Immigration Politics – Cal 2013 – Starter Packet

Cuba Neg

Cuba Link UQ

US engagement toward Cuba’s low

Reuters 5-31

[“Cuba says inclusion on U.S. terrorist list 'shameful'”, May 31st, 2013, http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/31/us-cuba-usa-terrorism-idUSBRE94U05020130531]

(Reuters) - In what has become an annual ritual, the United States on Thursday kept Cuba on its list of "state sponsors of terrorism" and Havana reacted angrily, calling it a "shameful decision" based in politics, not reality. Cuba said in a statement that the U.S. government was pandering to the Cuban exile community in Miami against its own interests and the wishes of the American people. "It hopes to please an anti-Cuban group, growing smaller all the time, which tries to maintain a policy that now has no support and doesn't even represent the national interests of the United States," said the statement issued by Cuba's foreign ministry. Iran, Sudan and Syria also are on the list, which is published annually by the U.S. State Department. Cuba has been on it since 1982. The terrorism designation comes with a number of sanctions, including a prohibition on U.S. economic assistance and financial restrictions that create problems for Cuba in international commerce, already made difficult by a U.S. trade embargo imposed against the island since 1962. The State Department's explanation for Cuba's inclusion on the list discounted most of the reasons from previous years and said "there was no indication that the Cuban government provided weapons or paramilitary training to terrorist groups." In the past, the report fingered Cuba for harboring rebels from the Marxist-led FARC, or Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, and members of Basque separatist groups. This year, it noted that Cuba is sponsoring peace talks between the FARC and the Colombian government and has moved to distance itself from the Basques. Washington's primary accusation was that Cuba harbors and provides aid to fugitives from U.S. justice. Cuba does not deny that it has fugitives from the United States, but said none had been accused of terrorism.

Cuba Aid/Democracy 1NC

All foreign aid to Cuba is for democracy assistance which causes political fights, none goes to the government

PolitiFact 11

[“The U.S. gives foreign aid to Cuba and Venezuela, even though those countries are our enemies”, February 9th, 2011, http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/mar/23/ted-poe/ted-poe-decries-us-aid-venezuela-cuba/]

In a House floor speech on Feb. 9, 2011, Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, took aim at American aid to foreign countries. Poe has introduced a bill to require separate votes on aiding specific countries, thus ending the practice of bundling foreign aid into a single bill. "Maybe it’s time to reconsider our foreign aid that we send to countries throughout the world," Poe said in the floor speech, which has attracted attention in conservative circles on the Internet. "There are about 192 foreign countries in the world, … and we give foreign aid to over 150 of them." Poe proceeded to name some examples of countries where many Americans might be uncomfortable sending taxpayer money, including Egypt, Pakistan, Russia and China. But two of the nation’s in Poe’s speech caught our eye -- Venezuela and Cuba. Critics of Venezuela’s leader, Hugo Chavez, call him a dictator. Meanwhile, Cuba has been a communist country for decades, led by Fidel Castro and now his brother Raul. In its widely followed rankings, the group Freedom House rates Venezuela toward the bottom of the nations it classifies as "partly free," while Cuba sits at the lower end of its "not free" scale. And both nations have strained relations with the United States. So Poe suggested these as two examples of what’s wrong with U.S. foreign aid. "We give money to Venezuela. Why do we give money to Chavez and Venezuela? He hates the United States. He defies our president, makes fun of our nation. We don’t need to give him any foreign aid. We give $20 million to Cuba. Why do we give money to Cuba? Americans can’t even go to Cuba. It’s off-limits. It’s a communist country. But we’re dumping money over there." We looked at budget documents for foreign aid and talked to experts in the field, and here’s what we found. Poe is correct that U.S. foreign aid flows into both countries. In fiscal year 2010, the Venezuela account showed $6 million, while the Cuba account showed $20 million. For fiscal year 2012, the administration has requested a little less for Venezuela -- $5 million -- and the same $20 million amount for Cuba. To give a sense of context, the 2010 funds allocated for Venezuela amounted to less than 1/100th of 1 percent of the total U.S. foreign-aid budget, and the figure for Cuba was about 4/100 of 1 percent of the U.S. foreign aid budget. The percentage of the entire federal budget is even more minuscule. Still, even if the amount is small, taxpayer money is taxpayer money, so Poe has a point. However, Poe also said in plain language that "we give money to Chavez." And while he didn’t say it in as explicit a fashion, Poe implied that the U.S. sends aid to the Cuban regime. This is where it gets more complicated. The funding for both nations comes from the Economic Support Fund, which, according to the State Department, "supports U.S. foreign policy objectives by providing economic assistance to allies and countries in transition to democracy. Programs funded through this account promote stability and U.S. security interests in strategic regions of the world." Let’s take Cuba first. A spokesman for the U.S. Agency for International Development confirmed that no U.S. aid goes to the Cuban government. In an explanation of its proposed budget, the administration writes that "Cuba is the only non-democratically elected government in the Western Hemisphere and one of the most politically repressed countries in the world. In view of these challenges, U.S. assistance for Cuba aims to empower Cuban civil society to advocate for greater democratic freedoms and respect for human dignity." The $20 million designated for Cuba "focuses on strengthening independent Cuban civil society organizations, including associations and labor groups. … To advance the cause of human rights in Cuba, U.S. assistance provides humanitarian assistance to political prisoners and their families … The United States supports nascent pro-democracy groups, the use of technology, and new information-sharing opportunities." A 2006 review by the Government Accountability Office noted that the aid is such a threat to the regime that it has to be kept under tight wraps on the island. "Given the Cuban government’s repressive policies and opposition to U.S. democracy assistance, grantees employed a range of discreet delivery methods," GAO reported. In other words, the money being sent to Cuba is designed to foster democracy in what is currently an undemocratic country -- not to support the government. Poe’s failure to note that distinction as he attacks aid to "Cuba" strikes us as misleading.

