States is a threat to its sovereignty. It would deny Cuban leaders the chance to use U.S.
policy as pretext to limit public debate and stifle dissent -- all to the good of democracy and human
rights. And it would serve the national interest.
Democracy Promotion AT: Emboldens Hardliners
Removing the sanctions prevents emboldening hardliners in Cuba and opens up the
possibility of effective democratic transitions
Bandow, 2012
[Douglas, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a former special assistant to former US president Ronald
Reagan, Time to End the Cuba Embargo, 12-11-12, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/time-
end-cuba-embargo] /Wyo-MB
It is far past time to end the embargo. During the Cold War, Cuba offered a potential advanced military
outpost for the Soviet Union. Indeed, that role led to the Cuban missile crisis. With the failure of the U.S.-
supported Bay of Pigs invasion, economic pressure appeared to be Washingtons best strategy for ousting
the Castro dictatorship. However, the end of the Cold War left Cuba strategically irrelevant. It is a poor
country with little ability to harm the United States. The Castro regime might still encourage unrest, but
its survival has no measurable impact on any important U.S. interest. The regime remains a humanitarian
travesty, of course. Nor are Cubans the only victims: three years ago the regime jailed a State Department
contractor for distributing satellite telephone equipment in Cuba. But Havana is not the only regime to
violate human rights. Moreover, experience has long demonstrated that it is virtually impossible for
outsiders to force democracy. Washington often has used sanctions and the Office of Foreign Assets
Control currently is enforcing around 20 such programs, mostly to little effect. The policy in Cuba
obviously has failed. The regime remains in power. Indeed, it has consistently used the embargo to justify
its own mismanagement, blaming poverty on America. Observed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: It is
my personal belief that the Castros do not want to see an end to the embargo and do not want to see
normalization with the United States, because they would lose all of their excuses for what hasnt
happened in Cuba in the last 50 years. Similarly, Cuban exile Carlos Saladrigas of the Cuba Study Group
argued that keeping the embargo, maintaining this hostility, all it does is strengthen and embolden the
hardliners. Cuban human rights activists also generally oppose sanctions. A decade ago I (legally)
visited Havana, where I met Elizardo Sanchez Santa Cruz, who suffered in communist prisons for eight
years. He told me that the sanctions policy gives the government a good alibi to justify the failure of the
totalitarian model in Cuba. Indeed, it is only by posing as an opponent of Yanqui Imperialism that Fidel
Castro has achieved an international reputation. If he had been ignored by Washington, he never would
have been anything other than an obscure authoritarian windbag.
Only a risk that maintaining the embargo does more harm than good
Bandow, 2012
[Douglas, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a former special assistant to former US president Ronald
Reagan, Time to End the Cuba Embargo, 12-11-12, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/time-
end-cuba-embargo] /Wyo-MB
There is essentially no international support for continuing the embargo. For instance, the European
Union plans to explore improving relations with Havana. Spains Deputy Foreign Minister Gonzalo de
Benito explained that the EU saw a positive evolution in Cuba. The hope, then, is to move forward in the
relationship between the European Union and Cuba. The administration should move now, before
congressmen are focused on the next election. President Obama should propose legislation to drop (or at
least significantly loosen) the embargo. He also could use his authority to relax sanctions by, for instance,
granting more licenses to visit the island. Ending the embargo would have obvious economic benefits for
both Cubans and Americans. The U.S. International Trade Commission estimates American losses alone
from the embargo as much as $1.2 billion annually. Expanding economic opportunities also might
increase pressure within Cuba for further economic reform. So far the regime has taken small steps, but
rejected significant change. Moreover, thrusting more Americans into Cuban society could help
undermine the ruling system. Despite Fidel Castros decline, Cuban politics remains largely static. A few
human rights activists have been released, while Raul Castro has used party purges to entrench loyal
elites. Lifting the embargo would be no panacea. Other countries invest in and trade with Cuba to no
obvious political impact. And the lack of widespread economic reform makes it easier for the regime
rather than the people to collect the benefits of trade, in contrast to China. Still, more U.S. contact would
have an impact. Argued trade specialist Dan Griswold, American tourists would boost the earnings of
Cubans who rent rooms, drive taxis, sell art, and operate restaurants in their homes. Those dollars would
then find their way to the hundreds of freely priced farmers markets, to carpenters, repairmen, tutors, food
venders, and other entrepreneurs. The Castro dictatorship ultimately will end up in historys dustbin.
But it will continue to cause much human hardship along the way. The Heritage Foundations John
Sweeney complained nearly two decades ago that the United States must not abandon the Cuban people
by relaxing or lifting the trade embargo against the communist regime. But the dead hand of half a
century of failed policy is the worst breach of faith with the Cuban people. Lifting sanctions would be a
victory not for Fidel Castro, but for the power of free people to spread liberty. As Griswold argued,
commercial engagement is the best way to encourage more open societies abroad. Of course, there are
no guarantees. But lifting the embargo would have a greater likelihood of success than continuing a
policy which has failed. Some day the Cuban people will be free. Allowing more contact with Americans
likely would make that day come sooner.
Democracy Promotion Internal Link Latin American key to
Global Democracy Promotion
Empowering democracy promotion in Latin America is a key part of global
democracy promotion
Curtis, 2011
extremism] /Wyo-MB
As the U.S. promotes democratic principles and institutions abroad, it also needs to be aware of efforts by
autocratic forces to counter democratic progress. Leaders of autocratic regimes, especially those who rely
on economic windfalls from extractive industries or are part of an oligarchy whose interests are served by
the states wealth, seek to undercut support for indigenous democratic movements and have become
increasingly adept at doing so. Authoritarian regimes often invest significant resources into managing and
manipulating the media to promote anti-democratic values. Autocrats are also becoming skilled in
establishing pseudo-democracies and using the word democracy to argue for anti-democratic
standards.[28] The U.S. needs to better understand these anti-democratic forces in individual countries
and actively counter their strategies. United States Institute of Peace Vice President Steven Heydemann
has recently written about a phenomenon he calls authoritarian learning. Heydemann asserts that
authoritarian states are beginning to organize themselves into a group that is systematically seeking to
counterbalance Western, liberal democratic order. He argues that Iran, Russia, Venezuela, China, and
other authoritarian states coordinate their policies and share success stories of deflecting pressure to
democratize. They share this authoritarian learning with Arab regimes to help them resist Western
pressure for political reform.[29] Chinas rapid economic growth under an autocratic regime has made the
authoritarian model of governance more appealing and thus poses a serious challenge to democratic
reform.[30] A recent Freedom House survey confirms a global decline in political rights and civil
liberties as the number of countries practicing democracy fell for the fourth consecutive year. The decline
is attributed to restrictions on the free flow of information in China, brutal crackdowns on protesters in
Iran and Egypt, and murder of human rights activists in Russia.[31] Freedom House also emphasizes that
instituting democracy involves far more than holding elections.[32] It means developing a vibrant and
free civil society, functioning and credible political parties, and active and free media. There is the added
complication of politicization of institutions that are supposed to monitor and oversee democratic
processes. A recent example is the widespread perception of political interference by Afghan President
Hamid Karzai in the countrys Electoral Complaints Commission, which has tainted Afghanistans 2010
parliamentary elections. In February 2010, Karzai used an emergency decree to give himself authority to
appoint all provincial complaints commissioners.[33] The U.S. does not have the luxury of ignoring
autocratic regimes and often must engage with them to achieve specific U.S. foreign policy objectives. At
the same time, the U.S. should not shy away from supporting civil society leaders and defenders of
human rights in these countries. In some cases, U.S. diplomatic leverage has played a significant role in
nudging an autocratic regime in a more democratic direction.[34] For example, in the 1980s, American
diplomats pursued two-track policies of maintaining state-to-state relations with autocratic regimes in
Latin America while pushing for democratic change when opportunities arose.[35] In pursuing this two-
track approach, U.S. public statements take on more weight. U.S. presidential statements in support of
democracy promotion empower civil society leaders seeking democratic change and undermine their
opponents.[36]
Democracy Promotion Impact Terrorism
Democracy promotion is key to solve extremism, terrorism, and anti-americanism
Curtis, 2011
extremism] /Wyo-MB
The Obama Administration needs to continue its new-found commitment to supporting democratic ideals
and institutions around the globe, especially in Muslim-majority countries where extremist movements
threaten liberal freedoms and, in some cases, the stability of the state. Encouraging democratic values
will not only help to protect citizens from human rights abuses by authoritarian regimes, but also provide
a bulwark against Islamist extremist movements. Part of the effort to counter extremist ideology will
necessarily include demonstrating that Muslim-majority countries and democratic principles are
compatible. The strategy should also involve countering Islamists, who may not publicly support
terrorism but still seek to subvert democratic systems and pursue an ideology that leads to discrimination
against religious minorities. The wave of protests against authoritarian rule currently sweeping the
Middle East is forcing the Obama Administration to make tough decisions on how the U.S. will promote
democracy and concepts of liberty while guarding against the possibility of abrupt political changes that
anti-American Islamists can exploit to their advantage. The stakes could not be higher for U.S. interests,
especially since the outcome of the current wave of unrest could profoundly affect both Islamist
movements throughout the Muslim world and support for al-Qaeda and its terrorist agenda.
Democracy promotion is a critical long term strategy to fight terrorism
Curtis, 2011
extremism] /Wyo-MB
The fight against extremism is largely an ideological battle, and the principles of democratic governance
and rule by the people are a powerful antidote to Islamist extremists message of intolerance, hatred, and
repression. Daniel Benjamin, current Coordinator for Counterterrorism at the State Department, noted in a
2008 academic paper that [t]he U.S. needs a long-term strategy that makes Muslim societies less
incubators for radicalism and more satisfiers of fundamental human needs.[15] In a joint report prepared
for the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign, the presidents of the International Republican Institute and the
National Democratic Institute emphasized the importance of democratizing societies as a way to reduce
extremism by allowing avenues of dissent, alternation of power, and protections for minorities.[16]
Former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith, in an academic paper in 2010, also points to
the need to promote ideas favorable to individual rights in Muslim societies. Rather than focus solely on
messaging Muslim communities, Feith argues that U.S. policy must also develop effective ways to
stimulate debate among Muslims themselves on the extremist ideologies promoted by al-Qaeda and other
terrorist organizations.[17] More specifically, the [k]ey objective is not to induce Muslims to like the
U.S. but to encourage them to reject understandings of Islam that condone and even encourage violence
and subversion against the U.S. and the West.[18] The U.S. needs to implement strategies to counter
Islamists who may not publicly condone terrorism but still seek to subvert democratic systems.[19] To do
so successfully, the U.S. will need to engage with Muslim groups and leaders, but it must navigate this
terrain carefully. The American model of religious liberty includes a favorable view of religious practice,
both private and public, and assumes that religious leaders will take an active role in society.[20] While
they may participate in the political process, Islamists ideology often leads to discrimination against
religious minorities and other anti-democratic measures and fuels support for terrorism. After all, Islamist
ideology helped to form the basis for the development of al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.
Democracy Promotion Impact Laundry List
Human rights and democracy promotion establish stable partners for the United
States that are key to solve climate change, food security, global health issues, and
conflict
USAID, 2013
[US agency for international development, IMPORTANCE OF DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS, &
GOVERNANCE TO DEVELOPMENT, 5-13-13, http://www.usaid.gov/what-we-do/democracy-human-
rights-and-governance/importance-democracy-human-rights-governance] /Wyo-MB
USAID recognizes that long-term, sustainable development is closely linked to sound democratic
governance and the protection of human rights. We view the democracy, human rights, and governance
(DRG) sector not in isolation but as a critical framework in which all aspects of development must
advance together. Our projects in health, education, climate change, and food security will not be
effective and sustainable unless we work to: Support legitimate, inclusive and sound governance.
Protect the basic rights of citizens. Support stable and peaceful democratic transitions. USAID
Administrator Rajiv Shah has called for a united approach to integrate democracy, human rights, and
governance considerations with socio-economic sectors in pursuit of broader U.S. development
objectives. The Administrator recognizes that inclusive, accountable, and democratic governments are
necessary and critical for ensuring that communities can withstand conflict and/or other shocks and that
development gains are not lost, as well as creating stable partners for the United States.

Democracy Promotion Impact Economic Growth
Democracy promotion solves economic growth
Lagon, 2011
[Mark, adjunct Senior Fellow for Human Rights Council of Foreign Relations, February 2011, Promoting
Democracy: The Whys and Hows for the United States and the International Community,
http://www.cfr.org/democracy-promotion/promoting-democracy-whys-hows-united-states-international-
community/p24090] /Wyo-MB
There has long been controversy about whether democracy enhances economic development. The
dramatic growth of China certainly challenges this notion. Still, history will likely show that democracy
yields the most prosperity. Notwithstanding the global financial turbulence of the past three years,
democracys elements facilitate long-term economic growth. These elements include above all freedom of
expression and learning to promote innovation, and rule of law to foster predictability for investors and
stop corruption from stunting growth. It is for that reason that the UN Development Programme (UNDP)
and the 2002 UN Financing for Development Conference in Monterey, Mexico, embraced good
governance as the enabler of development. These elements have unleashed new emerging powers such as
India and Brazil and raised the quality of life for impoverished peoples. Those who argue that economic
development will eventually yield political freedoms may be reversing the order of influencesor at least
discounting the reciprocal relationship between political and economic liberalization. Finally, democracy
affords all groups equal access to justiceand equal opportunity to shine as assets in a countrys
economy. Democracys support for pluralism prevents human assetsincluding religious and ethnic
minorities, women, and migrantsfrom being squandered. Indeed, a shortage of economic opportunities
and outlets for grievances has contributed significantly to the ongoing upheaval in the Middle East.
Pluralism is also precisely what is needed to stop violent extremism from wreaking havoc on the world.
Democracy Promotion Impact War
Effective democracy promotion solves war, terrorism and instability
Epstien et al, 2007
[Susan B. Epstein, Nina M. Serafino, and Francis T. Miko Specialists in Foreign Policy Foreign Affairs,
Defense, and Trade Division Congressional research service, Democracy Promotion: Cornerstone of U.S.
Foreign Policy?, 12-26-7, http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl34296.pdf] /Wyo-MB
A common rationale offered by proponents of democracy promotion, including former Secretary of State
Madeleine Albright and current Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, is that democracies do not go to
war with one another. This is sometimes referred to as the democratic peace theory. Experts point to
European countries, the United States, Canada, and Mexico as present-day examples. According to
President Clintons National Security Strategy of Engagement and Enlargement: Democracies create
free markets that offer economic opportunity, make for more reliable trading partners, and are far less
likely to wage war on one another.22 Some have refined this democracy peace theory by distinguishing
between mature democracies and those in transition, suggesting that mature democracies do not fight
wars with each other, but that countries transitioning toward democracy are more prone to being attacked
(because of weak governmental institutions) or being aggressive toward others. States that made
transitions from an autocracy toward early stages of democracy and were involved in hostilities soon after
include France in the mid-1800s under Napoleon III, Prussia/Germany under Bismarck (1870-1890),
Chile shortly before the War of the Pacific in 1879, Serbias multiparty constitutional monarchy before
the Balkan Wars of the late 20th Century, and Pakistans military guided pseudo-democracy before its
wars with India in 1965 and 1971.23 The George W. Bush Administration asserts that democracy
promotion is a long-term antidote to terrorism. The Administrations Strategy for Winning the War on
Terror asserts that inequality in political participation and access to wealth resources in a country, lack of
freedom of speech, and poor education all breed volatility. By promoting basic human rights, freedoms
of speech, religion, assembly, association and press, and by maintaining order within their borders and
providing an independent justice system, effective democracies can defeat terrorism in the long run,
according to the Bush White House.24 Another reason given to encourage democracies (although
debated by some experts) is the belief that democracies promote economic prosperity. From this
perspective, as the rule of law leads to a more stable society and as equal economic opportunity for all
helps to spur economic activity, economic growth, particularly of per capita income, is likely to follow.
In addition, a democracy under this scenario may be more likely to be viewed by other countries as a
good trading partner and by outside investors as a more stable environment for investment, according to
some experts. Moreover, countries that have developed as stable democracies are viewed as being more
likely to honor treaties, according to some experts.25
Democracy Promotion Impact Laundry List
DEMOCRACY IS NECESSARY TO AVERT NUCLEAR WAR AND
EXTINCTION
CARNEGIE COMMISSION ON PREVENTING DEADLY CONFLICT, Promoting Democracy in
the 1990s, October 1995. Available from the World Wide Web at:
http://www.carnegie.org/sub/pubs/deadly/dia95_01.html, accessed 2/20/04.
OTHER THREATS This hardly exhausts the lists of threats to our security and well-being in the coming
years and decades. In the former Yugoslavia nationalist aggression tears at the stability of Europe and
could easily spread. The flow of illegal drugs intensifies through increasingly powerful international
crime syndicates that have made common cause with authoritarian regimes and have utterly corrupted the
institutions of tenuous, democratic ones. Nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons continue to
proliferate. The very source of life on Earth, the global ecosystem, appears increasingly endangered. Most
of these new and unconventional threats to security are associated with or aggravated by the weakness or
absence of democracy, with its provisions for legality, accountability, popular sovereignty, and openness.
LESSONS OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY The experience of this century offers important lessons.
Countries that govern themselves in a truly democratic fashion do not go to war with one another. They
do not aggress against their neighbors to aggrandize themselves or glorify their leaders. Democratic
governments do not ethnically "cleanse" their own populations, and they are much less likely to face
ethnic insurgency. Democracies do not sponsor terrorism against one another. They do not build weapons
of mass destruction to use on or to threaten one another. Democratic countries form more reliable, open,
and enduring trading partnerships. In the long run they offer better and more stable climates for
investment. They are more environmentally responsible because they must answer to their own citizens,
who organize to protest the destruction of their environments. They are better bets to honor international
treaties since they value legal obligations and because their openness makes it much more difficult to
breach agreements in secret. Precisely because, within their own borders, they respect competition, civil
liberties, property rights, and the rule of law, democracies are the only reliable foundation on which a new
world order of international security and prosperity can be built.