Ext. Cuba Aid/Democracy

Cuban democracy assistance programs are corrupt and opaque – Congress has been very critical of them

Collins 10

[Michael Collins is the program associate for the Americas Program of the Center for International Policy, “Cuba: Democracy Promotion Programs under Fire as Fallout from Spy Arrest Continues”, May 12th, 2010, http://upsidedownworld.org/main/cuba-archives-43/2488-cuba-democracy-promotion-programs-under-fire-as-fallout-from-spy-arrest-continues]

Since the early 90s the United States has funded several programs that are designed ostensibly to promote democracy in Cuba. All are managed by USAID. Gross's arrest has shone a spotlight on these programs, which have been questioned over the past few years for issues of corruption and transparency. Many USAID programs in Cuba are run through the Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI). A congressional report noted in 2009 that, "Unlike many foreign assistance programs, Transition Initiative programs are often initiated on short notice and are not always accurately detailed in budget justification documents. The annual appropriations provisions for OTI require that the office give only five days' notice to Congress of new TI programs, and even ongoing programs are not reported at the same level of detail as other foreign assistance programs." A 2006 report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) offered stinging criticism of USAID for the lack of oversight in its Cuba aid program. According to the report, "Nearly all of the $74 million spent on contracts to promote democracy in Cuba over the past decade has been distributed without competitive bidding or oversight in a program that opened the door to waste and fraud." Some of the profligacy cited includes the purchase of a gas chainsaw, computer gaming equipment and software (including Nintendo Gameboys and Sony Playstations), a mountain bike, leather coats, cashmere sweaters, crabmeat, and Godiva chocolates. A Miami Herald article from the same year pointed out that "most of the USAID money has remained in Miami or Washington—creating an anti-Castro economy that finances a broad array of activities." The corruption that exists in the Cuba democracy promotion programs came to a head in 2008, when Howard Berman, the chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, placed a hold on the $45 million due to be allocated to Cuban programs that year. Berman wrote a memo to the assistant secretary for Legislative Affairs, questioning the "four-fold increase" in funding for Cuban democracy promotion programs given the fraudulent abuse and lack of adequate oversight reported by the GAO in 2006 and the media. He requested the freeze be maintained until USAID responded to a list of questions regarding the reported irregularities. Berman wanted answers on where the $74 million awarded for Cuba democracy promotion programs mentioned in the GAO report had gone. He also requested follow-up information and measures regarding the case of Felipe Sixto from the Washington-based Center for a Free Cuba (CFC). Sixto was discovered to have embezzled between $500,000 and $700,000 from the grantee's total award of $7.3 million. Sixto, who was a special assistant for intergovernmental affairs during the George W. Bush administration, was given thirty months in jail. Berman later unfroze the withheld funds saying that he had been given assurances by USAID and the State Department that it was "working to improve the program."

Cuba Energy 1NC

Energy cooperation with Cuba drains capital

Nerurkar and Sullivan 11

[Neelesh Nerurkar - Specialist in Energy Policy and Mark P. Sullivan - Specialist in Latin American Affairs, “Cuba’s Offshore Oil Development: Background and U.S. Policy Considerations”, November 28th, 2011, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R41522.pdf]

On the opposite side of the policy debate, a number of policy groups and members of Congress oppose engagement with Cuba, including U.S. investment in Cuba’s offshore energy development. A legislative initiative introduced in the 111th Congress, H.R. 5620, would have gone further by imposing visa restrictions and economic sanctions on foreign companies and their executives who help facilitate the development of Cuba’s petroleum resources. The bill asserted that offshore drilling by or under the authorization of the Cuban government poses a “serious economic and environmental threat to the United States” because of the damage that an oil spill could cause. Opponents of U.S. support for Cuba’s offshore oil development also argue that such involvement would provide an economic lifeline to the Cuban government and thus prolong the continuation of the communist regime. They maintain that if Cuba reaped substantial economic benefits from offshore oil development, it could reduce societal pressure on Cuba to enact market-oriented economic reforms. Some who oppose U.S. involvement in Cuba’s energy development contend that while Cuba might have substantial amounts of oil offshore, it will take years to develop. They maintain that the Cuban government is using the enticement of potential oil profits to break down the U.S. economic embargo on Cuba.78

Ext. Cuba Energy

Congress HATES any cooperation with Cuba over oil drilling – several bills have been brought to sanction companies that even try

Nerurkar and Sullivan 11

[Neelesh Nerurkar - Specialist in Energy Policy and Mark P. Sullivan - Specialist in Latin American Affairs, “Cuba’s Offshore Oil Development: Background and U.S. Policy Considerations”, November 28th, 2011, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R41522.pdf]

Interest in Cuba’s offshore oil development has continued in the 112th Congress as foreign oil companies have moved forward with plans to begin exploratory drilling. To date, five legislative initiatives have been introduced taking different approaches, and two congressional hearings have been held examining the issue. H.R. 372 (Buchanan), introduced January 26, 2011, would amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to deny oil and gas leases and permits “to persons who engage in activities with the government of any foreign country that is subject to any sanction or an embargo” by the U.S. government. The intent of the legislation is to provide a disincentive to companies involved, or contemplating becoming involved, in Cuba’s oil development, although the scope of the legislation is much broader and could affect other oil companies, including U.S. companies, not involved in Cuba. Because the bill does not define “sanction,” the term could be used to refer to such U.S. restrictions as export controls or limits on foreign assistance. With this use of the term, many countries worldwide could be construed as being subject to a U.S. sanction, and as a result, any energy company that engages in activities with one of these countries could be denied an oil and gas lease in the United States under the proposed legislation. S. 405 (Bill Nelson), the Gulf Stream Protection Act of 2011, introduced February 17, 2011, would require a company that is conducting oil or gas operations off the coasts of Cuba to submit an oil response plan for their Cuba operations and demonstrate sufficient resources to respond to a worst case scenario if the company wanted to lease drilling rights in the United States. The bill would also require the Secretary of the Interior to carry out an oil spill risk analysis and planning process for the development and implementation of oil spill response plans for nondomestic oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico. The Secretary of the Interior would be required, among other things, to include recommendations for Congress on a joint contingency plan with the countries of Mexico, Cuba, and the Bahamas to ensure an adequate response to oil spills located in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. H.R. 2047 (Ros-Lehtinen), the Caribbean Coral Reef Protection Act of 2011 (identical to a bill introduced in the 111th Congress and noted above), was introduced May 26, 2011, and would impose visa restrictions on foreign nationals and economic sanctions on companies that help facilitate the development of Cuba’s offshore petroleum resources. The bill would exclude from the United States aliens who invest $1 million or more that contributes to the enhancement of the ability of Cuba to develop its offshore oil resources. It would also require the imposition of sanctions (two or more from a menu of listed sanctions) if the President determined that a person had made an investment of $1 million on or after January 10, 2005, that contributed to Cuba’s offshore oil development.

Obama has to use his PC

Orth 11

(Derek Orth, J.D. expected May 2012, Rutgers School of Law (Newark, N.J.); Managing Articles Editor for the Rutgers Computer and Technology Law Journal, 2011 University of Oregon, Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation, 26 J. Envtl. L. & Litig. 509, Lexis, 2011)

The Deepwater Horizon was constructed in 2001 and was "capable of operating in water up to 8,000 feet deep and able to drill down to 30,000 feet." n6 The disaster occurred while Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. (Halliburton) was mounting production casing and [*512] cement on a 5,000 feet deep exploratory well in the Macondo Prospect. Ironically, integrity tests were due to be performed on the Macondo well at the time the explosion occurred, after which the well would have been capped until BP was prepared to begin extraction operations. n7 Tragically, the fiery explosion that occurred onboard the Deepwater Horizon threw BP's plans into disarray, resulting in eleven deaths, n8 millions of barrels of spewing oil, n9 and immense damage to the Gulf Coast. n10 The subsequent proliferation of monetary claims, lawsuits, and legislation n11 has raised numerous issues that stand to forever alter the regulatory structure of the offshore oil industry n12 as well as the liability schemes of international oil companies operating in the United States' coastal waters. n13 A bill's passage through Congress is fraught with danger at every turn. In general, most bills are submitted by individual members of Congress, examined and voted upon by specialized committees, presented to both the House and Senate for approval, and, finally, submitted to the President for his signature. Thus, a well-meaning and complex bill can often only gain approval through an expenditure of serious political capital by at least one party or the occurrence of an event that exerts public pressure on both political parties to react expediently and deal with the crisis.