SQ bad for Demo

Status quo undermines democracy
Griswold 02 associate director of the Cato Institutes Center for Trade Policy
Studies [Daniel T. Griswold, No: The Embargo Harms Cubans and Gives Castro an Excuse for the
Policy Failures of His Regime, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/no-embargo-harms-cubans-
gives-castro-excuse-policy-failures-regime]

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

Key to Spread

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

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

Lift Boosts Civil Society Reforms

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

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

Democracy

Cuba Key

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

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

Lifting Good

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

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

Embargo Hurts

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

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

Stops Democracy Embargo policy fails, legitimizes regime, and scares Cubans
away from Democracy

The above analysis of the U.S. top-down approach to democracy promotion in Cuba highlights several
factors at work within the economic, social, and political levels in Cuba, which help explain the
embargo's ineptness in achieving its stated goal. As a consequence of these factors, the top-down
strategy serves more to counteract, rather than promote, moves toward democratization in Cuba.
Firstly, while the embargo does hurt Cuba economically, significantly hindering the degree of economic
development the Cuban state would clearly like to achieve , it has failed to create the economic misery
that would incite massive revolt against the regime as the U.S has long hoped for. This is due to several
reasons. In the absence of international sanctions the Cuban Government has proven itself capable of
adapting to changing economic situations and negotiating new trade partners to fill the void created by
the collapse of the Soviet Union. The U.S. law allowing for the export of agriculture products to Cuba
has itself further weakened the United S tates' unilateral measures aimed at strangling the Cuban
economy. Furthermore, the U.S. Cuba immigration policy serves to deflate both economic and political
pressures that weigh on the Cuban Government by allowing Cubans an escape from the poor economic
situation the embargo helps create.
Secondly , the restrictions on U.S. tourist travel, educational exchanges, and religious work serve to keep
the island further isolated from alternative, international influences and ideas. Moreover, this policy also
helps bolster the stability of the Cuban Government by reinforcing the regime's strategy of regulating
Cubans' access to information. It should also be noted - and this ties in with the next factor - that even if
the U.S. were to move towards a policy of allowing full engagement and exchange between peoples, its
success may very well be hampered by those structures existing within the top-down approach that
encourage reactionary defense, rather than positive behavioral change on the side of Cubans.
Therefore, thirdly , the adamant push to export a U.S. defined and U.S . guided democratic transition in
Cuba serves more to spread negative anxiety and doubt among Cubans concerning a future
democratization than to encourage positive alternatives to the revolution and provide incentives for
democratic political change. Consequently, this aspect of the U.S. policy has the short-term effect of
internally toughening and stabilizing the regime (Hoffmann 2001b, 13). More than just falling short of
promoting democratic prospects among political leaders and ordinary Cubans, the U.S. policy serves to
empower the Cuban Government. The regime in Havana merely has to point to the harsh policies of
Washington to legitimize its rule and promote a nationalist environment against the hostile U.S. enemy.
This factor enables the Cuban Government to deflect system blame arising from poor economic
performance, and provides it with an extra source of performance legitimacy derived from fending off
imperial aggression.

Sanctions Cause Bad Democracies

Sanctions cause bad democracies They breed defiance and weak nations

At first glance, the logic of the U.S. policy of promoting economic destruction, premised on the belief
that it will hasten the collapse of the Cuban regime, may not seem too implausible. Denying Cuba the
resources it needs for economic development should lead to sustained economic hardships, thereby
increasing popular socioeconomic dissatisfaction among Cubans. While also denying to the Cuban
Government financial resources and hard currency, the regime should no longer be in a position to
finance the strengthening of its coercion-apparatus in order to repress political dissent, which may
eventually force a top-down opening for political change, or even outright transition - albeit even 50
years later. However, there are several drawbacks to this approach as a democracy promotion strategy.
Firstly, undermining economic development as a way of promoting democracy will more than likely
have negative economic consequences on any future democratic government that may emerge. As
Burnell (2004, 104) points out: "Where an economic wasteland is created so as to bring down a regime,
that is a very inauspicious foundation on which to try to build a new democracy." The available evidence
analyzing the relationship between economic development and democracy suggests that poor
democracies stand more chance of dying than wealthier democracies. A group of scholars using data
analysis from a study of 135 countries between the years 1950 and 1990 found that, "when poor countries
stagnate, whatever democracies happen to spring up tend to die quickly. Poverty breeds poverty and
dictatorship " (Przeworski et al. 1997, 305). Almost fifty years ago Seymour Lipset (1959 , 75)
proposed that "the more well-to-do a nation , the greater the chances that it will sustain democracy."
Since Lipset's seminal article, several studies testing large sets of data have found evidence supporting
his premise that a positive relationship between economic prosperity and democracy exists (see
Londregan/Poole 1990; Przeworski/Limongi 1997; Biox/Stokes 2003). Thus, while economic failure may
indeed undermine the survival of an authoritarian regime and bring about its collapse, the economic
success of an authoritarian regime may be more likely to create an encouraging foundation for the
survival of an incoming democratic regime (Huntington 1991, 35).
Secondly, It is not so much a country's level of wealth alone that is thought to sustain democracy , but
rather the various socioeconomic byproducts of industrialization and successful economic development
such as urbanization , increased economic independence and security, rising education levels, and the
development of a well-educated, socially organized middle-class. All these factors are thought to
modernize the social sphere and facilitate the development and spread of democratic beliefs, norms and
values within a society (Lipset 1959, 84). Several scholars, therefore , have emphasized the
democratizing aspects of these socioeconomic changes within non-democratic states, thereby arguing that
successful economic modernization will generate pressures for democratization (Huntington 1991;
Diamond 2003; Biox/Strokes 2003). Accordingly, democracy promotion strategies that seek to
undermine a country's economic development would also be undermining the development of these
democratizing byproducts.
Democracy promoters wishing to influence political change by supporting successful economic
development in non-democracies have several options, such as development aid and trade liberalization
attached with conditionality and political dialogue, as well as the encouragement of f oreign d irect
i nvestment (Dauderstadt/Lerch 2005, 7). This is not to say that such a strategy will lead to
democratization, nor necessarily to the development of democracy-supporting socioeconomic by-
products suggested by the modernization theory . Burnell (2005, 105), for example, warns of the
negative side effects of opening up a country to the global economy , particularly when this leads to
growing socioeconomic inequalities within society, which can undermine any positive perceptions of
economic liberalization. Furthermore, Bueno de Mesquita and Downs (2005) have highlighted the
strategies of several autocratic states, in particular China and Russia, which have found ways to enjoy
the benefits of substantial economic development while simultaneously deflecting, or at least
postponing, pressure for political liberalization by simply regulating the availability of the key
"strategic goods" that are required by opposition groups for the development of "strategic coordination."
Thirdly, the strategy of undermining economic development to promote a transition to democracy may
itself be counteracted by the very policy instrument used to achieve this goal: economic sanctions. The
use of economic coercion as a policy instrument, as we shall see, is perhaps not as suited as some
would like to believe for the ambitious goal of promoting democracy in non-democratic states.
Economic sanctions as a form of statecraft have been increasingly used throughout modern history . In
the last several decades economic sanctions have often been imposed both unilaterally and multilaterally
with the goal of bringing about the demise of authoritarian leaders. Fidel Castro is not the only autocrat
to have successfully defied economic sanctions. United Nations sanctions failed to bring about the
collapse of Saddam Hussein 's Ba'ath regime. Kim IL Sung, in the face of long enduring sanctions,
continues to hold on to power in North Korea and was not deterred from acquiring nuclear capabilities.
Most recently economic sanctions have failed to strangle the military junta in Burma, which continues to
survive.

Embargo Keeps in Power

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

If the embargo were lifted, for some time the state apparatus might well benet more than the average
Cuban from expanded tourism, trade, and investment. But in time increasing amounts would go beyond
the state, and although economics will not single-handedly liberate Cuba, it may contribute some to that
end. This is so, in part, because the repressive Cubans within the state apparatus are subject to inuences
that can tilt their allegiances in positive ways. Cuban Interior Ministry (Minint) founding member
Rodrguez Menier has reported that it was precisely the top levels of the Minint that by the late 1980s
were the most receptive to substantial reform. These were the best-informed bureaucrats in Cuba and
those most directly charged with protecting and promoting Fidel. Little wonder these Minint ofcials
were the largest group purged in 198990 when talk of reform ricocheted off walls from Moscow to
Havana and came to a head during what was known as the Ochoa affair, when Castro executed a
prominent Cuban general for alleged dealing in drugs.83 Increased contacts could have this kind of
impact again and the next time Castro might not crush it so easily. Indeed, some inside reports and
media stories indicate that, as in Minint in the late 1980s, some top Cuban leaders today are willing,
indeed anxious, to support reform and get rid of Castro but are deterred because they fear a vindictive
Washington. As noted earlier, the most prominent dissident in Cuba today has said that even most activist
dissidents think the sanctions should be lifted.

Civil Society Key

Civil Society Key Its the most effective way to created democracy

Furthermore, scholars have argued that, notwithstanding limitations, a strong civil society plays an
essential role in transitions from authoritarianism to democracy (Diamond 1994; Schmitter 1997;
Merkel/Lauth 1998; Paxton 2002). In the realm of democracy promotion, Diamond (1995 , Ch. 2) has
stated that external "aid to challenging groups in civil society (including groups in exile) is often the most
effective way of pressuring for democratic change in a country with an entrenched authoritarian regime
." To be sure, the democracy promotion strategy of aiding civil society within nondemocratic regimes as
well as in emerging democracies has increasingly grown in size and scope over the past decades. It is also
a strategy to which the U.S. has given much credence as part of its Cuba policy, as displayed most
recently by the $45 .7 million the U.S. Congress has set aside for this task. Thus, a second aspect of this
study is to inquire into the nature of the relationship between civil society and democratization and how
the external promotion of civil society groups may interact within this relationship . Both the
considerable degree of state control over civic organizations in Cuba (Bertelsmann Stiftung 2007, 10) and
the precarious relations between Washington and Havana raise questions concerning the efficacy and
consequence of U.S. assistance to civil society groups in Cuba.

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

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

C. America''s Goal: Liberal Democracy
Given the variety of definitions of democracy and the distinction between democracy and liberalism, what
type of government should the United States attempt to spread? Should it try to spread democracy,
defined procedurally, liberalism, or both? Ultimately, U.S. policies should aim to encourage the spread of
liberal democracy. Policies to promote democracy should attempt to increase the number of regimes that
respect the individual liberties that lie at the heart of liberalism and elect their leaders. The United States
therefore should attempt to build support for liberal principles-many of which are enshrined in
international human-rights treaties-as well as encouraging states to hold free and fair elections.
Supporting the spread of liberal democracy does not, however, mean that the United States should give
the promotion of liberalism priority over the growth of electoral democracy. In most cases, support for
electoral democracy can contribute to the spread of liberalism and liberal democracy. Free and fair
elections often remove leaders who are the biggest impediments to the spread of democracy. In Burma,
for example, the people would almost certainly remove the authoritarian SLORC regime from power if
they had a choice at the ballot box. In South Africa, Haiti, and Chile, for example, elections removed
antidemocratic rulers and advanced the process of democratization. In most cases, the United States
should support elections even in countries that are not fully liberal. Elections will generally initiate a
process of change toward democratization. American policy should not let the perfect be the enemy of the
good by insisting that countries embrace liberal principles before holding elections. Such a policy could
be exploited by authoritarian rulers to justify their continued hold on power and to delay elections that
they might lose. In addition, consistent U.S. support for electoral democracy will help to bolster the
emerging international norm that leaders should be accountable to their people. Achieving this goal is
worth the risk that some distasteful leaders will win elections and use these victories at the ballot box to
legitimize their illiberal rule.
The United States also should attempt to build support for liberal principles, both before and after other
countries hold elections. Policies that advance liberalism are harder to develop and pursue than those that
aim to persuade states to hold free and fair elections, but the United States can promote liberalism as well
as electoral democracy, as I argue below.
II. The Benefits of the Spread of Democracy
Most Americans assume that democracy is a good thing and that the spread of democracy will be
beneficial. Because the virtues of democracy are taken for granted, they are rarely fully enumerated and
considered. Democracy is not an unalloyed good, so it is important not to overstate or misrepresent the
benefits of democratization. Nevertheless, the spread of democracy has many important benefits. This
section enumerates how the spread of democracy will improve the lives of the citizens of new
democracies, contribute to international peace, and directly advance the national interests of the United
States.
A. Democracy is Good for the Citizens of New Democracies
The United States should attempt to spread democracy because people generally live better lives under
democratic governments. Compared to inhabitants of nondemocracies, citizens of democracies enjoy
greater individual liberty, political stability, freedom from governmental violence, enhanced quality of
life, and a much lower risk of suffering a famine. Skeptics will immediately ask: Why should the United
States attempt to improve the lives of non-Americans? Shouldn''t this country focus on its own problems
and interests? There are at least three answers to these questions.
First, as human beings, American should and do feel some obligation to improve the well-being of other
human beings. The bonds of common humanity do not stop at the borders of the United States.19 To be
sure, these bonds and obligations are limited by the competitive nature of the international system. In a
world where the use of force remains possible, no government can afford to pursue a foreign policy based
on altruism. The human race is not about to embrace a cosmopolitan moral vision in which borders and
national identities become irrelevant. But there are many possibilities for action motivated by concern for
individuals in other countries. In the United States, continued public concern over human rights in other
countries, as well as governmental and nongovernmental efforts to relieve hunger, poverty, and suffering
overseas, suggest that Americans accept some bonds of common humanity and feel some obligations to
foreigners. The emergence of the so-called "CNN Effect"-the tendency for Americans to be aroused to
action by television images of suffering people overseas-is further evidence that cosmopolitan ethical
sentiments exist. If Americans care about improving the lives of the citizens of other countries, then the
case for promoting democracy grows stronger to the extent that promoting democracy is an effective
means to achieve this end.
Second, Americans have a particular interest in promoting the spread of liberty. The United States was
founded on the principle of securing liberty for its citizens. Its founding documents and institutions all
emphasize that liberty is a core value. Among the many observers and political scientists who make this
point is Samuel Huntington, who argues that America''s "identity as a nation is inseparable from its
commitment to liberal and democratic values."20 As I argue below, one of the most important benefits of
the spread of democracy-and especially of liberal democracy-is an expansion of human liberty. Given its
founding principles and very identity, the United States has a large stake in advancing its core value of
liberty. As Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott has argued: "The United States is uniquely and self-
consciously a country founded on a set of ideas, and ideals, applicable to people everywhere. The
Founding Fathers declared that all were created equal-not just those in Britain''s 13 American colonies-
and that to secure the `unalienable rights'' of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, people had the right
to establish governments that derive `their just powers from the consent of the governed.''"21
Third, improvements in the lives of individuals in other countries matter to Americans because the United
States cannot insulate itself from the world. It may be a clich to say that the world is becoming more
interdependent, but it is undeniable that changes in communications technologies, trade flows, and the
environment have opened borders and created a more interconnected world. These trends give the United
States a greater stake in the fate of other societies, because widespread misery abroad may create political
turmoil, economic instability, refugee flows, and environmental damage that will affect Americans. As I
argue below in my discussion of how promoting democracy serves U.S. interests, the spread of
democracy will directly advance the national interests of the United States. The growing
interconnectedness of international relations means that the United States also has an indirect stake in the
well-being of those in other countries, because developments overseas can have unpredictable
consequences for the United States.
For these three reasons, at least, Americans should care about how the spread of democracy can improve
the lives of people in other countries.
1. Democracy Leads to Liberty and Liberty is Good
The first way in which the spread of democracy enhances the lives of those who live in democracies is by
promoting individual liberty, including freedom of expression, freedom of conscience, and freedom to
own private property.22 Respect for the liberty of individuals is an inherent feature of democratic politics.
As Samuel Huntington has written, liberty is "the peculiar virtue of democracy."23 A democratic political
process based on electoral competition depends on freedom of expression of political views and freedom
to make electoral choices. Moreover, governments that are accountable to the public are less likely to
deprive their citizens of human rights. The global spread of democracy is likely to bring greater individual
liberty to more and more people. Even imperfect and illiberal democracies tend to offer more liberty than
autocracies, and liberal democracies are very likely to promote liberty. Freedom House''s 1997 survey of
"Freedom in the World" found that 79 out of 118 democracies could be classified as "free" and 39 were
"partly free" and, of those, 29 qualified as "high partly free." In contrast, only 20 of the world''s 73
nondemocracies were "partly free" and 53 were "not free."24
The case for the maximum possible amount of individual freedom can be made on the basis of utilitarian
calculations or in terms of natural rights. The utilitarian case for increasing the amount of individual
liberty rests on the belief that increased liberty will enable more people to realize their full human
potential, which will benefit not only themselves but all of humankind. This view holds that greater
liberty will allow the human spirit to flourish, thereby unleashing greater intellectual, artistic, and
productive energies that will ultimately benefit all of humankind. The rights-based case for liberty, on the
other hand, does not focus on the consequences of increased liberty, but instead argues that all men and
women, by virtue of their common humanity, have a right to freedom. This argument is most memorably
expressed in the American Declaration of Independence: "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all
Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among
these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness ..."
The virtues of greater individual liberty are not self-evident. Various political ideologies argue against
making liberty the paramount goal of any political system. Some do not deny that individual liberty is an
important goal, but call for limiting it so that other goals may be achieved. Others place greater emphasis
on obligations to the community. The British Fabian Socialist Sidney Webb, for example, articulated this
view clearly: "The perfect and fitting development of each individual is not necessarily the utmost and
highest cultivation of his own personality, but the filling, in the best possible way, of his humble function
in the great social machine."25 To debate these issues thoroughly would require a paper far longer than
this one.26 The short response to most critiques of liberty is that there appears to be a universal demand
for liberty among human beings. Particularly as socioeconomic development elevates societies above
subsistence levels, individuals desire more choice and autonomy in their lives. More important, most
political systems that have been founded on principles explicitly opposed to liberty have tended to
devolve into tyrannies or to suffer economic, political, or social collapse.
2. Liberal Democracies are Less Likely to Use Violence Against Their Own People.
Second, America should spread liberal democracy because the citizens of liberal democracies are less
likely to suffer violent death in civil unrest or at the hands of their governments.27 These two findings are
supported by many studies, but particularly by the work of R.J. Rummel. Rummel finds that democracies-
by which he means liberal democracies-between 1900 and 1987 saw only 0.14% of their populations (on
average) die annually in internal violence. The corresponding figure for authoritarian regimes was 0.59%
and for totalitarian regimes 1.48%.28 Rummel also finds that citizens of liberal democracies are far less
likely to die at the hands of their governments. Totalitarian and authoritarian regimes have been
responsible for the overwhelming majority of genocides and mass murders of civilians in the twentieth
century. The states that have killed millions of their citizens all have been authoritarian or totalitarian: the
Soviet Union, the People''s Republic of China, Nazi Germany, Nationalist China, Imperial Japan, and
Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. Democracies have virtually never massacred their own citizens on a
large scale, although they have killed foreign civilians during wartime. The American and British
bombing campaigns against Germany and Japan, U.S. atrocities in Vietnam, massacres of Filipinos
during the guerrilla war that followed U.S. colonization of the Philippines after 1898, and French killings
of Algerians during the Algerian War are some prominent examples.29
There are two reasons for the relative absence of civil violence in democracies: (1) Democratic political
systems-especially those of liberal democracies constrain the power of governments, reducing their ability
to commit mass murders of their own populations. As Rummel concludes, "Power kills, absolute power
kills absolutely ... The more freely a political elite can control the power of the state apparatus, the more
thoroughly it can repress and murder its subjects."30 (2) Democratic polities allow opposition to be
expressed openly and have regular processes for the peaceful transfer of power. If all participants in the
political process remain committed to democratic principles, critics of the government need not stage
violent revolutions and governments will not use violence to repress opponents.31
3. Democracy Enhances Long-Run Economic Performance
A third reason for promoting democracy is that democracies tend to enjoy greater prosperity over long
periods of time. As democracy spreads, more individuals are likely to enjoy greater economic benefits.
Democracy does not necessarily usher in prosperity, although some observers claim that "a close
correlation with prosperity" is one of the "overwhelming advantages" of democracy.32 Some
democracies, including India and the Philippines, have languished economically, at least until the last few
years. Others are among the most prosperous societies on earth. Nevertheless, over the long haul
democracies generally prosper. As Mancur Olson points out: "It is no accident that the countries that have
reached the highest level of economic performance across generations are all stable democracies."33
Authoritarian regimes often compile impressive short-run economic records. For several decades, the
Soviet Union''s annual growth in gross national product (GNP) exceeded that of the United States, leading
Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev to pronounce "we will bury you." China has posted double-digit
annual GNP increases in recent years. But autocratic countries rarely can sustain these rates of growth for
long. As Mancur Olson notes, "experience shows that relatively poor countries can grow extraordinarily
rapidly when they have a strong dictator who happens to have unusually good economic policies, such
growth lasts only for the ruling span of one or two dictators."34 The Soviet Union was unable to sustain
its rapid growth; its economic failings ultimately caused the country to disintegrate in the throes of
political and economic turmoil. Most experts doubt that China will continue its rapid economic
expansion. Economist Jagdish Bhagwati argues that "no one can maintain these growth rates in the long
term. Sooner or later China will have to rejoin the human race."35 Some observers predict that the
stresses of high rates of economic growth will cause political fragmentation in China.36
Why do democracies perform better than autocracies over the long run? Two reasons are particularly
persuasive explanations. First, democracies-especially liberal democracies-are more likely to have market
economies, and market economies tend to produce economic growth over the long run. Most of the
world''s leading economies thus tend to be market economies, including the United States, Japan, the
"tiger" economies of Southeast Asia, and the members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development. Two recent studies suggest that there is a direct connection between economic
liberalization and economic performance. Freedom House conducted a World Survey of Economic
Freedom for 1995-96, which evaluated 80 countries that account for 90% of the world''s population and
99% of the world''s wealth on the basis of criteria such as the right to own property, operate a business, or
belong to a trade union. It found that the countries rated "free" generated 81% of the world''s output even
though they had only 17% of the world''s population.37 A second recent study confirms the connection
between economic freedom and economic growth. The Heritage Foundation has constructed an Index of
Economic Freedom that looks at 10 key areas: trade policy, taxation, government intervention, monetary
policy, capital flows and foreign investment, banking policy, wage and price controls, property rights,
regulation, and black market activity. It has found that countries classified as "free" had annual 1980-
1993 real per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (expressed in terms of purchasing power parities)
growth rates of 2.88%. In "mostly free" countries the rate was
0.97%, in "mostly not free" ones -0.32%, and in "repressed" countries -1.44%.38 Of course, some
democracies do not adopt market economies and some autocracies do, but liberal democracies generally
are more likely to pursue liberal economic policies.
Second, democracies that embrace liberal principles of government are likely to create a stable foundation
for long-term economic growth. Individuals will only make long-term investments when they are
confident that their investments will not be expropriated. These and other economic decisions require
assurances that private property will be respected and that contracts will be enforced. These conditions are
likely to be met when an impartial court system exists and can require individuals to enforce contracts.
Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has argued that: "The guiding mechanism of a free market
economy ... is a bill of rights, enforced by an impartial judiciary."39 These conditions also happen to be
those that are necessary to maintain a stable system of free and fair elections and to uphold liberal
principles of individual rights. Mancur Olson thus points out that "the conditions that are needed to have
the individual rights needed for maximum economic development are exactly the same conditions that are
needed to have a lasting democracy. ... the same court system, independent judiciary, and respect for law
and individual rights that are needed for a lasting democracy are also required for security of property and
contract rights."40 Thus liberal democracy is the basis for long-term economic growth.
A third reason may operate in some circumstances: democratic governments are more likely to have the
political legitimacy necessary to embark on difficult and painful economic reforms.41 This factor is
particularly likely to be important in former communist countries, but it also appears to have played a role
in the decisions India and the Philippines have taken in recent years to pursue difficult economic
reforms.42
4. Democracies Never Have Famines
Fourth, the United States should spread democracy because the citizens of democracies do not suffer from
famines. The economist Amartya Sen concludes that "one of the remarkable facts in the terrible history of
famine is that no substantial famine has ever occurred in a country with a democratic form of government
and a relatively free press."43 This striking empirical regularity has been overshadowed by the apparent
existence of a "democratic peace" (see below), but it provides a powerful argument for promoting
democracy. Although this claim has been most closely identified with Sen, other scholars who have
studied famines and hunger reach similar conclusions. Joseph Collins, for example, argues that:
"Wherever political rights for all citizens truly flourish, people will see to it that, in due course, they share
in control over economic resources vital to their survival. Lasting food security thus requires real and
sustained democracy."44 Most of the countries that have experienced severe famines in recent decades
have been among the world''s least democratic: the Soviet Union (Ukraine in the early 1930s), China,
Ethiopia, Somalia, Cambodia and Sudan. Throughout history, famines have occurred in many different
types of countries, but never in a democracy.
Democracies do not experience famines for two reasons. First, in democracies governments are
accountable to their populations and their leaders have electoral incentives to prevent mass starvation.
The need to be reelected impels politicians to ensure that their people do not starve. As Sen points out,
"the plight of famine victims is easy to politicize" and "the effectiveness of democracy in the prevention
of famine has tended to depend on the politicization of the plight of famine victims, through the process
of public discussion, which generates political solidarity."45 On the other hand, authoritarian and
totalitarian regimes are not accountable to the public; they are less likely to pay a political price for failing
to prevent famines. Moreover, authoritarian and totalitarian rulers often have political incentives to use
famine as a means of exterminating their domestic opponents.
Second, the existence of a free press and the free flow of information in democracies prevents famine by
serving as an early warning system on the effects of natural catastrophes such as floods and droughts that
may cause food scarcities. A free press that criticizes government policies also can publicize the true level
of food stocks and reveal problems of distribution that might cause famines even when food is
plentiful.46 Inadequate information has contributed to several famines. During the 1958-61 famine in
China that killed 20-30 million people, the Chinese authorities overestimated the country''s grain reserves
by 100 million metric tons. This disaster later led Mao Zedong to concede that "Without democracy, you
have no understanding of what is happening down below."47 The 1974 Bangladesh famine also could
have been avoided if the government had had better information. The food supply was high, but floods,
unemployment, and panic made it harder for those in need to obtain food.48
The two factors that prevent famines in democracies-electoral incentives and the free flow of information-
are likely to be present even in democracies that do not have a liberal political culture. These factors exist
when leaders face periodic elections and when the press is free to report information that might embarrass
the government. A full-fledged liberal democracy with guarantees of civil liberties, a relatively free
economic market, and an independent judiciary might be even less likely to suffer famines, but it appears
that the rudiments of electoral democracy will suffice to prevent famines.
The ability of democracies to avoid famines cannot be attributed to any tendency of democracies to fare
better economically. Poor democracies as well as rich ones have not had famines. India, Botswana, and
Zimbabwe have avoided famines, even when they have suffered large crop shortfalls. In fact, the evidence
suggests that democracies can avoid famines in the face of large crop failures, whereas nondemocracies
plunge into famine after smaller shortfalls. Botswana''s food production fell by 17% and Zimbabwe''s by
38% between 1979-81 and 1983-84, whereas Sudan and Ethiopia saw a decline in food production of 11-
12% during the same period. Sudan and Ethiopia, which were nondemocracies, suffered major famines,
whereas the democracies of Botswana and Zimbabwe did not.49 If, as I have argued, democracies enjoy
better long-run economic performance than nondemocracies, higher levels of economic development may
help democracies to avoid famines. But the absence of famines in new, poor democracies suggests that
democratic governance itself is sufficient to prevent famines.
The case of India before and after independence provides further evidence that democratic rule is a key
factor in preventing famines. Prior to independence in 1947, India suffered frequent famines. Shortly
before India became independent, the Bengal famine of 1943 killed 2-3 million people. Since India
became independent and democratic, the country has suffered severe crop failures and food shortages in
1968, 1973, 1979, and 1987, but it has never suffered a famine.50
B. Democracy is Good for the International System
In addition to improving the lives of individual citizens in new democracies, the spread of democracy will
benefit the international system by reducing the likelihood of war. Democracies do not wage war on other
democracies. This absence-or near absence, depending on the definitions of "war" and "democracy" used-
has been called "one of the strongest nontrivial and nontautological generalizations that can be made
about international relations."51 One scholar argues that "the absence of war between democracies comes
as close as anything we have to an empirical law in international relations."52 If the number of
democracies in the international system continues to grow, the number of potential conflicts that might
escalate to war will diminish. Although wars between democracies and nondemocracies would persist in
the short run, in the long run an international system composed of democracies would be a peaceful
world. At the very least, adding to the number of democracies would gradually enlarge the democratic
"zone of peace."
1. The Evidence for the Democratic Peace
Many studies have found that there are virtually no historical cases of democracies going to war with one
another. In an important two-part article published in 1983, Michael Doyle compares all international
wars between 1816 and 1980 and a list of liberal states.53 Doyle concludes that "constitutionally secure
liberal states have yet to engage in war with one another."54 Subsequent statistical studies have found that
this absence of war between democracies is statistically significant and is not the result of random
chance.55 Other analyses have concluded that the influence of other variables, including geographical
proximity and wealth, do not detract from the significance of the finding that democracies rarely, if ever,
go to war with one another.56
Most studies of the democratic-peace proposition have argued that democracies only enjoy a state of
peace with other democracies; they are just as likely as other states to go to war with nondemocracies.57
There are, however, several scholars who argue that democracies are inherently less likely to go to war
than other types of states.58 The evidence for this claim remains in dispute, however, so it would be
premature to claim that spreading democracy will do more than to enlarge the democratic zone of peace.
2. Why there is a Democratic Peace: The Causal Logic
Two types of explanations have been offered for the absence of wars between democracies. The first
argues that shared norms prevent democracies from fighting one another. The second claims that
institutional (or structural) constraints make it difficult or impossible for a democracy to wage war on
another democracy.
a. Normative Explanations
The normative explanation of the democratic peace argues that norms that democracies share preclude
wars between democracies. One version of this argument contends that liberal states do not fight other
liberal states because to do so would be to violate the principles of liberalism. Liberal states only wage
war when it advances the liberal ends of increased individual freedom. A liberal state cannot advance
liberal ends by fighting another liberal state, because that state already upholds the principles of
liberalism. In other words, democracies do not fight because liberal ideology provides no justification for
wars between liberal democracies.59 A second version of the normative explanation claims that
democracies share a norm of peaceful conflict resolution. This norm applies between and within
democratic states. Democracies resolve their domestic conflicts without violence, and they expect that
other democracies will resolve inter-democratic international disputes peacefully.60
b. Institutional/Structural Explanations
Institutional/structural explanations for the democratic peace contend that democratic decision-making
procedures and institutional constraints prevent democracies from waging war on one another. At the
most general level, democratic leaders are constrained by the public, which is sometimes pacific and
generally slow to mobilize for war. In most democracies, the legislative and executive branches check the
war-making power of each other. These constraints may prevent democracies from launching wars. When
two democracies confront one another internationally, they are not likely to rush into war. Their leaders
will have more time to resolve disputes peacefully.61 A different sort of institutional argument suggests
that democratic processes and freedom of speech make democracies better at avoiding myths and
misperceptions that cause wars.62
c. Combining Normative and Structural Explanations
Some studies have attempted to test the relative power of the normative and institutional/structural
explanations of the democratic peace.63 It might make more sense, however, to specify how the two work
in combination or separately under different conditions. For example, in liberal democracies liberal norms
and democratic processes probably work in tandem to synergistically produce the democratic peace.64
Liberal states are unlikely to even contemplate war with one another. They thus will have few crises and
wars. In illiberal or semiliberal democracies, norms play a lesser role and crises are more likely, but
democratic institutions and processes may still make wars between illiberal democracies rare. Finally,
state-level factors like norms and domestic structures may interact with international-systemic factors to
prevent wars between democracies. If democracies are better at information-processing, they may be
better than nondemocracies at recognizing international situations where war would be foolish. Thus the
logic of the democratic peace may explain why democracies sometimes behave according to realist
(systemic) predictions.
C. The Spread of Democracy is Good for the United States
The United States will have an interest in promoting democracy because further democratization
enhances the lives of citizens of other countries and contributes to a more peaceful international system.
To the extent that Americans care about citizens of other countries and international peace, they will see
benefits from the continued spread of democracy. Spreading democracy also will directly advance the
national interests of the United States, because democracies will not launch wars or terrorist attacks
against the United States, will not produce refugees seeking asylum in the United States, and will tend to
ally with the United States.
1. Democracies Will Not Go to War with the United States
First, democracies will not go to war against the United States, provided, of course, that the United States
remains a democracy. The logic of the democratic peace suggests that the United States will have fewer
enemies in a world of more democracies. If democracies virtually never go to war with one another, no
democracy will wage war against the United States. Democracies are unlikely to get into crises or
militarized disputes with the United States. Promoting democracy may usher in a more peaceful world; it
also will enhance the national security of the United States by eliminating potential military threats. The
United States would be more secure if Russia, China, and at least some countries in the Arab and Islamic
worlds became stable democracies.
2. Democracies Don''t Support Terrorism Against the United States
Second, spreading democracy is likely to enhance U.S. national security because democracies will not
support terrorist acts against the United States. The world''s principal sponsors of international terrorism
are harsh, authoritarian regimes, including Syria, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Libya, and Sudan.65
Some skeptics of the democratic-peace proposition point out that democracies sometimes have sponsored
covert action or "state terrorism" against other democracies. Examples include U.S. actions in Iran in
1953, Guatemala in 1954, and Chile in 1973.66 This argument does not undermine the claim that
democracies will not sponsor terrorism against the United States. In each case, the target state had
dubious democratic credentials. U.S. actions amounted to interference in internal affairs, but not terrorism
as it is commonly understood. And the perpetrator of the alleged "state terrorist" acts in each case was the
United States itself, which suggests that the United States has little to fear from other democracies.
3. Democracies Produce Fewer Refugees
Third, the spread of democracy will serve American interests by reducing the number of refugees who
flee to the United States. The countries that generate the most refugees are usually the least democratic.
The absence of democracy tends to lead to internal conflicts, ethnic strife, political oppression, and rapid
population growth-all of which encourage the flight of refugees.67 The spread of democracy can reduce
refugee flows to the United States by removing the political sources of decisions to flee.
The results of the 1994 U.S. intervention in Haiti demonstrate how U.S. efforts to promote
democratization can reduce refugee flows. The number of refugees attempting to flee Haiti for the United
States dropped dramatically after U.S. forces deposed the junta led by General Raoul Cedras and restored
the democratically elected government of Jean-Bertrand Aristide, even though Haiti''s economic fortunes
did not immediately improve.68
In addition to reducing the number of countries that generate refugees, the spread of democracy is likely
to increase the number of countries that accept refugees, thereby reducing the number of refugees who
will attempt to enter the United States.69
4. Democracies will Ally with the United States
Fourth, the global spread of democracy will advance American interests by creating more potential allies
for the United States. Historically, most of America''s allies have been democracies. In general,
democracies are much more likely to ally with one another than with nondemocracies.70 Even scholars
who doubt the statistical evidence for the democratic-peace proposition, agree that "the nature of regimes
... is an important variable in the understanding the composition of alliances ... democracies have allied
with one another."71 Thus spreading democracy will produce more and better alliance partners for the
United States.
5. American Ideals Flourish When Others Adopt Them
Fifth, the spread of democracy internationally is likely to increase Americans'' psychological sense of
well-being about their own democratic institutions. Part of the impetus behind American attempts to
spread democracy has always come from the belief that American democracy will be healthier when other
countries adopt similar political systems. To some extent, this belief reflects the conviction that
democracies will be friendly toward the United States. But it also reflects the fact that democratic
principles are an integral part of America''s national identity. The United States thus has a special interest
in seeing its ideals spread.72
6. Democracies Make Better Economic Partners
Finally, the United States will benefit from the spread of democracy because democracies will make
better economic partners. Democracies are more likely to adopt market economies, so democracies will
tend to have more prosperous and open economies. The United States generally will be able to establish
mutually beneficial trading relationships with democracies. And democracies provide better climates for
American overseas investment, by virtue of their political stability and market economies.