Plan can only hurt Obama – only opposition to the plan—kills democrat support

Hobson ‘12

Margaret Kriz Hobson 12, E&E reporter, April 18, http://www.eenews.net/public/energywire/2012/04/18/1

OFFSHORE DRILLING: Obama's development plans gain little political traction in years since Gulf spill President Obama is embracing the offshore oil and gas development policies he proposed in early 2010 but were sidelined in the shadow of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Two years after the BP PLC oil rig exploded, killing 11 people and causing the worst oil spill in U.S. history, Obama's "all of the above" energy policy includes offshore drilling provisions that are nearly identical to his aggressive March 2010 drilling plan. Since the moratorium on offshore oil drilling ended in late 2010, the administration expanded oil and gas development in the western and central Gulf of Mexico and announced plans for lease sales in the eastern Gulf. The White House appears poised to allow Royal Dutch Shell PLC to begin exploring for oil this summer in Alaska's Beaufort and Chukchi seas and to open oil industry access to the Cook Inlet, south of Anchorage. The administration is also paving the way for oil and gas seismic studies along the mid- and south Atlantic coasts, the first such survey in 30 years. While opening more offshore lands to oil and gas development, the Obama administration has also taken steps to make offshore oil drilling safer, according to a report card issued yesterday by Oil Spill Commission Action, an oversight panel formed by seven members of President Obama's oil spill commission. That report criticized Congress for failing to adopt new oil spill safety laws but praised the Interior Department and industry for making progress in improving offshore oil development safety, environmental protection and oil spill preparation. An environmental group was less complimentary. A report yesterday by Oceana charged that the measures adopted by government and industry are "woefully inadequate." As the 2012 presidential campaign heats up and gasoline prices remain stuck near $4 per gallon, Obama's offshore oil development policies aren't winning him any political capital. The environmental community hates the drilling proposals. The Republicans and oil industry officials complain that the White House hasn't gone far enough. And independent voters are confused by the president's rhetoric. According to the GOP political firm Resurgent Republic, independent voters in Colorado and Virginia don't understand what Obama's "all of the above" energy mantra means. The report said, however, that once the policy was "described as oil, gas, coal, nuclear power, solar and other alternative energies, participants became enthusiastic and view such a strategy as credible and necessary to becoming more energy independent." A recent Gallup poll indicated that American voters are polarized on energy issues. The survey found that 47 percent of the public believes energy development is more important than environmental protection, while 41 percent of the public ranks protecting the environment as a bigger priority. In that political climate, Obama's offshore oil development policies are not likely to affect the nation's most conservative or liberal voters, noted Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics. "The environmentalists have no place to go except Obama, and Obama isn't going to convince any conservatives or Republicans to back him" based on his oil and gas proposals, Sabato said. "He's obviously aiming at swing independents," Sabato added. "He's trying to show that he's pursuing a middle path, the one many independents like. Maybe it will work." Back to the original plan, minus 2 pieces Obama's all-of-the-above energy policy is in keeping with his pre-oil-spill offshore oil and gas development proposal. After the Deepwater Horizon disaster, the White House slapped a six-month moratorium on all new oil and gas development. Since the moratorium ended, Obama has systematically reintroduced most of the early oil development proposals. Two pieces of the old plan are missing. Obama backtracked on his proposal to allow oil exploration off Virginia's coast. The new East Coast offshore plan lays the groundwork for seismic studies, but not drilling, along the mid- and south Atlantic. The White House also dropped a proposal to allow exploration in the eastern Gulf of Mexico within 125 miles of Florida, an area off limits due to a congressional moratorium. During 2010 negotiations, the administration offered to allow oil leasing in the region if Congress lifted the moratorium and passed a global warming bill. When the climate change legislation died, however, the drilling provision lost White House favor. Since the Republicans took control of the House in 2011, GOP leaders have advanced a series of bills that would go far beyond Obama's offshore oil drilling policies, essentially allowing development along all U.S. shores. But those measures have been thwarted by the Democrat-controlled Senate. The Republicans and industry officials long for the offshore oil and gas plan floated by former President George W. Bush during his last days in office. That proposal would have offered 31 federal lease sales and included regions off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. By comparison, Obama's 2012 to 2017 leasing blueprint includes a dozen sites in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico and excludes the West Coast and northern East Coast.

No turns---liberals hate the plan and conservatives won’t give Obama credit for it

Walsh ‘11

Bryan, TIME Senior editor, November 9, “Why Obama’s Offshore Drilling Plan Isn’t Making Anyone Happy,” http://science.time.com/2011/11/09/why-obamas-offshore-drilling-plan-isnt-making-anyone-happy/#ixzz26snhDbbI

Nonetheless, Obama has set a target of reducing U.S. oil imports by a third by 2025, and greater domestic oil production is going to have to be a part of that—including oil from the Arctic. Unfortunately for the President, no one’s likely to cheer him. Conservatives and the oil industry won’t be happy until just about every square foot of the country is available for drilling—though it is worth noting that oil production offshore has actually increased under Obama—and environmentalists aren’t going to rally to support any sort of expanded drilling. With energy, as with so many other issues for Obama, it’s lonely at the center.