Ext Kills Democracy

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

The embargo strengthens the regime opening embargo stimulates agriculture and
hastens fall of communism empirics
Griswold , Director of the CATO Institutes Center for Trade Policy Studies, 09
(Daniel, 8/15/09, guardian.co.uk, The US embargo of Cuba is a failure,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/jun/15/cuba-us-trade-embargo-obama
6/23/13, RJ)
After nearly 50 years, America's cold war embargo against Cuba appears to be thawing at last. Earlier this spring, the Obama administration
relaxed controls on travel and remittances to the communist island by Cuban Americans, and last week it agreed to open the door for Cuba's re-
entry to the Organisation of American States. Admitting Cuba to the OAS may be premature, given the organisation's charter that requires its
members to be democracies that respect human rights, but changes to the US economic embargo are long overdue. The embargo has been a
failure by every measure. It has not changed the course or nature of the Cuban government. It has not liberated a single Cuban citizen. In fact, the
embargo has made the Cuban people a bit more impoverished, without making them one bit more free. At the same time, it has deprived
Americans of their freedom to travel and has cost US farmers and other producers billions of dollars of potential exports. As a tool of US foreign
policy, the embargo actually enhances the Castro government's standing by giving it a handy excuse for the failures of the
island's Caribbean-style socialism. Brothers Fidel and Raul can rail for hours about the suffering the embargo inflicts on Cubans, even though the damage done by
their communist policies has been far worse. The embargo has failed to give us an ounce of extra leverage over what happens in Havana. In 2000,
Congress approved a modest opening of the embargo. The Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act allows cash-only sales
to Cuba of US farm products and medical supplies. The results of this modest opening have been quite amazing. Since 2000, total sales of
farm products to Cuba have increased from virtually zero to $691m in 2008. The top US exports by value are corn, meat and
poultry, wheat and soybeans. From dead last, Cuba is now the number six customer in Latin America for US
agricultural products. Last year, American farmers sold more to the 11.5 million people who live in Cuba than to the 200 million people in Brazil.
According to the US international trade commission, US farm exports would increase another $250m if restrictions were
lifted on export financing. This should not be interpreted as a call for export-import bank subsidies. Trade with Cuba must be entirely
commercial and market driven. Lifting the embargo should not mean that US taxpayers must now subsidise exports to Cuba. But neither should
the government stand in the way. USITC estimates do not capture the long-term export potential to Cuba from normalised relations. The
Bahamas, Dominican Republic, Jamaica and Guatemala spend an average of 2.8% of their GDP to buy farm exports from the US. If Cuba spent
the same share of its GDP on US farm exports, exports could more than double the current level, to $1.5bn a year. Advocates of the embargo
argue that trading with Cuba will only put dollars into the coffers of the Castro regime. And it's true that the government in Havana, because it
controls the economy, can skim off a large share of the remittances and tourist dollars spent in Cuba. But of course, selling more US products to
Cuba would quickly relieve the Castro regime of those same dollars. If more US tourists were permitted to visit Cuba, and at the same time US
exports to Cuba were further liberalised, the US economy could reclaim dollars from the Castro regime as fast as the regime could acquire them.
In effect, the exchange would be of agricultural products for tourism services, a kind of "bread for beaches", "food for fun" trade relationship.
Meanwhile, the increase in Americans visiting Cuba would dramatically increase contact between Cubans and
Americans. The unique US-Cuban relationship that flourished before Castro could be renewed, which would
increase US influence and potentially hasten the decline of the communist regime. Congress and President
Barack Obama should act now to lift the embargo to allow more travel and farm exports to Cuba. Expanding our
freedom to travel to, trade with and invest in Cuba would make Americans better off and would help the Cuban people and speed the day when they can enjoy the
freedom they deserve.
The embargo has failed removal of the embargo would undermine the regime
Griswold, director of CATO Institutes Center for Trade Policy Studies, 05
(Daniel, 8/12/05, CATO Institute, Four Decades of Failure: The U.S. Embargo Against Cuba,
http://www.cato.org/publications/speeches/four-decades-failure-us-embargo-against-cuba, 6/23/13. RJ)
The real dividing line in U.S. policy toward Cuba is how best to undermine the Castro regime and hasten the islands day of
liberation. For almost half a century, the U.S. government has tried to isolate Cuba economically in an effort to undermine
the regime and deprive it of resources. Since 1960, Americans have been barred from trading with, investing in, or traveling to Cuba.
The embargo had a national security rationale before 1991, when Castro served as the Soviet Unions proxy in the Western
Hemisphere. But all that changed with the fall of Soviet communism. Today, more than a decade after losing billions in annual
economic aid from its former sponsor, Cuba is only a poor and dysfunctional nation of 11 million that poses no threat to
American or regional security. A 1998 report by the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency concluded that, Cuba does not pose a
significant military threat to the U.S. or to other countries in the region. The report declared Cubas military forces residual and defensive.
Some officials in the Bush administration have charged that Castros government may be supporting terrorists abroad, but the evidence is pretty
shaky. And even if true, maintaining a comprehensive trade embargo would be a blunt and ineffective lever for change. As
a foreign policy tool, the embargo actually enhances Castros standing by giving him a handy excuse for the
failures of his homegrown Caribbean socialism. He can rail for hours about the suffering the embargo inflicts on Cubans, even
though the damage done by his domestic policies is far worse. If the embargo were lifted, the Cuban people
would be a bit less deprived and Castro would have no one else to blame for the shortages and stagnation that
will persist without real market reforms. If the goal of U.S. policy toward Cuba is to help its people achieve freedom and a
better life, the economic embargo has completely failed. Its economic effect is to make the people of Cuba worse off by depriving
them of lower-cost food and other goods that could be bought from the United States. It means less independence for Cuban workers and
entrepreneurs, who could be earning dollars from American tourists and fueling private-sector growth. Meanwhile, Castro and his ruling elite
enjoy a comfortable, insulated lifestyle by extracting any meager surplus produced by their captive subjects.

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

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

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

1AC Democracy Advantage
Lifting embargo starts democracy chain
Arzeno 12MBA in military art and science strategy Mario A. Arzeno, M.B.A. of military art
and science strategy, University of Miami. She is also a member of the Inter American Defense
board. Created on March 30th, 1942, the Inter-American Defense Board (IADB) is the oldest
regional defense organization in the world. Its main purpose is to provide the OAS and its member
states with technical and educational advice and consultancy services on matters related to military
and defense issues in the Hemisphere in order to contribute to the fulfillment of the OAS Charter.
The IADB enjoys technical autonomy in carrying out the purpose and functions contained in these
Statutes, taking into account the mandates of the OAS (General Assembly, Meeting of Consultation
of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, and Permanent Council) Currently, the IADB has 27 Member States
and its structure is composed by the Council of Delegates, by the Secretariat and by the Inter-
American Defense College, bringing together civilian and military representatives of various
American countries. (THE U.S. EMBARGO ON CUBA: A TIME FOR CHANGE?, BiblioScholar,
9/18/12, Page 51, Print, Accessed 7/3/13, jtc)

Critics argue free markets do not promote democracy. However, free trade and open markets do promote open economies
and societies with greater freedom for their people, with better opportunities and less poverty. Less
poverty equals stability. Charles William Maynes, President of the Eurasia Foundation and a leading political scientist in the United
States calls this idea of free markets promoting democracy Liberal Internationalism. He argues open markets
lead to the formation of a middle class; the middle class then brings pressure on non-democratic
governments to open the political process; once that opening occurs, democracy develops. With Cubas
proximity to the United States, democracy is inevitable. It will be a slow process. Nevertheless, it will happen, as it has in countless other
countries like the Dominican Republic, Chile, Argentina, El Salvador and the other thirty-one out of thirtytwo countries in the Latin American
region. The first step before any real change happens in Cuba must be engagement within our own borders with the
Cuban American National Foundation (CANF). The CANF is without question the center of gravity for this issue. The CANF is
single handedly preventing progress in the Cuba policy. Clausewitz defines a center of gravity as the hub of all power and movement, on which
everything else depends. That is the point against which all our energies should be directed. The United States should focus its energy on
encouraging the CANF to reform its uncompromising stance against Castro. Several actions, or decisive points, must occur for the CANF
to compromise and ultimately create change in Cuba; beginning with the review of the Torricelli Bill and the Helms-
Burton Act, followed by the opening of economic trade, and the lifting of restrictions on the travel ban
and the sale of food and medicine. The CANF will not allow any of this to happen without the unconditional removal of Castro and
anyone associated with the Castro family. This is an unrealistic goal that the embargo alone cannot accomplish. The CANF, as the source of
all power in this issue, should be part of the solution by seeking ways to promote change in the Cuba policy, instead of seeking ways
to prevent change in a failed policy. The CANFs power and influence is becoming less relevant each day with the
shift in public opinion that is even transcending cultural lines to Cuban Americans in Miami who believe the embargo is a
failed policy. Since 1993, the Florida International University in Miami has polled Cuban Americans on their position with regard to the
Cuba Policy. In 1993, forty two percent of Cuban Americans believed better relations with Cuba were needed. The most recent poll in 2002
indicates that number has grown to sixty-two percent who believe better relations are needed. However, the CANFs
influence is still significant enough to prevent better relations and progress. The U.S. strategic goal for Cuba should be a
peaceful transition to a post embargo environment by gradually lifting the embargo with the implementation of the
full spectrum of the Diplomatic Instruments of Power illustrated below. Fidel Castro should be inconsequential to the transition: Diplomatic.
Open dialogue with the government of Cuba. Fidel Castro says he wants to open negotiations with the U.S. The U.S. should
capitalize on this new stance of openness and use it to its advantage. The U.S. has open dialogue with China; Cuba should be no different. This
idea will also open doors to establish relationships with the progressive Cuban leadership willing to consider change. The Bush
Administration should also consider supporting the Cuba Working Groups 9-Point Plan as a tool to initiate reform. Information. Reform TV
and Radio Marti by taking it out of the Cuban American National Foundations span of influence. Place it
under the control of a non-partisan government organization that can develop a robust and meaningful information campaign targeted towards
the Cuban people and reform. Conduct an information campaign within our own borders to educate the American public on the costs and benefits
of helping the Cuban people. Military. Militarily engage Cuba by including it in one of the Unified Commands.
Develop long term bilateral cooperation with the Cuban military and incorporate their armed forces in multilateral cooperation throughout the
Caribbean region. Economic. Incrementally lift the embargo beginning with the lifting of the travel ban and the
restrictions on the sale of food and medicine, followed by reforming the Torricelli Bill and the Helms-
Burton Act.
Attempt to undermine Cuban regime without promoting democracy
will result in war
Amash 12- Brandon Amash, writer at the Prospect Journal, (EVALUATING THE CUBAN
EMBARGO, 7/23/12, http://prospectjournal.org/2012/07/23/evaluating-the-cuban-embargo/,
6/28/13, CAS)

3.3: The current policy may drag the United States into a military conflict with Cuba. Military conflict
may be inevitable in the future if the embargos explicit goal creating an insurrection in Cuba to
overthrow the government is achieved, and the United States may not be ready to step in. As Ratliff
and Fontaine detail, Americans are not prepared to commit the military resources *+ (Fontaine 57),
especially after unpopular wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Much like Americas current situation with
isolated rogue states such as Iran and North Korea, Cubas isolation may also lead to war for other
reasons, like the American occupation of Guantanamo Bay. These consequences are inherently
counterproductive for the democratization of Cuba and the improvement of human rights.
Cuban instability results in Latin American instability, terrorism,
democratic backsliding, and distracts the US from hotspots including
Africa, the Caucus, and North Korea
Gorrell 5- Tim Gorrell, Lieutenant Colonel (CUBA: THE NEXT UNANTICIPATED ANTICIPATED
STRATEGIC CRISIS? 3/18/05, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA433074, Accessed: 7/4/13,
zs)