Cuba Engagement 1NC

The plan drains capital

Birns and Mills ‘13

(Larry, Director of the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, Frederick B., COHA Senior Research Fellow, 01/30, “Best Time for U.S.– Cuba Rapprochement Is Now,” http://www.coha.org/best-time-for-u-s-cuba-rapprochement-is-now/)

Despite the basic intransigence of US policy towards Cuba, in recent years, important changes have been introduced by Havana: state control over the economy has been diminished; most travel restrictions affecting both Americans and Cubans on the island have been lifted; and the “group of 75” Cuban dissidents detained in 2003 have been freed. Washington has all but ignored these positive changes by Havana, but when it comes to interacting with old foes such as those of Myanmar, North Korea, and Somalia, somehow constructive dialogue is the order of the day. One reason for this inconsistency is the continued opposition by the anti-Castro lobby to a change of course by Washington. The anti-Castro lobby and their allies in the US Congress argue that the reforms coming out of Havana are too little too late and that political repression continues unabated. They continue to see the embargo as a tool for coercing either more dramatic reforms or regime change. It is true that the reformist tendency in Cuba does not include a qualitative move from a one party system to political pluralism. Lamentably, Cuba reportedly continues to use temporary detentions and the occasional jailing of non-violent dissidents to limit the parameters of political debate and total freedom of association. The authors agree that no non-violent Cuban dissident should be intimidated, detained or jailed. But continuing to maliciously turn the screws on Havana has never provided an incentive for more democracy in any sense of the word nor has it created a political opening into which Cuba, with confidence, could enter. The easing of tensions between Washington and Havana is more likely to contribute to the evolution of a more democratic form of socialism on the island, the early stages of which we may presently be witnessing. In any case the precise form of such change inevitably should and will be decided in Cuba, not in Washington or Miami. To further moves towards rapprochement with Cuba, the U.S. State Department should remove the country from the list of state sponsors of terrorism. It is an invention to depict Havana as a state sponsor of terrorism, a charge only levied by the State Department under pressure from Hill hardliners. As researcher Kevin Edmunds, quite properly points out: “This position is highly problematic, as the United States has actively engaged in over 50 years of economic and covert destabilization in Cuba, going so far as blindly protecting wanted terrorists such as Luis Posada Carilles and Orlando Bosch, both former CIA agents accused of dozens of terrorist attacks in Cuba and the United States ” (Nov. 15, 2012, Kevin Edmonds blog). It was precisely the propensity of some anti-Castro extremists to plan terrorist attacks against Cuba that urgently motivated the infiltration of such groups by the Cuban five as well as the close monitoring of these organizations by the FBI. Another gesture of good will would be for the White House to grant clemency to the Cuban five: Gerardo Hernandez, Ramón Labañino, Fernando Gonzalez, Antonio Guerrero and René Gonzalez. They are Cuban nationals who were convicted in a Miami court in 2001 and subsequently sentenced to terms ranging from 15 years to double life, mostly on charges of conspiracy to commit espionage. Despite requests for a change of venue out of Miami, which at first was granted and later denied, the trial took place in a politically charged Miami atmosphere that arguably tainted the proceedings and compromised justice. Supporters maintain that the Cuban five had infiltrated extremist anti-Castro organizations in order to prevent terrorist attacks against Cuba and did not pose any security threat to the United States. It would be an important humanitarian gesture to let them go home. Perhaps such a gesture might facilitate reciprocity on the part of Cuban authorities when it comes to American engineer Alan Gross who is presently being detained in a Cuban jail. There would probably be a political price to pay by the Obama administration for taking steps towards reconciliation with Havana, but if Obama’s election to a second term means that there is to be a progressive dividend, surely such a dividend ought to include a change in US policy towards the island. Mirabile dictu, the Administration can build on the small steps it has already taken. Since 2009, Washington has lifted some of the restrictions on travel between the US and Cuba and now allows Cuban Americans to send remittances to relatives on the island. The Cuba Reconciliation Act (HR 214) introduced by Representative Jose Serrano (D-NY) on January 4, 2013, and sitting in a number of congressional committees, would repeal the harsh terms of the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992 and the Helms-Burton Act of 1996, both of which toughened the embargo during the special period in Cuba. The Cuba Reconciliation Act, however, is unlikely to get much traction, especially with ultra-hardliner Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), chairing the House Foreign Relations Committee, and her counterpart, Robert Menendez (D-NJ), who is about to lead the Senate Foreign Relations Body. Some of the anti-Castro Cuban American community would likely view any of the three measures advocated here as a capitulation to the Castro brothers. But as we have argued, a pro-democracy and humanist position is not in any way undermined, but might in fact be advanced by détente. An end to the embargo has been long overdue, and the judgment of history may very well be that it ought never to have been started.

Ext. Cuba Engagement

The Cuba lobby hates the plan – they think the US should leverage the plan for changes abroad

The Register 4-21

[“The Cuban chill”, April 21st, 2013, http://www.registerguard.com/rg/opinion/29740770-78/cuba-lobby-policy-china-political.html.csp,]

Policy toward Cuba is frozen in place by a domestic political lobby with roots in the electorally pivotal state of Florida. The Cuba Lobby combines the carrot of political money with the stick of political denunciation to keep wavering Congress members, government bureaucrats, and even presidents in line behind a policy that, as President Obama himself admits, has failed for half a century and is supported by virtually no other countries. (The last time it came to a vote in the U.N. General Assembly, only Israel and the Pacific island of Palau sided with the United States.) Of course, the news at this point is not that a Cuba Lobby exists, but that it astonishingly lives on — even during the presidency of Obama, who publicly vowed to pursue a new approach to Cuba, but whose policy has been stymied thus far. Like the China Lobby, the Cuba Lobby isn’t one organization but a loose-knit conglomerate of exiles, sympathetic members of Congress and nongovernmental organizations, some of which comprise a self-interested industry nourished by the flow of “democracy promotion” money from the U.S. Agency for International Development. And like its Sino-obsessed predecessor, the Cuba Lobby was launched at the instigation of conservative Republicans in government who needed outside backers to advance their partisan policy aims. In the 1950s, they were Republican members of Congress battling New Dealers in the Truman administration over Asia policy. In the 1980s, they were officials in Ronald Reagan’s administration battling congressional Democrats over Central America policy. At the Cuba Lobby’s request, Reagan created Radio Martí, modeled on Radio Free Europe, to broadcast propaganda to Cuba. He named Jorge Mas Canosa, founder of the Cuban American National Foundation, to lead the radio’s oversight board. President George H.W. Bush followed with TV Martí. Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., and Rep. Dan Burton, R-Ind., authored the 1996 Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, writing the economic embargo into law so no president could change it without congressional approval. Founded at the suggestion of Richard Allen, Reagan’s first national security adviser, CANF was the linchpin of the Cuba Lobby until Mas Canosa’s death in 1997. “No individual had more influence over United States policies toward Cuba over the past two decades than Jorge Mas Canosa,” The New York Times editorialized. In Washington, CANF built its reputation by spreading campaign contributions to bolster friends and punish enemies. In 1988, CANF money helped Connecticut’s Joe Lieberman defeat incumbent Sen. Lowell Weicker, whom Lieberman accused of being soft on Castro because he visited Cuba and advocated better relations. Weicker’s defeat sent a chilling message to other members of Congress: challenge the Cuba Lobby at your peril. In 1992, according to Peter Stone’s reporting in National Journal, New Jersey Democrat Sen. Robert Torricelli, seduced by the Cuba Lobby’s political money, reversed his position on Havana and wrote the Cuban Democracy Act, tightening the embargo. Today, the political action arm of the Cuba Lobby is the U.S.-Cuba Democracy PAC, which hands out more campaign dollars than CANF’s political action arm did even at its height — more than $3 million since 1996. In Miami, conservative Cuban-Americans long have presumed to be the sole authentic voice of the community, silencing dissent by threats and, occasionally, violence. In the 1970s, anti-Castro terrorist groups such as Omega 7 and Alpha 66 set off dozens of bombs in Miami and assassinated two Cuban-Americans who advocated dialogue with Castro. Reports by Human Rights Watch in the 1990s documented the climate of fear in Miami and the role that elements of the Cuba Lobby, including CANF, played in creating it. Like the China Lobby, the Cuba Lobby has struck fear into the heart of the foreign-policy bureaucracy. The congressional wing of the Cuba Lobby, in concert with its friends in the executive branch, routinely punishes career civil servants who don’t toe the line. One of the Cuba Lobby’s early targets was John “Jay” Taylor, chief of the U.S. Interests Section in Havana, who was given an unsatisfactory annual evaluation report in 1988 by Republican stalwart Elliott Abrams, then assistant secretary of state for inter-American affairs, because Taylor reported from Havana that the Cubans were serious about wanting to negotiate peace in southern Africa and Central America. In 1993, the Cuba Lobby opposed the appointment of President Bill Clinton’s first choice to be assistant secretary of state for inter-American affairs, Mario Baeza, because he once had visited Cuba. Clinton dumped Baeza. Two years later, Clinton caved in to the lobby’s demand that he fire National Security Council official Morton Halperin, who was the architect of the successful 1995 migration accord with Cuba that created a safe, legal route for Cubans to emigrate to the United States. One chief of the U.S. diplomatic mission in Cuba told me he stopped sending sensitive cables to the State Department altogether because they so often leaked to Cuba Lobby supporters in Congress. Instead, the diplomat flew to Miami so he could report to the department by telephone. During George W. Bush’s administration, the Cuba Lobby completely captured the State Department’s Latin America bureau (renamed the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs). Bush’s first assistant secretary was Otto Reich, a Cuban-American veteran of the Reagan administration and favorite of Miami hard-liners. Reich had run Reagan’s “public diplomacy” operation demonizing opponents of the president’s Central America policy as communist sympathizers. In 2002, Bush’s undersecretary for arms control and international security, John Bolton, made the dubious charge that Cuba was developing biological weapons. When the national intelligence officer for Latin America, Fulton Armstrong, (along with other intelligence community analysts) objected to this mischaracterization of the community’s assessment, Bolton and Reich tried repeatedly to have him fired. When Obama was elected president, promising a “new beginning” in relations with Havana, the Cuba Lobby relied on its congressional wing to stop him. Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., the senior Cuban-American Democrat in Congress and now chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, vehemently opposes any opening to Cuba. In March 2009, he signaled his willingness to defy both his president and his party to get his way. Menendez voted with Republicans to block passage of a $410 billion omnibus appropriations bill, needed to keep the government running, because it relaxed the requirement that Cuba pay in advance for food purchases from U.S. suppliers and eased restrictions on travel to the island. To get Menendez to relent, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner had to promise in writing that the administration would consult Menendez on any change in U.S. policy toward Cuba.