Regardless of the succession, under the current U.S. policy, Cubas problems of a post Castro transformation only
worsen. In addition to Cubans on the island, there will be those in exile who will return claiming authority.
And there are remnants of the dissident community within Cuba who will attempt to exercise similar
authority. A power vacuum or absence of order will create the conditions for instability and civil war .
Whether Raul or another successor from within the current government can hold power is debatable. However, that
individual will nonetheless extend the current policies for an indefinite period, which will only compound the Cuban
situation. When Cuba finally collapses anarchy is a strong possibility if the U.S. maintains the wait and see approach.
The U.S. then must deal with an unstable country 90 miles off its coast. In the midst of this chaos, thousands will
flee the island. During the Mariel boatlift in 1980 125,000 fled the island.26 Many were criminals; this time the number could be
several hundred thousand flee ing to the U.S., creating a refugee crisis. Equally important, by adhering to a negative
containment policy, the U.S. may be creating its next series of transnational criminal problems. Cuba is along the axis of
the drug-trafficking flow into the U.S. from Columbia. The Castro government as a matter of policy does not support the drug trade. In fact, Cubas actions
have shown that its stance on drugs is more than hollow rhetoric as indicated by its increasing seizure of
drugs 7.5 tons in 1995, 8.8 tons in 1999, and 13 tons in 2000.27 While there may be individuals within the government and outside who engage in drug
trafficking and a percentage of drugs entering the U.S. may pass through Cuba, the Cuban government is not the path of least
resistance for the flow of drugs. If there were no Cuban restraints, the flow of drugs to the U.S. could be
greatly facilitated by a Cuba base of operation and accelerate considerably. In the midst of an unstable
Cuba, the opportunity for radical fundamentalist groups to operate in the region increases. If these
groups can export terrorist activity from Cuba to the U.S. or throughout the hemisphere then the
war against this extremism gets more complicated . Such activity could increase direct attacks and
disrupt the economies, threatening the stability of the fragile democracies that are budding
throughout the region. In light of a failed state in the region, the U.S. may be forced to deploy military
forces to Cuba, creating the conditions for another insurgency . The ramifications of this action could very well fuel
greater anti-American sentiment throughout the Americas. A proactive policy now can mitigate these potential future problems.
U.S. domestic political support is also turning against the current negative policy. The Cuban American population in the U.S. totals 1,241,685 or 3.5% of the
population.28 Most of these exiles reside in Florida; their influence has been a factor in determining the margin of victory in the past two presidential elections. But
this election strategy may be flawed, because recent polls of Cuban Americans reflect a decline for President Bush based on his policy crackdown. There is a clear
softening in the Cuban-American community with regard to sanctions. Younger Cuban Americans do not necessarily subscribe to the hard-line approach. These
changes signal an opportunity for a new approach to U.S.-Cuban relations. (Table 1) The time has come to look realistically at the Cuban issue. Castro will rule until
he dies. The only issue is what happens then? The U.S. can little afford to be distracted by a failed state 90 miles off its
coast. The administration, given the present state of world affairs, does not have the luxury or the resources to pursue
the traditional American model of crisis management. The President and other government and military leaders have warned that
the GWOT will be long and protracted. These warnings were sounded when the administration did not anticipate operations in Iraq
consuming so many military, diplomatic and economic resources. There is justifiable concern that Africa and the Caucasus region are
potential hot spots for terrorist activity, so these areas should be secure. North Korea will continue to be an
unpredictable crisis in waiting. We also cannot ignore China . What if China resorts to aggression to
resolve the Taiwan situation? Will the U.S. go to war over Taiwan? Additionally, Iran could conceivably be the next target
for U.S. pre-emptive action. These are known and potential situations that could easily require all or
many of the elements of national power to resolve. In view of such global issues, can the U.S. afford to sustain the
status quo and simply let the Cuban situation play out? The U.S. is at a crossroads: should the policies of the past 40 years remain in
effect with vigor? Or should the U.S. pursue a new approach to Cuba in an effort to facilitate a manageable transition to post-Castro Cuba?
Democracy solves political stability and global conflict
Griswold 07 --- Daniel Griswold is director of the Cato Institute's Center for Trade
Policy Studies (Trade, Democracy and Peace: The Virtuous Cycle, April 20, 2007,
http://www.cato.org/publications/speeches/trade-democracy-peace-virtuous-cycle, accessed July 10,
2013, MY)
The good news does not stop there. Buried beneath the daily stories about suicide bombings and insurgency movements is an underappreciated
but encouraging fact: The world has somehow become a more peaceful place. A little-noticed headline on an
Associated Press story a while back reported, War declining worldwide, studies say. In 2006, a survey by the
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute found that the number of armed conflicts around the
world has been in decline for the past half-century. Since the early 1990s, ongoing conflicts have dropped from 33 to 17, with
all of them now civil conflicts within countries. The Institutes latest report found that 2005 marked the second year in a row that no two nations
were at war with one another. What a remarkable and wonderful fact. The death toll from war has also been falling. According
to the Associated Press report, The number killed in battle has fallen to its lowest point in the post-World War II period, dipping below 20,000 a
year by one measure. Peacemaking missions, meanwhile, are growing in number. Current estimates of people killed by war are down sharply
from annual tolls ranging from 40,000 to 100,000 in the 1990s, and from a peak of 700,000 in 1951 during the Korean War. Many causes lie
behind the good newsthe end of the Cold War and the spread of democracy, among thembut expanding trade
and globalization appear to be playing a major role in promoting world peace. Far from stoking a World on Fire, as one misguided American
author argued in a forgettable book, growing commercial ties between nations have had a dampening effect on armed conflict and war. I would
argue that free trade and globalization have promoted peace in three main ways. First, as I argued a moment ago, trade and globalization have
reinforced the trend toward democracy, and democracies tend not to pick fights with each other. Thanks in part to
globalization, almost two thirds of the worlds countries today are democraciesa record high. Some studies have
cast doubt on the idea that democracies are less likely to fight wars. While its true that democracies rarely if ever war with
each other, it is not such a rare occurrence for democracies to engage in wars with non-democracies. We
can still hope that has more countries turn to democracy, there will be fewer provocations for war by non-
democracies. A second and even more potent way that trade has promoted peace is by promoting more economic integration. As national
economies become more intertwined with each other, those nations have more to lose should war break out. War in a globalized world not only
means human casualties and bigger government, but also ruptured trade and investment ties that impose lasting damage on the economy. In short,
globalization has dramatically raised the economic cost of war. The 2005 Economic Freedom of the World Report contains an insightful chapter
on Economic Freedom and Peace by Dr. Erik Gartzke, a professor of political science at Columbia University. Dr. Gartzke compares the
propensity of countries to engage in wars and their level of economic freedom and concludes that economic freedom, including the freedom to
trade, significantly decreases the probability that a country will experience a military dispute with another country. Through econometric
analysis, he found that, Making economies freer translates into making countries more peaceful. At the extremes, the least free states are
about 14 times as conflict prone as the most free. By the way, Dr. Gartzkes analysis found that economic freedom was a far more
important variable in determining a countries propensity to go to war than democracy. A third reason why free trade promotes peace is because it
allows nations to acquire wealth through production and exchange rather than conquest of territory and resources. As economies develop, wealth
is increasingly measured in terms of intellectual property, financial assets, and human capital. Such assets cannot be easily seized by armies. In
contrast, hard assets such as minerals and farmland are becoming relatively less important in a high-tech, service economy. If people need
resources outside their national borders, say oil or timber or farm products, they can acquire them peacefully by trading away what they can
produce best at home. In short, globalization and the development it has spurred have rendered the spoils of war less valuable. Of course, free
trade and globalization do not guarantee peace. Hot-blooded nationalism and ideological fervor can overwhelm cold economic calculations. Any
relationship involving human beings will be messy and non-linier. There will always be exceptions and outliers in such complex relationships
involving economies and governments. But deep trade and investment ties among nations make war less attractive. A Virtuous Cycle of
Democracy, Peace and Trade The global trends weve witnessed in the spread of trade, democracy and peace tend to reinforce
each other in a grand and virtuous cycle. As trade and development encourage more representative government, those
governments provide more predictability and incremental reform, creating a better climate for trade and investment to flourish. And as the
spread of trade and democracy foster peace, the decline of war creates a more hospitable environment for
trade and economic growth and political stability.

Democracy Advantage 2AC
Economic growth in Cuba leads to democracy
Amash 12-- Brandon Amash, Prospect Journal writer at UCSD (EVALUATING THE CUBAN
EMBARGO, Prospect Jounral of International Affairs at UCSD, 7/23/12,
http://prospectjournal.org/2012/07/23/evaluating-the-cuban-embargo/, Accessed 7/3/12, jtc)
Lifting economic sanctions will improve economic growth in Cuba, which correlates to democratization.
Empirical evidence shows that a strong economy is correlated to democracy. According to the Modernization Theory of democratization, this
correlation is a causal link: economic growth directly leads to democratization. Lifting the current economic
sanctions on Cuba and working together to improve economic situations in the state will allow their
economy to grow, increasing the likelihood of democracy in the state, and thus promoting greater
freedom of expression, opinion and dissent.
Lifting embargo opens way for democracy in Cuba
Griswold 05 --Daniel Griswold, Director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute
(Four Decades of Failure: The U.S. Embargo against Cuba, 10/12/05, Cato Institute Speeches,
http://www.cato.org/publications/speeches/four-decades-failure-us-embargo-against-cuba, Accessed
6/27/13 jtc)
Economic sanctions rarely work. Trade and investment sanctions against Burma, Iran, and North Korea have failed
to change the behavior of any of those oppressive regimes; sanctions have only deepened the deprivation
of the very people we are trying to help. Our research at the Cato Institute confirms that trade and globalization till
the soil for democracy. Nations open to trade are more likely to be democracies where human rights are
respected. Trade and the development it creates give people tools of communication-cell phones, satellite TV, fax machines, the Internet-that
tend to undermine oppressive authority. Trade not only increases the flow of goods and services but also of people and ideas. Development also
creates a larger middle class that is usually the backbone of democracy. President Bush seems to understand this powerful connection
between trade and democracy when he talks about China or the Middle East. In a speech on trade early in his first term, the president noted that
trade was about more than raising incomes. Trade creates the habits of freedom, the president said, and those habits begin to
create the expectations of democracy and demands for better democratic institutions. Societies that open to
commerce across their borders are more open to democracy within their borders. And for those of us who care
about values and believe in valuesnot just American values, but universal values that promote human dignitytrade is a good way to do that.
The president has rightly opposed efforts in Congress to impose trade sanctions against China because of its
poor human rights record. In sheer numbers, the Chinese government has jailed and killed far more political and religious dissenters than
has the Cuban government. And China is arguably more of a national security concern today than Castros pathetic little workers paradise. Yet
China has become our third largest trading partner while we maintain a blanket embargo on commercial relations with Cuba.
President Bush understands that economic engagement with China offers the best hope for encouraging human rights and political reforms in that
country, yet he has failed to apply that same, sound thinking to Cuba.

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

Still, in a country where Cubans resolve their way around government restrictions every day (private deals with customs agents are common),
many Cubans anticipate real benefits should the United States change course. Mr. Lpez, a meticulous mechanic who wears plastic gloves to
avoid dirtying his fingers, said legalizing imports and investment would create a flood of the supplies that
businesses needed, overwhelming the governments controls while lowering prices and creating more
work apart from the state. Other Cubans, including political dissidents, say softening the embargo would increase
the pressure for more rapid change by undermining one of the governments main excuses for fai
ling to provide freedom, economic opportunity or just basic supplies. Last month, someone asked me to redo their
kitchen, but I told them I couldnt do it because I didnt have the materials, said Pedro Jos, 49, a licensed carpenter in Havana who did not want
his last name published to avoid government pressure. Look around Cuba is destroyed, he added, waving a hand toward a colonial
building blushing with circles of faded pink paint from the 1950s. There is a lot of work to be done.

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

Democracy Advantage Extensions

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

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

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

A visit to Cuba by US pop singer Beyonce and her rap star husband Jay-Z is coming under scrutiny in connection with the US
economic embargo. [...] Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Mario Diaz-Balart, both members of Congress from Florida, asked the US
treasury department to clarify what licence the two stars had obtained to travel to Cuba. "Cubas tourism industry is
wholly state-controlled; therefore, US dollars spent on Cuban tourism directly fund the machinery of
oppression that brutally represses the Cuban people," they wrote. [...] Americans are not allowed to visit Cuba and
spend money there unless they have special US government permission, according to guidance on the US treasury
website. Granted: it terms of the letter of the law, the Representatives have a point. However , this just
underscored the silliness of said law. US policy towards Cuba is one remarkable mix of counter-
productiveness and pettiness. Counter-productive because lifting the embargo would hasten liberalization
in Cuba (so, we are helping perpetuate the repressive government in question) and petty because the Cold
War ended over two decades ago and the Cuban Missile Crisis was half a century ago.2

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

President Barack Obama should break free of the embargo on Cuba and assert his authority to promote a free-
market overhaul taking place on the communist island. The recommendation is contained in concurrent reports
to be published today by the Cuba Study Group and the Council of the Americas, two groups seeking to end a decades-old
deadlock on U.S. policy toward Cuba. Among steps Obama can take without violating sanctions passed by Congress are
opening U.S. markets, as well as authorizing the sale of American goods and services, to the estimated
400,000 private entrepreneurs that have arisen since Cuban President Raul Castro started cutting state payrolls in 2011. The
reports also recommend allowing U.S. credit card and insurance companies to provide basic financial services to licensed U.S.
travelers to Cuba. Weve been sitting on the sidelines with our hands tied by an antiquated law thats being
too strictly interpreted, said Chris Sabatini, an author of the report and senior policy director for the Council of the
Americas, a business-backed group based in New York. Theres more Obama can do to be a catalyst for meaningful
economic change . Obama in 2009 allowed companies for the first time to provide communications services to the
Caribbean island of 11 million and lifted a travel ban for Cuban-Americans. The loosening of restrictions, while heralded by the
White House as a way to undermine the Castro governments control of information, was seen as insufficient by potential
investors including Verizon Communications Inc. and AT&T Inc. Economic Overhaul Now, in a second term, and with private
business expanding in Cuba, Obama has a freer hand to do more, said Sabatini. An exception to the embargo allowing U.S.
businesses and consumers to trade with non-state enterprises in Cuba would be small in scale though help empower a growing,
viable constituency for change on the island, he said. Since his brother Fidel started handing over power in 2006, Castro has
relaxed state control of the economy in the biggest economic overhaul since the 1959 revolution. To provide jobs for
the 1 million state workers being laid off, the government began allowing the buying and selling of homes
and the creation of farming co-operatives and other private businesses. The latest sign of change are new
rules that took effect in January allowing most Cubans to bypass requirements they obtain an exit visa or
invitation from abroad to leave the island. Castro in December said that he hopes that productivity gains will boost
economic growth this year to at least 3.7 percent. Gross domestic product expanded 3.1 percent in 2012. Repeal Legislation
The Washington-based Cuba Study Group urges Obama to gain even more leverage by getting Congress to repeal the
so-called Helms-Burton act of 1996 and other legislation that conditions the easing of sanctions on regime change.

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

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

Doesnt link to pink tide and Lifting the embargo leads to democratization of Cuba
Griswold 09 Daniel Griswold, director of the Cato Institutes Center for Trade Policy Studies (The US embargo of Cuba is a
Failure, theguardian, June 15 2009, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/jun/15/cuba-us-trade-embargo-obama,
Accessed: 7/2/13, EH)

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

Embargo fails, lifting it is moral and defeats Cuban communism
Kirkland 13 Rhiannon M. Kirkland, Intern at the Washington Monthly (Against
the Pointless and Execrable Cuba Embargo, Washington monthly, April 15 2013,
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ten-miles-
square/2013/04/against_the_pointless_and_exec044130.php, Accessed: 7/3/13, EH)
Jay-Z and Beyonce went to Cuba for their fifth wedding anniversary, causing a huge kerfuffle over whether or not they went there legally. Marco
Rubio and others question how educational their trip really was, and why the Treasury Department might authorize such a trip. This is dumb.
What difference does it make if music royaltyor anyone else for that mattervisit Cuba and why is the embargo still going on?
The policy is ineffective, after allthe Castros are still in power all these years later. Add to this the moral implications of
systematically impoverishing a nation because they happen to have a leader you disagree with.
The embargo became permanent on Feb. 7, 1962 and has existed in one form or another since then. In the past twenty years it has been strengthened and relaxed
depending on the prevailing political tides. In 1992 and 1996 it was extended to countries that traded with Cuba in retaliation for the downing of two American
civilian aircrafts by Cuba. In 2001 it was loosened to allow the sale of food to Cuba following Hurricane Michelle, a measure that remains in place and has build up a
trading relationship worth $710 million by 2008.
Otherwise restrictions were tightened under George Bush. Remittance allowances were decimated from $3,000 to $300, and family members were only allowed to
visit for a maximum of two weeks every three years. President Obama has relaxed things somewhat by returning to the pre-Bush status quo. Now Americans can send
remittances to non-family members and can visit for educational or religious purposes.
In the time since Raul Castro replaced his more radical brother in 2008 he has undertaken over numerous reforms in areas including property rights, economics and
travel. There are still human rights abuses including the holding of dissidents and journalist, but some forward progress is being made.
Historical warming that took place between in Vietnam-US relations and Sino-American relations provide good examples of how warming between the US and Cuba
might unfold, and would be far more effective than the current policy.
Vietnam and the U.S. had a gruesome relationship in the Cold War; despite these differences relations were normalized in 1995 and a trade deal was signed in 2000.
Trade in 2012 totaled between $22-24 billion.
Beijing and Washington spent the early years of the cold war at odds before a warming of relations that paved the way for todays relatively warm ties. President
Richard Nixons visit in 1972 brought the Shanghai Communique, which was effectively an agree to disagree policy, and the start of the normalization of relations.
Trade between the US and China went from $5 billion in 1980 to $536.2 billion in 2012. Imagine how different the world would beespecially for the average
Chinese personif Sino-American relations were still almost non-existent?
Most other countries dont have their own Cuba embargoes, with tourism from the EU and Canada providing about $2.7 billion in revenue. There is no point in
resisting anymore, and standing alone in the world for an old project that has failed. The US will truly have won the battle against
communism when Starbucks and McDonalds franchises line the streets of Havana the way they do Beijing.
Ending the embargo is the first step.
But fundamentally, no matter what other benefits there might be, it is morally sick to continue collectively punishing the
Cuban people for such long-passed disputes. Its long since time they fully joined the community of nations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

American sanctions during the Cold War strengthened Castros ideological position and created
opportunities for involvement by the Soviet Union, thereby decreasing the likelihood of democratization and
improvement in human rights.Cubas revolution could not have come at a worse time for America. The emergence of a communist
state in the western hemisphere allowed the Soviet Union to extend its influence, and the United States rejection of Cuba only
widened the window of opportunity for Soviet involvement. The embargo also became a scapegoat for the
Castro administration, which laid blame for poor human rights conditions on the embargo policy itself (Fontaine 18 22). Furthermore,
as Ratliff and Fontaine suggest, isolating Cuba as an enemy of democracy during the Cold War essentially made
the goals of democratization in the country unachievable (Fontaine 30).