Reforming Cuba policy will be a fight

Think Progress 4-9

[“How the GOP Response to Beyoncé’s Cuba Trip Highlights Broken Policy”, April 9th, 2013, http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/04/09/1838661/rubio-beyonce-cuba/]

Experts at CAP and the Cato Institute alike agree that the policy has been an abject failure at achieving the goals the United States set out. On taking office, President Obama sought to roll-back some of the harsher restrictions the previous administration placed on Cuba, including removing a ban on remittances from Cubans in the U.S. to their families back home and reducing travel restrictions on Americans with immediate family in Cuba. Every step towards reforming Cuba policy, however, has been met with kicking and screaming, mostly from the GOP with some Democrats joining in. While the human rights violations the Cuban regime continues to perpetrate are most certainly a concern, campaign funding may play a strong role in the perpetuation of U.S. policies. A 2009 report from Public Campaign highlighted the nearly $11 million the U.S.-Cuba Democracy Political Action Committee, along with a “network of hard-line Cuban American donors,” spent on political campaigns since 2004. In the report, those candidates who received funding displayed a shift in voting patterns on Cuba policy in the aftermath of the gift

The plan’s perceived as a concession to Cuba – congress prefers the hardline

NY Times 10

[“U.S. Said to Plan Easing Rules for Travel to Cuba”, August 16th, 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/world/americas/17cuba.html?_r=3&hp&]

The Obama administration is planning to expand opportunities for Americans to travel to Cuba, the latest step aimed at encouraging more contact between people in both countries, while leaving intact the decades-old embargo against the island’s Communist government, according to Congressional and administration officials. The officials, who asked not to be identified because they had not been authorized to discuss the policy before it was announced, said it was meant to loosen restrictions on academic, religious and cultural groups that were adopted under President George W. Bush, and return to the “people to people” policies followed under President Bill Clinton. Those policies, officials said, fostered robust exchanges between the United States and Cuba, allowing groups — including universities, sports teams, museums and chambers of commerce — to share expertise as well as life experiences. Policy analysts said the intended changes would mark a significant shift in Cuba policy. In early 2009, President Obama lifted restrictions on travel and remittances only for Americans with relatives on the island. Congressional aides cautioned that some administration officials still saw the proposals as too politically volatile to announce until after the coming midterm elections, and they said revisions could still be made. But others said the policy, which does not need legislative approval, would be announced before Congress returned from its break in mid-September, partly to avoid a political backlash from outspoken groups within the Cuban American lobby — backed by Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey — that oppose any softening in Washington’s position toward Havana. Those favoring the change said that with a growing number of polls showing that Cuban-Americans’ attitudes toward Cuba had softened as well, the administration did not expect much of a backlash. “They have made the calculation that if you put a smarter Cuba policy on the table, it will not harm us in the election cycle,” said one Democratic Congressional aide who has been working with the administration on the policy. “That, I think, is what animates this.” Mr. Menendez, in a statement, objected to the anticipated changes. “This is not the time to ease pressure on the Castro regime,” he said, referring to President Raúl Castro of Cuba, who took office in 2006 after his brother, Fidel, fell ill. Mr. Menendez added that promoting travel would give Havana a “much needed infusion of dollars that will only allow the Castro brothers to extend their reign of oppression.”