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

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

Embargo does not encourage democracy or human rights.
Lewis 13 Bill Lewis, Digital Journalist based in Washington, DC, United States, United States. Joined on Sep 23, 2012
Expertise in Personal finance, Books, Politics, Automotive, Internet (Op-Ed: Why the United States should end its embargo on Cuba,
Digital Journal, April 17, 2013, http://digitaljournal.com/article/348218, Date Accessed: June 28, 2013, SD)
For over 50 years the United States has held firm on its embargo against Cuba, even as the world condemned it for doing so. It is now
time that the United States accept that the embargo has failed and move on.
When Fidel Castro came to power in 1959 and installed an authoritarian communist regime aligned with the Soviet Union, the United
States began applying diplomatic and economic pressure to the small island nation 90 miles off of the Florida coast. After the Cuban
Missile Crisis President John F. Kennedy took the pressure a step further by imposing a full trade embargo and urging US allies to do
the same. At the time, the embargo seemed the logical thing to do in order to pressure Castro to make political reforms and to stop what
many saw as an inevitable spread of communism during the height of the Cold War. Over 50 years later, however, many have begun to
question the efficacy of the embargo and believe the time has come to end it.
Before going over the many reasons why the United States should end the embargo on Cuba it is important to understand the goal of the
embargo both past and present. The Council on Foreign Relations notes that the embargo was initially placed on Cuba in an attempt to
pressure Havana into making democratic reforms and aligning itself with the United States, as opposed to the Soviet Union which it had
allied with. In the aftermath of the Cuban Missile Crisis fears of Cuba being used as a forward base for the Soviet Union to threaten the
United States and to spread communism in the region seemed to be fully realized with some validity and it seemed prudent for the
United States and its allies to squash any possible threat that Cuba might represent. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the reason
given for the continuation of the embargo has been twofold according to the Washington Times; a
continued desire to put pressure on Havana to make democratic reforms and end human rights violations,
and Cubas continued status as a supporter of terror organizations. Let us then review each of these in order to determine if the embargo
has been effective and if its continuation is justified.
The first reason given for the continued embargo on Cuba is that it is the only way for the United States to put pressure on Havana to
end human rights violations and make democratic reforms. Proponents further state that we have a moral responsibility to show our
support for Cuban citizens through the embargo. While this seems to make sense on face value this argument falls apart under close
scrutiny. To begin with, the embargo is not supported or enforced by the majority of the world. In fact, according to Brett Wilkins of the
Digital Journal, Israel and the tiny Pacific island nation of Palau (population 20,000) were the only other nations to have voted against
a resolution in the UN calling for an end to the embargo in 2012 (the 21st such annual resolution). This simple fact alone means that
whatever effect we might hope the embargo would have toward pressuring Havana disappears. Cubas largest industry tourism is
booming due to European and Canadian travelers who flock to the islands many beaches. Additionally, trade with countries like
Venezuela ensure a steady supply of oil and the European Union has begun working on closer trade ties with Cuba. Even U.S. companies
find it easy to circumvent the embargo by routing the trades through foreign branches. It cannot be denied, however, that Cubas
economy has been affected by the embargo even if not to the point that we would hope. In fact, Havana reports that they have lost more
than a trillion dollars since the implementation of the embargo. The issue is, however, that even if the embargo had been fully enforced
and crippling to the Cuban economy it would likely have failed because trade sanctions and embargoes are notoriously ineffectual at
causing reform.
The sad reality is that the first people to be hurt by any embargo are the innocent civilians; the very people who
we are purportedly trying to help by forcing reforms. When a country such as Cuba begins to feel the effect of an
embargo they do not cut amenities for the leader or military readiness though Cuba did cut its military slightly when
the embargoes were first put in place it was never truly a military threat and its military was never a concern; a look at nations like
North Korea whose military is at the core of concerns is an indicator of the effect of sanctions on a country's military. Instead they
slash programs that improve the lives of their citizens. Worse, they then blame the United States for
causing all of their economic woes; thus relieving them of the need to show action toward improving the
situation. Therefore, rather than weakening Castros government through the sanctions as we had hoped,
we in fact strengthen it by allowing it to use the United States as a scapegoat. It is for this reason that human rights groups have
actually called for an end to the embargo pointing to the hardship it causes the Cuban people without any real effect on the control the
government has over them.
As for the moral responsibility that we have to stand with the citizens of Cuba against an oppressive regime, to put it simply, what a
bunch of hogwash. If we really want to stand with the citizens of Cuba, then rather than imposing an embargo that has hurt the people
while strengthening the government we should take the same stance we did with the Marshal Plan which was used in post World War II
Europe. Faced with the same potential problem the potential spread of communism we poured millions of dollars of aid and trade
into European nations to help them rebuild and get their economies strong again. We used the same tactic in South Korea and several
other countries since; and it has continued to work gloriously. While the issue has changed since the fall of the USSR the solution
remains the same. By allowing trade with Cuba and ensuring that the people gain access to the many great things that capitalism and
democracy allow we give the best chance that the people will call for reforms. It wont happen overnight and it wont be easy; however, it
will surely be more effective than an embargo that has been in place for over 50 years with no success whatsoever. Furthermore, given
that Raul Castro has already begun making some reforms albeit small ones the time seems ripe for the US to make a move.
The final argument given for continuing the embargo is the fact that Cuba remains on the United State's list as a state sponsor of
terrorist organizations for their supposed support of groups like FARC and the ELN. There are, however, a few issues with this line of
thought. First of all, as the Council on Foreign Relations indicates many experts state that there is no proof that Cuba has supported
these organizations. Second, while the United States labels these organizations terrorist groups others call them freedom fighters and
would point out that the government they are fighting against Columbia is incredibly corrupt and has been accused of supporting
drug cartels. In the end, however, both of these points are moot because of the third; which happens to be the same argument made
above. If in fact Cuba is supporting these groups, and if in fact these groups are terrorist organizations our embargo against Cuba does
nothing to stop them from supporting these groups and in fact may even prevent reforms that would lead to them ending any support
currently given.
There are two more important reasons that we should end the embargo against Cuba. First, as I mentioned earlier in this article the
United States stands alone outside of the support of Israel and Palau in enforcing this embargo; but more importantly we stand
alone in seeing any justification for it. When we first began the embargo many nations stood with us because of the Cold War
and the threat from the Soviet Union, however, since the fall of the USSR it has become a black eye for the United States. Rather than
looking like a nation protecting its national interest as is the right of any nation the United States looks like a larger nation bullying a
smaller neighbor because it doesnt like their politics and the US has in fact been condemned by the UN for doing so. While this has yet
to cause us any serious issues it does detract from the United States' international image which is an important part of any diplomatic
effort they undertake.
Second, is the extreme cost of continuing the embargo. According to the CATO Institute the, U.S. International Trade Commission
estimates American losses alone from the embargo [are] as much as $1.2 billion annually. Further, Forbes reports that according to
the Government Accountability Office, the U.S. government devotes hundreds of millions of dollars and tens of thousands of man-hours
to administering the embargo each year further increasing the cost. Thats a lot of money to be throwing at a policy that isnt actually
working.
No one will argue that reforms dont need to take place in Cuba, however, the method we are choosing to use is not only ineffectual but
actually hurts those we are trying to help. It is high time that we recognize the embargo for what it is failed policy and move on.

Lifting Embargo key to democracy and human rights.
Perez 10 Louis A. Perez Jr., Louis A. Prez, Jr., Ph.D. Louis A. Prez Jr. is the J. Carlyle Sitterson Professor of History in the College of
Arts and Sciences. His principal teaching fields include twentieth-century Latin America, the Caribbean, and Cuba. Professor Prez has written
and edited fifteen books, and his articles have appeared in the principal journals of the profession. (Want Change in Cuba? End U.S. Embargo,
CNN, September 21, 2010, http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/09/20/perez.cuba.embargo/index.html, Accessed: July 2, 2013, SD) CNN) -- In
April 2009, the White House released a presidential memorandum declaring that democracy and human rights in Cuba were "national interests of
the United States." Assistant Secretary of State Arturo Valenzuela repeated the message in May of this year to the Cuban-American National
Foundation in Miami. The Obama administration, he said, wanted "to promote respect for human rights and fundamental
freedoms ... in ways that will empower the Cuban people and advance our national interests." Fine words. But
if the administration really wanted to do something in the national interest, it would end the 50-year-old policy of political and economic isolation
of Cuba. The Cuban embargo can no longer even pretend to be plausible. On the contrary, it has contributed to
the very conditions that stifle democracy and human rights there. For 50 years, its brunt has fallen mainly on the Cuban
people. This is not by accident. On the contrary, the embargo was designed to impose suffering and hunger on Cubans
in the hope that they would rise up and overturn their government. "The only foreseeable means of alienating internal
support," the Department of State insisted as early as April 1960, "is through disenchantment and disaffection based on economic dissatisfaction
and hardship." The United States tightened the screws in the post-Soviet years with the Torricelli Act and the Helms-Burton Act
-- measures designed, Sen. Robert Torricelli said, "to wreak havoc on that island." The post-Soviet years were indeed calamitous.
Throughout the 1990s, Cubans faced growing scarcities, deteriorating services and increased rationing. Meeting the needs of ordinary life took
extraordinary effort. And therein lies the problem that still bedevils U.S. policy today. Far from inspiring the Cuban people to
revolution, the embargo keeps them down and distracted. Dire need and urgent want are hardly optimum circumstances for
a people to contemplate the benefits of democracy. A people preoccupied with survival have little interest or inclination
to bestir themselves in behalf of anything else. In Cuba, routine household errands and chores consume overwhelming amounts
of time and energy, day after day: hours in lines at the local grocery store or waiting for public transportation. Cubans in vast numbers
choose to emigrate. Others burrow deeper into the black market, struggling to make do and carry on. Many commit
suicide. (Cuba has one of the highest suicide rates in the world; in 2000, the latest year for which we have statistics, it was
16.4 per 100,000 people.) A June 2008 survey in The New York Times reported that less than 10 percent of Cubans identified the lack of
political freedom as the island's main problem. As one Cuban colleague recently suggested to me: "First necessities,
later democracy." The United States should consider a change of policy, one that would offer Cubans relief from the all-consuming ordeal
of daily life. Improved material circumstances would allow Cubans to turn their attention to other aspirations. Ending the embargo
would also imply respect for the Cuban people, an acknowledgment that they have the vision and vitality to enact needed reforms, and
that transition in Cuba, whatever form it may take, is wholly a Cuban affair. A good-faith effort to engage Cuba, moreover, would counter the
common perception there that the United States is a threat to its sovereignty. It would deny Cuban leaders the chance to use U.S.
policy as pretext to limit public debate and stifle dissent -- all to the good of democracy and human rights.
And it would serve the national interest.

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

The embargo, fully in place since 1962, has done $108 billion in damage to the Cuba economy, but also
has violated the constitutional rights of Americans and made a market of 11 million people off limits to
U.S. companies, Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez told reporters.
"The blockade is, without doubt, the principal cause of the economic problems of our country and the
essential obstacle for (our) development," he said, using Cuba's term for the embargo.
"The blockade provokes suffering, shortages, difficulties that reach each Cuban family, each Cuban
child," Rodriguez said.
He spoke at a press conference that Cuba stages each year ahead of what has become an annual vote in
the United Nations on a resolution condemning the embargo. The vote is expected to take place next
month.
Last year, 186 countries voted for the resolution, while only the United States and Israel supported the
embargo, Rodriguez said.
Lifting the embargo would improve the image of the United States around the world, he said, adding that
it would also end what he called a "massive, flagrant and systematic violation of human rights."
That violation includes restrictions on U.S. travel to the island that require most Americans to get U.S.
government permission to visit and a ban on most U.S. companies doing business in Cuba, he said.
"The prohibition of travel for Americans is an atrocity from the constitutional point of view," Rodriguez
said.
Cuba has its own limits on travel that make it difficult for most of its citizens to leave the country for any
destination.
Rodriguez said the elimination of the embargo would provide a much-needed tonic for the sluggish U.S.
economy.
"In a moment of economic crisis, lifting the blockade would contribute to the United States a totally new
market of 11 million people. It would generate employment and end the situation in which American
companies cannot compete in Cuba," he said.
Obama, who said early in his presidency that he wanted to recast long-hostile U.S.-Cuba relations, has
been a disappointment to the Cuban government, which expected him to do more to dismantle the
embargo.
He has lifted some restrictions on travel and all on the sending of remittances to the island, but Rodriguez
said he has broadened the embargo and its enforcement in other areas.
Fines against U.S. and foreign companies and individuals who have violated the embargo have climbed
from $89 million in 2011 to $622 million so far this year, he said.
U.S.-Cuba relations thawed briefly under Obama, but progress came to a halt when Cuba arrested U.S.
contractor Alan Gross in Havana in December 2009.
Gross was subsequently sentenced to 15 years in prison for setting up Internet networks in Cuba under a
controversial U.S. program that Cuba views as subversive.
Rodriguez dodged questions about how U.S. policy toward Cuba might change if Obama is re-elected in
November or if Republican candidate Mitt Romney wins the presidency, but said whoever is in office will
have a chance to make history.
"Any American president would have the opportunity to make a historic change," he said. "He would go
into history as the man who rectified a policy that has failed."

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

The policy in Cuba obviously has failed. The regime remains in power. Indeed, it has consistently
used the embargo to justify its own mismanagement, blaming poverty on America . Observed
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: It is my personal belief that the Castros do not want to see an end to
the embargo and do not want to see normalization with the United States, because they would lose all
of their excuses for what hasnt happened in Cuba in the last 50 years. Similarly, Cuban exile Carlos
Saladrigas of the Cuba Study Group argued that keeping the embargo, maintaining this hostility, all
it does is strengthen and embolden the hardliners .
Cuban human rights activists also generally oppose sanctions . A decade ago I (legally) visited Havana,
where I met Elizardo Sanchez Santa Cruz , who suffered in communist prisons for eight years. He told
me that the sanctions policy gives the government a good alibi to justify the failure of the
totalitarian model in Cuba.
Indeed, it is only by posing as an opponent of Yanqui Imperialism that Fidel Castro has achieved an
international reputation. If he had been ignored by Washington, he never would have been anything
other than an obscure authoritarian windbag.
Unfortunately, embargo supporters never let reality get in the way of their arguments . In 1994, John
Sweeney of the Heritage Foundation declared that the embargo remains the only effective instrument
available to the U.S. government in trying to force the economic and democratic concessions it has been
demanding of Castro for over three decades. Maintaining the embargo will help end the Castro regime
more quickly. The latters collapse, he wrote, is more likely in the near term than ever before.
Almost two decades later, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, chairwoman of the House Foreign Relations
Committee, retains faith in the embargo : The sanctions on the regime must remain in place and, in
fact, should be strengthened, and not be altered. One of the best definitions of insanity is continuing
to do the same thing while expecting to achieve different results .

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

Ending the embargo would have obvious economic benefits for both Cubans and Americans . The U.S.
International Trade Commission estimates American losses alone from the embargo as much as $1.2
billion annually.
Expanding economic opportunities also might increase pressure within Cuba for further economic
reform. So far the regime has taken small steps, but rejected significant change . Moreover, thrusting
more Americans into Cuban society could help undermine the ruling system. Despite Fidel Castros
decline, Cuban politics remains largely static. A few human rights activists have been released, while
Raul Castro has used party purges to entrench loyal elites.
Lifting the embargo would be no panacea. Other countries invest in and trade with Cuba to no obvious
political impact. And the lack of widespread economic reform makes it easier for the regime rather than
the people to collect the benefits of trade, in contrast to China. Still, more U.S. contact would have an
impact. Argued trade specialist Dan Griswold, American tourists would boost the earnings of Cubans
who rent rooms, drive taxis, sell art, and operate restaurants in their homes. Those dollars would
then find their way to the hundreds of freely priced farmers markets, to carpenters, repairmen,
tutors, food venders, and other entrepreneurs .
The Castro dictatorship ultimately will end up in historys dustbin. But it will continue to cause much
human hardship along the way.
The Heritage Foundations John Sweeney complained nearly two decades ago that the United States
must not abandon the Cuban people by relaxing or lifting the trade embargo against the communist
regime. But the dead hand of half a century of failed policy is the worst breach of faith with the Cuban
people.
Lifting sanctions would be a victory not for Fidel Castro, but for the power of free people to spread
liberty. As Griswold argued, commercial engagement is the best way to encourage more open
societies abroad . Of course, there are no guarantees. But lifting the embargo would have a greater
likelihood of success than continuing a policy which has failed . Some day the Cuban people will be
free. Allowing more contact with Americans likely would make that day come sooner.

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

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

Trade helps promote democracy empirics prove

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

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

Embargo prevents change to democracy in Cuba

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

Opponents of the Cuba embargo argue that it should be lifted because the failed policy is a Cold War relic
and has clearly not achieved its goals. They say the sanctions harm the US economy and Cuban citizens,
and prevent opportunities to promote change and democracy in Cuba. They say the embargo hurts
international opinion of the United States.
In addition to in-depth research on the pros and cons of maintaining the Cuba embargo, the new
ProCon.org website contains a historical background section, videos, images, over 60 footnotes and
sources, and Did You Know? facts including:
1. President John F. Kennedy sent his press secretary to buy 1,200 Cuban cigars the night before he
signed the embargo in February 1962.
2. Estimates place the cost of the Cuban embargo to the US economy between $1.2 and $4.84 billion
annually. A 2010 study by Texas A&M University calculated that 6,000 American jobs could be created
by lifting the embargo.
3. There are an estimated 65,000 to 70,000 political prisoners incarcerated in Cuba as of May 2012, which
is among the world's highest on a per capita basis.
4. The United Nations has denounced the US embargo against Cuba for 21 straight years. The vote
against the embargo was 188-3 in 2012, with only Israel and Palau supporting the United States.
5. The United States began exporting food to Cuba following a devastating hurricane in 2001 and is now
the island's second-largest food supplier. Annual food sales to Cuba peaked at $710 million in 2008.

Embargo thwarts democracy engagement required to solve

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

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

Embargo bad helps Castro and hurts Cuban people

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

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

Embargo helps Castro Regime US politicians too scared to oppose

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

The embargo has stunted the Cuban economy and limited Cubans access to good food, modern
technology and useful medicine. It has also hurt the United States relationships with other countries
the European Parliament actually passed a law making it illegal for Europeans to comply with certain
parts of the embargo. The purpose of the embargo was undeniably to make life so difficult for Cubans
that they would see the error of their ways and expel Castro and communism. The United States
government has maintained for 50 years that it will not do business with Cuba until it learns to
respect human rights and liberty.
There is a pretty serious problem with this plan: It hasnt worked. Beyond the fact that Castro is still in
power and Cuba is still not a democracy, the embargo has not truly succeeded in sewing resentment into
the hearts and minds of the Cuban people. The embargo allows Castro to make the United States and the
embargo the scapegoats for all of Cubas ills. It also forces Cuba to rely on countries like the former
USSR, China and Venezuela for trade. The appalling hypocrisy of the embargo is that the United States
nearly always maintained diplomatic and economic relationships with countries like Russia, China and
Vietnam even during the heart of the Cold War.
Numerous influential people have come out against the Cuban embargo, including Pope John Paul II,
Jesse Jackson and George Schultz. They all claim that the embargo hurts the Cuban people, not the Cuban
government. Democratic politicians Gary Hart, George McGovern and Jimmy Carter have also expressed
this view. It is interesting to note, however, that Hart and McGovern only became vocal enemies of the
embargo long after their presidential runs. Politicians are scared openly to oppose the embargo.
The Cuban-American population is an exceptionally powerful and vocal voting bloc, and many Cuban-
Americans support the embargo out of sheer hatred of Castro. These Cuban exiles whose votes are so
important, particularly in Florida have pushed nearly every major politician away from normalizing
relations with Cuba. As Hart wrote on his blog last year - years after leaving politics, of course the
embargo is a straight-jacket whereby first-generation Cuban-Americans wielded inordinate political
power over both parties and constructed a veto over rational, mature diplomacy.
It would be highly inaccurate, however, to foist the blame for the embargos persistence upon the Cuban-
American population. American politicians across the political spectrum are to blame for their
intransigence and their unwillingness to challenge the status quo. The embargo is not a major political
issue, so politicians are just too apathetic to engage with it.

Embargo promotes poverty in Cuba gives Castro more power

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

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

Ending Cuban embargo boosts human rights and develops democracy

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

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

Embargo blocks US from preventing socialism in Cuba

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

Is there a greater example of utter folly than Americas superannuated policy toward Cuba? During more
than 50 years corrupted by covert actions, economic sabotage, travel bans and unending embargo, the
United States managed to make Castro and Cuba an international symbol of proud independence. Intent
on isolating Cuba, Washington has succeeded only in isolating itself in its own hemisphere. Intent on
displacing Fidel Castro, the US enmity only added to his nationalist credentials.
A recent visit reveals a Cuba that is already beginning a new, post-Castro era. That only highlights the
inanity of the continuing U.S. embargo, a cruel relic of a Cold War era that is long gone.
Cuba is beginning a new experiment, driven by necessity, of trying to build its own version of market
socialism in one country. Just as populist movements in the hemisphere looked to Castro and Cuba for
inspiration, now Cuba is learning from its allies as it cautiously seeks to open up its economy.

Ending the genocidal policy opens up freedom and democracy

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

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

Embargo allows Castro to steal Cuban property

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

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

Embargo fails lifting it solves free rights

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

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

Cuba is reforming its socialist waysnew reforms prove
Sweig and Bustamante 13- Julia E. Sweig, Nelson and David Rockefeller Senior Fellow for Latin
America Studies and Director for Latin America Studies; Michael Bustamante, PhD candidate
specializing in Latin American and Caribbean History at Yale, dissertation about the cultural politics of
Cuban collective and historical memory, on and off the island, in the wake of the 1959 Revolution, served
as Research Associate for Latin America Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. (Cuba After
Communism, Council on Foreign Relations, http://www.cfr.org/cuba/cuba-after-communism/p30991,
July/August 2013, accessed: 7/3/13, ML)

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

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

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

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

Three years ago, President Barack Obama loosened regulations on Cuban Americans, as well as
telecommunications between the United States and Cuba. However, the law sharply constrains the
president's discretion. Moreover, UN Ambassador Susan Rice said that the embargo will continue until
Cuba is free.
It is far past time to end the embargo.
During the Cold War, Cuba offered a potential advanced military outpost for the Soviet Union. Indeed,
that role led to the Cuban missile crisis. With the failure of the U.S.-supported Bay of Pigs invasion,
economic pressure appeared to be Washingtons best strategy for ousting the Castro dictatorship.
However, the end of the Cold War left Cuba strategically irrelevant. It is a poor country with little ability
to harm the United States. The Castro regime might still encourage unrest, but its survival has no
measurable impact on any important U.S. interest.
it is virtually impossible for outsiders to force democracy. Washington often has used sanctions and the
Office of Foreign Assets Control currently is enforcing around 20 such programs, mostly to little effect.
The policy in Cuba obviously has failed. The regime remains in power. Indeed, it has consistently used
the embargo to justify its own mismanagement, blaming poverty on America. Observed Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton: It is my personal belief that the Castros do not want to see an end to the embargo and do
not want to see normalization with the United States, because they would lose all of their excuses for
what hasn't happened in Cuba in the last 50 years. Similarly, Cuban exile Carlos Saladrigas of the Cuba
Study Group argued that keeping the embargo, maintaining this hostility, all it does is strengthen and
embolden the hardliners.
Cuban human rights activists also generally oppose sanctions. A decade ago I (legally) visited Havana,
where I met Elizardo Sanchez Santa Cruz, who suffered in communist prisons for eight years. He told me
that the "sanctions policy gives the government a good alibi to justify the failure of the totalitarian model
in Cuba."
international reputation. If he had been ignored by Washington, he never would have been anything other
than an obscure authoritarian windbag.

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

Ending the embargo would have obvious economic benefits for both Cubans and Americans. The U.S.
billion annually.
Expanding economic opportunities also might increase pressure within Cuba for further economic reform.
So far the regime has taken small steps, but rejected significant change. Moreover, thrusting more
Americans into Cuban society could help undermine the ruling system. Despite Fidel Castros decline,
Cuban politics remains largely static. A few human rights activists have been released, while Raul Castro
has used party purges to entrench loyal elites.
who rent rooms, drive taxis, sell art, and operate restaurants in their homes. Those dollars would then find
their way to the hundreds of freely priced farmers markets, to carpenters, repairmen, tutors, food venders,
and other entrepreneurs.

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

people.
liberty. As Griswold argued, commercial engagement is the best way to encourage more open societies
abroad. Of course, there are no guarantees. But lifting the embargo would have a greater likelihood of
success than continuing a policy which has failed. Some day the Cuban people will be free. Allowing
more contact with Americans likely would make that day come sooner.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The American policy of isolating Cuba has failed. Officials boast that Havana now hosts more diplomatic
missions than any other country in the region save Brazil. Nor is the economic embargo working. Or
worse: it is working, but for countries like Canada, South Korea and dozens of others that are only too
happy to help supply Cuba with food, generators and building materials. Those in Congress who
complain about the "offshoring" of American jobs ought to consider that the embargo deprives thousands
of American workers of employment.
The policy of trying to isolate Cuba also worksperversely enoughto bolster the Cuban regime. The
U.S. embargo provides Cuba's leaders a convenient excusethe country's economic travails are due to
U.S. sanctions, they can claim, not their own failed policies. The lack of American visitors and
investment also helps the government maintain political control.
There is one more reason to doubt the wisdom of continuing to isolate Cuba. However slowly, the country
is changing. The question is whether the United States will be in a position to influence the direction and
pace of this change. We do not want to see a Cuba that fails, in which the existing regime gives way to a
repressive regime of a different stripe or to disorder marked by drugs, criminality, terror or a humanitarian
crisis that prompts hundreds of thousands of Cubans to flee their country for the United States. Rather,
Washington should work to shape the behavior and policy of Cuba's leadership so that the country
becomes more open politically and economically.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The codification of the U.S. embargo against Cuba has failed to accomplish its objectives, as stated in
Helms-Burton, of causing regime change and restoring democracy in Cuba. Continuing to ignore this
obvious truth is not only counterproductive to the interests of the United States, but also increasingly
damaging to Cuban civil society, including the more than 400,000 Cubans now working as licensed
private entrepreneurs, because it places the burden of sanctions squarely on their shoulders to bear.
At a time when Cuba seems headed toward a path of change and reforms, albeit slower than desired, and
a real debate seems to be emerging within Cubas elite regarding its future, the inflexibility of U.S. policy
has the ironic effect of hurting and delaying the very changes it seeks to produce by severely limiting
Cubas ability to implement major economic reforms and strengthening the hand of the reactionaries,
rather than the reformers, within the Cuban government.
Moreover, Helms-Burton and related statutory provisions in Torricelli and TSRA deny the United States
the flexibility to address dynamic conditions in Cuba in a strategic and proactive way. They effectively tie
the Presidents hands in responding to developments on the Island, placing the impetus for taking
advantage of the processes of change in Cuba in hands of hard-liners among Cubas ruling elites, whose
interests are best served by the perpetuation of the embargo.
The Cuba Study Group is publishing this whitepaper to acknowledge that a Cuba policy fundamentally
based on blanket unilateral sanctions and isolation has been grossly ineffective for more than half a
century; it disproportionately hurts the Cuban people and is counterproductive to the creation of an
enabling transitional environment in Cuba where civil society can prosper and bring about the desired
social, political and economic changes for which we long.

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

The U.S. government has waged economic war against the Castro regime for half a century. The policy
may have been worth a try during the Cold War, but the embargo has failed to liberate the Cuban people.
It is time to end sanctions against Havana.
Decades ago the Castro brothers lead a revolt against a nasty authoritarian, Fulgencio Batista. After
coming to power in 1959, they created a police state, targeted U.S. commerce, nationalized American
assets, and allied with the Soviet Union. Although Cuba was but a small island nation, the Cold War
magnified its perceived importance.
Washington reduced Cuban sugar import quotas in July 1960. Subsequently U.S. exports were limited,
diplomatic ties were severed, travel was restricted, Cuban imports were banned, Havanas American
assets were frozen, and almost all travel to Cuba was banned. Washington also pressed its allies to impose
sanctions.
These various measures had no evident effect, other than to intensify Cubas reliance on the Soviet Union.
Yet the collapse of the latter nation had no impact on U.S. policy. In 1992, Congress banned American
subsidiaries from doing business in Cuba and in 1996, it penalized foreign firms that trafficked in
expropriated U.S. property. Executives from such companies even were banned from traveling to
America.
On occasion Washington relaxed one aspect or another of the embargo, but in general continued to
tighten restrictions, even over Cuban Americans. Enforcement is not easy, but Uncle Sam tries his best.
For instance, according to the Government Accountability Office, Customs and Border Protection
increased its secondary inspection of passengers arriving from Cuba to reflect an increased risk of
embargo violations after the 2004 rule changes, which, among other things, eliminated the allowance for
travelers to import a small amount of Cuban products for personal consumption.
liberty.
Three years ago, President Barack Obama loosened regulations on Cuban Americans, as well as
telecommunications between the United States and Cuba. However, the law sharply constrains the
presidents discretion. Moreover, UN Ambassador Susan Rice said that the embargo will continue until
Cuba is free.
It is far past time to end the embargo.
During the Cold War, Cuba offered a potential advanced military outpost for the Soviet Union. Indeed,
that role led to the Cuban missile crisis. With the failure of the U.S.-supported Bay of Pigs invasion,
economic pressure appeared to be Washingtons best strategy for ousting the Castro dictatorship.
However, the end of the Cold War left Cuba strategically irrelevant. It is a poor country with little ability
to harm the United States. The Castro regime might still encourage unrest, but its survival has no
measurable impact on any important U.S. interest.
it is virtually impossible for outsiders to force democracy. Washington often has used sanctions and the
Office of Foreign Assets Control currently is enforcing around 20 such programs, mostly to little effect.
The policy in Cuba obviously has failed. The regime remains in power. Indeed, it has consistently used
the embargo to justify its own mismanagement, blaming poverty on America. Observed Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton: It is my personal belief that the Castros do not want to see an end to the embargo and do
not want to see normalization with the United States, because they would lose all of their excuses for
what hasnt happened in Cuba in the last 50 years. Similarly, Cuban exile Carlos Saladrigas of the Cuba
Study Group argued that keeping the embargo, maintaining this hostility, all it does is strengthen and
embolden the hardliners.
Cuban human rights activists also generally oppose sanctions. A decade ago I (legally) visited Havana,
where I met Elizardo Sanchez Santa Cruz, who suffered in communist prisons for eight years. He told me
that the sanctions policy gives the government a good alibi to justify the failure of the totalitarian model
in Cuba.
international reputation. If he had been ignored by Washington, he never would have been anything other
than an obscure authoritarian windbag.
Unfortunately, embargo supporters never let reality get in the way of their arguments. In 1994, John
Sweeney of the Heritage Foundation declared that the embargo remains the only effective instrument
available to the U.S. government in trying to force the economic and democratic concessions it has been
demanding of Castro for over three decades. Maintaining the embargo will help end the Castro regime
more quickly. The latters collapse, he wrote, is more likely in the near term than ever before.
Almost two decades later, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, chairwoman of the House Foreign Relations
Committee, retains faith in the embargo: The sanctions on the regime must remain in place and, in fact,
should be strengthened, and not be altered. One of the best definitions of insanity is continuing to do the
same thing while expecting to achieve different results.
The embargo survives largely because of Floridas political importance. Every presidential candidate
wants to win the Sunshine States electoral votes, and the Cuban American community is a significant
voting bloc.
But the political environment is changing. A younger, more liberal generation of Cuban Americans with
no memory of life in Cuba is coming to the fore. Said Wayne Smith, a diplomat who served in Havana:
for the first time in years, maybe there is some chance for a change in policy. And there are now many
more new young Cuban Americans who support a more sensible approach to Cuba.
Support for the Republican Party also is falling. According to some exit polls Barack Obama narrowly
carried the Cuban American community in November, after receiving little more than a third of the vote
four years ago. He received 60 percent of the votes of Cuban Americans born in the United States.
Barack Obama increased his votes among Cuban Americans after liberalizing contacts with the island. He
also would have won the presidency without Florida, demonstrating that the state may not be essential
politically.
Today even the GOP is no longer reliable. For instance, though Republican vice-presidential nominee
Paul Ryan has defended the embargo in recent years, that appears to reflect ambition rather than
conviction. Over the years he voted at least three times to lift the embargo, explaining: The embargo
doesnt work. It is a failed policy. It was probably justified when the Soviet Union existed and posed a
threat through Cuba. I think its become more of a crutch for Castro to use to repress his people. All the
problems he has, he blames the American embargo.
There is essentially no international support for continuing the embargo. For instance, the European
Union plans to explore improving relations with Havana. Spains Deputy Foreign Minister Gonzalo de
Benito explained that the EU saw a positive evolution in Cuba. The hope, then, is to move forward in the
relationship between the European Union and Cuba.
The administration should move now, before congressmen are focused on the next election. President
Obama should propose legislation to drop (or at least significantly loosen) the embargo. He also could use
his authority to relax sanctions by, for instance, granting more licenses to visit the island.
Ending the embargo would have obvious economic benefits for both Cubans and Americans. The U.S.
billion annually.
Expanding economic opportunities also might increase pressure within Cuba for further economic reform.
So far the regime has taken small steps, but rejected significant change. Moreover, thrusting more
Americans into Cuban society could help undermine the ruling system. Despite Fidel Castros decline,
Cuban politics remains largely static. A few human rights activists have been released, while Raul Castro
has used party purges to entrench loyal elites.
who rent rooms, drive taxis, sell art, and operate restaurants in their homes. Those dollars would then find
their way to the hundreds of freely priced farmers markets, to carpenters, repairmen, tutors, food venders,
and other entrepreneurs.
people.
liberty. As Griswold argued, commercial engagement is the best way to encourage more open societies
abroad. Of course, there are no guarantees. But lifting the embargo would have a greater likelihood of
success than continuing a policy which has failed. Some day the Cuban people will be free. Allowing
more contact with Americans likely would make that day come sooner.

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

Pascual et. al. 09 Carlos Pascual, director of foreign policy at Brookings Institution (Gustavo Arnavat
Attorney at law Ann Louise Bardach Author/Journalist University of California Santa Barbara dr. ramon Cols Co-Director
Center for the Understanding of Cubans of African Descent dr. Jorge i. domnguez Vice-provost for international Affairs
Antonio Madero professor of Mexican and latin American politics and Economics Harvard University daniel erikson Senior
Associate for U.S. policy Director of Caribbean programs inter-American Dialogue dr. Mark falcoff resident Scholar Emeritus
American Enterprise institute dr. damin J. fernndez provost and Executive Vice president purchase College dr. Andy s. Gomez
Nonresident Senior Fellow, The Brookings institution Assistant provost, University of Miami Senior Fellow, institute for Cuban
and Cuban American Studies Jess Gracia Former Spanish Ambassador to Cuba paul hare Former British Ambassador to Cuba
francisco J. (pepe) hernndez president Cuban American National Foundation dr. William LeoGrande Dean, School of public
Affairs American University dr. Marifeli prez-stable Vice president for Democratic Governance inter-American Dialogue Jorge
r. pin Energy Fellow Center for Hemispheric policy University of Miami dr. Archibald ritter Distinguished research professor
Emeritus Department of Economics and Norman paterson School of international Affairs Carleton University Andrs rozental
Nonresident Senior Fellow, The Brookings institution Former Deputy Foreign Minister of Mexico Carlos saladrigas Co-
Chairman Cuba Study Group, Cuba: A New Policy of Critical and Constructive Engagement Brookings,
April 2009, Accessed 6/26/13,
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2009/4/cuba/0413_cuba.pdf)

The more open travel and remittance measures put in place by the Clinton administration in 1998 and
continued by the Bush administration until 2003 contributed to creating the conditions that brought
about a more open political atmosphere. During the period now known as the Cuban Spring, Oswaldo
pay, leader of the Varela project, worked with Cubas human rights activists to collect 11,000
signatures on a petition that requested a referendum on the Cuban constitution. Former president Jimmy
Carter gave a speech at the University of Havana in Spanish in which he asked Fidel Castrowho was
sitting in the front rowto permit the vote; the speech was broadcast live throughout the island. Martha
Beatriz roque, an important dissident leader, held a national assembly to advocate reforms to the Cuban
government. religious groups, with help from their American counterparts, provided equipment, food,
and medicines to sister organizations that bolstered outreach to their communities. Students from
colleges throughout the United States studying in Cuba were engaged in a lively discussion with
students, academics, and people across the island. The presence of licensed American and Cuban
American visitors provided moral support, advice, and assistance to diverse civil society institutions,
allowing them to expand and more effectively assist their membership. And, interventions by U.S.
government and private sector personalities with high-level Cuban officials resulted in reducing
repression against dissidents, human rights activists, independent journalists, and librarians. This more
fluid and open atmosphere was essential to the growth of civil society and to the freedoms and creation of
spaces in which human rights activists and dissidents could operate. president Obama should replicate
these conditions through unilateral and unconditional actions that promote enhanced human contact by
generously licensing all categories of travel permitted in the TSrA. He should, first, follow his campaign
promise to grant[ing] Cuban Americans unrestricted rights to family travel and to send remittances to
the island, since Cuban American connections to family are our best tool for helping fto foster the
beginnings of grass-roots democracy on the island. Further, the president should expand travel for all
American citizens and permanent residents by instructing the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)
to license people-to-people travel for educational, cultural, and humanitarian purposes. Cuban citizens
should also be permitted to travel to the United States for a variety of purposes including family,
academic and cultural visitsin order to enhance their understanding of our open and democratic
society. The Secretary of State should instruct the Department of State and the United States interests
Section (USiNT) in Havana to use standard criteria applied around the world for awarding non-
immigrant visas to Cubans. This more tolerant approach would strengthen the bonds of family and
culture, while helping the Cuban people improve their lives and grow the social organizations
necessary for a democratic civil society . Diplomatic travel and interaction must be reciprocally
expanded so that our diplomats in Havana have the knowledge, access, and expertise needed to predict,
evaluate, and deal with any eventuality in Cuba. This requires permitting comparable opportunities to
Cuban diplomats posted in Washington. There is little the United States has to fear by allowing Cuban
diplomats to see for themselves the realities of American life. To reduce illegal migration, enhance our
security, and conserve our fisheries, the State Department should resume migration talks at the Deputy
Assistant Secretary level and begin a dialogue between the respective heads of the interests Sections on
other issues of mutual concern, including the environment, health, and counter-narcotics. The
devastation caused by hurricanes that struck Cuba in 2008 generated considerable concern among
Cubans in the United States and among the broader American public. Unfortunately, disagreements and
distrust between our governments prevented the United States from assisting with relief efforts. in order
to avoid a recurrence of this impasse, the Department of State should seek an understanding or
agreement with the Cuban government that would permit U.S. assistance to Cuba for natural disasters.
Measures are now in place to ensure that public resources that provide support to the Cuban people are
well used by USAiD grantees. However, large contracts concluded in the final months of the Bush
administration with non-profit organizations and private companies that are said to promote or manage a
transition in Cuba may not reflect the current administrations objectives. A review should be conducted
to determine whether these contracts should be continued, modified, or canceled. Additionally, although
OFAC has always had the authority to license the importation of lifesaving medicines developed in Cuba
for testing by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), it has made the process cumbersome and
lengthy. The sad conclusion is that OFAC has been more concerned with the financial benefits that
might accrue to Cuba than with the potential of these medicines to treat children with brain tumors and
adults with lung cancer or meningitis. To reduce bureaucratic hurdles and permit the speedy entry of
life-saving medications into the United States, OFAC regulations should be modified or reinterpreted so
that the only barrier to the entry of Cuban manufactured medicines is that they meet FDA standards
the same criteria that apply to all medical imports. The president should also seek to promote the free
flow of ideas and information, including the creation of music, films, and other works of art as
embodied in representative Howard Bermans 1988 Free Trade in ideas Act. Despite the prohibition
against the U.S. government restricting the importation of all informational materials, successive
administrations have narrowly interpreted the Berman Act in order to prohibit Americans from creating
music, films, and other artistic works with Cubans. These prohibitions were not intended by the statutes
and should be removed. The aforementioned initiatives are non-controversial and widely supported by
the American public. More controversialalthough still enjoying widespread public supportwould be
licensing the sale and donation of all communications equipment, including radios, televisions, and
computers. The CDA recognized the importance of expanding access to ideas, knowledge, and
information by authorizing the licensing of telecommunications goods and services. U.S. government
financing of books and radios that are distributed to Cubans throughout the island demonstrates a belief
that breaking down the barriers to the flow of information is critical to promoting change in Cuba.
The president should therefore instruct the Department of Commerce and OFAC to internally change
their respective licensing policies with regard to Cuba from a presumption of denial to a
presumption of approval with respect to items deemed to be in the U.S. national interest for Cuba to
receive, including laptops, cell phones and other telecommunications equipment, computer peripherals,
internet connection equipment, as well as access to satellite and broadband communications networks.
The following initiatives that would provide assistance for civil society and for activities that help the
Cuban people become agents for change would require, in some cases, a formal understanding with the
Cuban government, and, in others, at least a willingness to permit the activity. We believe that if these
activities were permitted by the United States and the Cuban governments, they would help to prepare
the Cuban people for assuming a greater role in their governance. The U.S. government should act to
enhance the flow of resources to the Cuban people. it should license U.S. non-governmental
organizations and private individuals to transfer funds to individuals and civil society organizations in
Cuba that work to foster a more open society. The United States should also encourage the creation of
multilateral funds that promote the same objective. Such assistance should not be subject to an
ideological test but rather be available to Cuban civic entities in the form of microcredit for small
businesses and for salaries of persons engaged by civil society to provide community services, among
others. Although the U.S. government currently manages an assistance program for Cuba, it is limited by
sanctions regulations and is narrowly focused. Much of the assistanceamounting principally to in-
kind goodsis difficult to deliver due to the opposition of the Cuban government either to the type of
assistance or to the groups or individuals receiving it. in order to better serve the needs of civil society
in Cuba, the U.S. government should seek to obtain the approval of the Cuban government for an
assistance program that would provide financial and in-kind assistance for activities that advance human
rights and the rule of law, encourage microenterprise, and promote educational, and professional
exchanges. The issue of whether Cuba should be classified by the U.S. government as a terrorist state
has many supporters and detractors. However, the reasons listed for Cubas inclusion on the list appear
to be insufficient, thus leading to charges that the list is a political tool for appeasing domestic
constituencies. in order to ensure that this important vehicle in U.S. policy is used appropriately, a
review of the evidence should be conducted. if Cuba is legitimately found to be a terrorist state based on
the evidence over the last five years, it should remain on the list; if not, it should be removed. Finally, it
is in our interest to see Cuba reintegrated into the Organization of American States (OAS) if it meets
membership standards of democracy, human rights, and transparency. To this end, and in order to
provide incentives for reform, the United Sates should not object to the OAS Secretary General
discussing with Cuba the requirements for reinstatement as a full member. in addition, the United States
should not object to Cubas participation in OAS specialized and technical agencies. Medium-Term
Initiatives The second basket of initiatives is distinct from the first because it moves beyond enhancing
the ability of Cubans to take a more proactive and informed part in their society and government. The
initiatives in the second basket seek to build a foundation for reconciliation by beginning a process of
resolving long-standing differences. A number of these initiatives could serve as incentives or rewards
for improved human rights, the release of political prisoners, and greater freedom of assembly, speech
and rights for opposition groups and labor unions. initiatives that fall within this category include
allowing Cuba access to normal commercial instruments for the purchase of goods from the United
States. None of the initiatives, however, should be publicly or privately tied to specific Cuban actions.
As the Cuban government is on record as rejecting any type of carrot-and-stick tactic, it would be
counterproductive to do so. rather, the United States should decide the actions that it wishes to take and
when to carry them out. Doing so will give the president maximum flexibility in determining how and
when to engage.

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

Washington's decision to continue the embargo against Cuba is, at best, hypocritical. China, another
nominally communist country with even more backward human rights policies than Cuba, has reaped the
benefits of free trade with the U.S. since in 2001. The 2011 report from conservative think tank Freedom
House gave low scores in political rights and in civil liberties to both Cuba and China, listing the two
countries among the most repressive in the world.
Yet China has had the opportunity to trade with the United States and has used it to foster economic
development within its borders. As a result of significant increases in agricultural output, the percentage
of the population living below the poverty line declined from 63 percent in 1981 to 10 percent in 2004,
bringing five-hundred million people above the poverty line within 23 years. While China's protection of
civil and political liberties remains far from desirable, according to the National Center for Policy
Analysis, through the development of a legal system in China that encourages property rights, " trade is
anchoring the process of democratization ". The correlation between trade and the development of
durable legal institutions provides an example that Cuban and U.S. officials should consider.
Reflections
Clearly, Cuba has plenty of potential for economic development and trade, but nothing will be realized
unless United States repeals the embargo. Recent moves by Cuba's Raul Castro indicate that the
government is willing and able to sit down with the U.S. and discuss differences in order to achieve
consensus. In recent remarks, Castro emphasized that the discourse must be "a conversation between
equals," and that "any day they [the United States] want, the table is set," signaling an important step
towards more conciliatory interactions. The U.S. should act upon Senator Richard Lugar' s February 2009
report from the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations and implement his recommended policy changes by
"seizing the initiative... [which] would relinquish a conditional posture that has made any policy changes
contingent on Havana, not Washington."
Conclusions
The world has fundamentally changed since Castro's coup in 1959. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the
weak arguments behind the embargo became completely illogical, as the so-called communist threat no
longer exists. Additionally, Cuba's revolutionary leaders are dead or dying and the country has made steps
towards reform. Even America's staunchest allies have realized the folly of the sanction and have
disregarded the policy. Moreover, the United Nations has passed repeated resolutions against the
embargo. In 201 1, for the 20th consecutive year, the UN General Assembly reiterated its call for an end
to the U.S. embargo on Cuba that has restricted economic, commercial and financial flow for over fifty
years.
All told, there exists no solid political or economic logic for Washington to continue the embargo. The
United States risks being left behind as the world moves on and does business with a nation only 90 miles
from its soil. It is worth re-examining the basic motivations of the American people and the interests that
lie closest to their hearts. Calvin Coolidge, the 30th US president, summed up these motivations best
when he stated, "After all, the chief business of the American people is business. They are profoundly
concerned with producing, buying, selling, investing and prospering in the world." The US would be wise
to follow his advice.

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

Embargo strengthens Castro and stops democracy
Amash 12- Brandon Amash, writer at the Prospect Journal, (EVALUATING THE
CUBAN EMBARGO, 7/23/12, http://prospectjournal.org/2012/07/23/evaluating-the-
cuban-embargo/, 6/28/13, CAS)
3.2: American sanctions during the Cold War strengthened Castros ideological position and created
opportunities for involvement by the Soviet Union, thereby decreasing the likelihood of democratization
and improvement in human rights. Cubas revolution could not have come at a worse time for America.
The emergence of a communist state in the western hemisphere allowed the Soviet Union to extend its
influence, and the United States rejection of Cuba only widened the window of opportunity for Soviet
involvement. The embargo also became a scapegoat for the Castro administration, which laid blame for
poor human rights conditions on the embargo policy itself (Fontaine 18 22). Furthermore, as Ratliff and
Fontaine suggest, isolating Cuba as an enemy of democracy during the Cold War essentially made the
goals of democratization in the country unachievable (Fontaine 30). While the embargo may have been
strategic during the Cold War as a bulwark against communism, the long-term effects of the policy have
essentially precluded the possibility for democracy in Cuba. Even after the end of the Cold War,
communism persists in Cuba and human rights violations are systemic; Americas policy has not
achieved its goals and has become a relic of the Cold War era. The prospects for democracy and
improvement in human rights seem as bleak as ever.

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

Embargo hurts Cubans and helps Castros
Griswold 09- Daniel Griswold, director of the Cato center for trade policies,
(Obama Should Lift Embargo on Cuba Immediately, 6/16/09,
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/obama-should-lift-embargo-on-cuba-immediately,
7/4/13, CAS)
The embargo has been a failure by every measure. It has not changed the course or nature of the Cuban
government. It has not liberated a single Cuban citizen. In fact, the embargo has made the Cuban people a
bit more impoverished, without making them one bit more free. At the same time, it has deprived
Americans of their freedom to travel and has cost US farmers and other producers billions of dollars of
potential exports.
As a tool of US foreign policy, the embargo actually enhances the Castro government's standing by giving
it a handy excuse for the failures of the island's Caribbean-style socialism. Brothers Fidel and Raul can
rail for hours about the suffering the embargo inflicts on Cubans, even though the damage done by their
communist policies has been far worse. The embargo has failed to give us an ounce of extra leverage over
what happens in Havana.
In 2000, Congress approved a modest opening of the embargo. The Trade Sanctions Reform and Export
Enhancement Act allows cash-only sales to Cuba of US farm products and medical supplies. The results
of this modest opening have been quite amazing. Since 2000, total sales of farm products to Cuba have
increased from virtually zero to $691m in 2008. The top US exports by value are corn, meat and poultry,
wheat and soybeans. From dead last, Cuba is now the number six customer in Latin America for US
agricultural products. Last year, American farmers sold more to the 11.5 million people who live in Cuba
than to the 200 million people in Brazil.
According to the US international trade commission, US farm exports would increase another $250m if
restrictions were lifted on export financing. This should not be interpreted as a call for export-import bank
subsidies. Trade with Cuba must be entirely commercial and market driven. Lifting the embargo should
not mean that US taxpayers must now subsidise exports to Cuba. But neither should the government stand
in the way.
USITC estimates do not capture the long-term export potential to Cuba from normalised relations. The
Bahamas, Dominican Republic, Jamaica and Guatemala spend an average of 2.8% of their GDP to buy
farm exports from the US. If Cuba spent the same share of its GDP on US farm exports, exports could
more than double the current level, to $1.5bn a year.
Advocates of the embargo argue that trading with Cuba will only put dollars into the coffers of the Castro
regime. And it's true that the government in Havana, because it controls the economy, can skim off a large
share of the remittances and tourist dollars spent in Cuba. But of course, selling more US products to
Cuba would quickly relieve the Castro regime of those same dollars.
If more US tourists were permitted to visit Cuba, and at the same time US exports to Cuba were further
liberalised, the US economy could reclaim dollars from the Castro regime as fast as the regime could
acquire them. In effect, the exchange would be of agricultural products for tourism services, a kind of
"bread for beaches", "food for fun" trade relationship.
Meanwhile, the increase in Americans visiting Cuba would dramatically increase contact between Cubans
and Americans. The unique US-Cuban relationship that flourished before Castro could be renewed, which
would increase US influence and potentially hasten the decline of the communist regime.
Congress and President Barack Obama should act now to lift the embargo to allow more travel and farm
exports to Cuba. Expanding our freedom to travel to, trade with and invest in Cuba would make
Americans better off and would help the Cuban people and speed the day when they can enjoy the
freedom they deserve.

Embargo helps Castro and hurts economy
Walther 12- Nick Walther, graduate of Emerson college, (The Cuba Embargo Is
Hurting Men, 12/7/12, http://goodmenproject.com/politics-2/the-cuba-embargo-is-
hurting-men/, 7/4/13, CAS)
The continuation of the embargo was meant to weaken Fidel Castros communist regime and make the
lives of Cubans so unbearable that the government would have no choice but to respond to the pressure of
the United States and the Cuban people to liberalize their economy and democratize their politics. The
embargo has failed miserably to achieve this objective.
In fact, the embargo has likely strengthened the Castro regime, by providing an easy scapegoat for state
propaganda to blame all of Cubas ills on. The embargo has served to validate Castros portrayal of the
United States as the neocolonial hegemony of the region: determined to subjugate the people of Cuba and
Latin America and reincarnate the tyranny of Batista, the pre-revolutionary tyrant backed by the United
States because of his friendly relations with American business. Cubans dont blame their own
government for the stranglehold placed on them by the most powerful country in the world.
The embargo has also served to aimlessly punish the Cuban people, even complicating, with its archaic
rules, the availability of medical supplies in the country. Although American medical exports are
permitted, the red tapedesigned to thwart a nonexistent military threathas proven insurmountable for
the hospitals, clinics, and offices where they are most needed. This undermines Americas reputation as a
humanitarian nation.
The only thing that the embargo has done successfully is cost the American economy $1.2 billion every
year in lost sales and exports. With the economy still struggling, it is unacceptable for American
companies to lose the chance to create jobs and expand business with a country ninety miles from Florida.
Whats more, with men having lost a disproportionate number of the jobs in the present recession, ending
the embargo would encourage trade, helping shore up the manufacturing and shipping sectors,
traditionally male jobs that have suffered severe cutbacks. Every year since 1992,The United Nations
General Assembly has condemned the embargo as illegal, with the only two nations regularly voting
against such a condemnation being America and Israel. Doesnt this annual denunciation complicate our
countrys reputation as one run by the rule of law?

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

Embargo will not solve democracy empirics
Johnson, Spector and Lilac 10 - Andy Johnson, Director, National Security Program,
Kyle Spector, Policy Advisor, National Security Program , Kristina Lilac, National Security
Program, Senior Fellows of The Third Way Institute, (End the Embargo of Cuba, Article for
The Third Way Institute, 9/16/10,
http://content.thirdway.org/publications/326/Third_Way_Memo_-
_End_the_Embargo_of_Cuba.pdf, Accessed 7/02/13, AW)
Peter Hakim, President of the Inter - American Dialogue, has rightly argued that a democratic
society in Cuba should be the objective of U.S. engagement, not a precondition. 11 Vietnam and
China both fall under the rule of communi st leadership, yet the US has taken steps to establish formal
diplomatic relations and open trade with both countries. Cuba should not continue to be
the exception. Others have argued that US - Cuba cooperation on issues such as counter -
narcotics efforts cou ld benefit both countries and initiate trust - building among the two
countries. Policymakers on both sides of the aisle can agree that the embargo has failed to
meet its stated purpose of bringing change to Cubas communist government, making a change
in c ourse a necessary next step. Lifting the antiquated embargo would help to move Cuba into the 21
st century, removing the barriers currently preventing the US from engaging Cuba and presenting the
US with an opportunity to bring about change in Cuba through economic and diplomatic channels.
By opening Cuba, the US could finally achieve the change it has been seeking for nearly fifty
years.

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

Democracy Promotion Adv

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Democracy Promotion Adv

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1AC Advantage Democracy Promotion

You might also like