Cuba Trade 1NC

Increasing trade with Cuba’s a fight

NYT 12

[The New York Times. “Easing of Restraints in Cuba Renews Debate on U.S. Embargo”, November 19th, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/20/world/americas/changes-in-cuba-create-support-for-easing-embargo.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0]¶

And Cuba has a long history of tossing ice on warming relations. The latest example is the jailing of Alan Gross, a State Department contractor who has spent nearly three years behind bars for distributing satellite telephone equipment to Jewish groups in Havana. In Washington, Mr. Gross is seen as the main impediment to an easing of the embargo, but there are also limits to what the president could do without Congressional action. The 1992 Cuban Democracy Act conditioned the waiving of sanctions on the introduction of democratic changes inside Cuba. The 1996 Helms-Burton Act also requires that the embargo remain until Cuba has a transitional or democratically elected government. Obama administration officials say they have not given up, and could move if the president decides to act on his own. Officials say that under the Treasury Department’s licensing and regulation-writing authority, there is room for significant modification. Following the legal logic of Mr. Obama’s changes in 2009, further expansions in travel are possible along with new allowances for investment or imports and exports, especially if narrowly applied to Cuban businesses. Even these adjustments — which could also include travel for all Americans and looser rules for ships engaged in trade with Cuba, according to a legal analysis commissioned by the Cuba Study Group — would probably mean a fierce political fight. The handful of Cuban-Americans in Congress for whom the embargo is sacred oppose looser rules. When asked about Cuban entrepreneurs who are seeking more American support, Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the Florida Republican who is chairwoman of the House Foreign Relations Committee, proposed an even tighter embargo. “The sanctions on the regime must remain in place and, in fact, should be strengthened, and not be altered,” she wrote in an e-mail. “Responsible nations must not buy into the facade the dictatorship is trying to create by announcing ‘reforms’ while, in reality, it’s tightening its grip on its people.”

Ext. Cuba Trade

Plan guarantees congressional backlash

Hanson and lee ‘13

(Stephanie, associate director and coordinating editor at CFR.org, Brianna, Senior Production Editor, 01/31, “U.S.-Cuba Relations,” http://www.cfr.org/cuba/us-cuba-relations/p11113)

Many recent policy reports have recommended that the United States take some unilateral steps to roll back sanctions on Cuba. The removal of sanctions, however, would be just one step in the process of normalizing relations. Such a process is sure to be controversial, as indicated by the heated congressional debate spurred in March 2009 by attempts to ease travel and trade restrictions in a large appropriations bill. "Whatever we call it--normalization, détente, rapproachement--it is clear that the policy process risks falling victim to the politics of the issue," says Sweig.

More evidence – tremendous support for the embargo – anything that contradicts it gets roasted

US-Cuba Politics 5-14

[“United States Cuba Relations – Why U.S. Cuba Policy Does Not Change: Asymmetrical Absurdity”, May 14th, 2013, http://www.uscubapolitics.com/2013/05/united-states-cuba-relations-why-us.html]

Over the last decade we have seen many attempts to change U.S. Cuba policy beginning with lifting the travel ban. All have failed. Most recently, we have seen the efforts to remove Cuba from the Terror List, a designation that Cuba does not deserve and only serves to keep costs higher between the two countries, also fail. Conversely, we have seen the hand of the pro-embargo hardliners grow bigger and stronger. Legislation to expand Cuba travel is consistently blocked or thwarted in Congress. Funding for clandestine “Democracy” programs like the ones that got Alan Gross into a Cuban prison, still continue to be funded. The pro-embargo voting bloc raises money and elected six Members of Congress to be their vanguards on the floors of Congress. Their capacity to even reach into the White House, the Executive Branch, and establish themselves in gateway leadership positions in the Congress all speak to a well concerted political effort. Government officials and policy makers have to tow the hard line through the veiled and actual threats of holding up Presidential appointments or congressional funding. Intelligence and reason have taken a back slide to raw political power. Meet the consequences of distorted politics.

AT//GOP Likes the Plan

The ones that matter hate it

The Hill ‘12

[“Cuban-American senators hit brick wall with Obama administration on Cuba policy”, June 7th, 2012, http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/americas/231487-cuban-american-senators-hit-a-brick-wall-with-obama-administration-on-cuba-policy]

The Senate's two Cuban-Americans spent Thursday morning talking past the Obama administration's top official for the Americas on the issue of U.S. policy toward Cuba. Sens. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) were the only two senators who showed up for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee subpanel hearing on freedom in Cuba. They called the administration's relaxing of travel restrictions to Cuba “naive” and bashed the State Department's decision to grant visas to high-profile Cuban officials, including President Raul Castro's daughter Mariela. “The Cuban people are no less deserving of America's support than the millions who were imprisoned and forgotten in Soviet gulags,” Menendez said. “I am compelled to ask again today — as I have before — why is there such an obvious double standard when it comes to Cuba?” Rubio said Castro government officials are master manipulators of U.S. policy and public opinion. The two senators favor a hard-line stance against Cuba until regime change takes place. Critics of that policy argue that more than 50 years of U.S. sanctions have only enabled Castro brothers Fidel and Raul to consolidate their power while impoverishing the Cuban people.

They don’t

Griswold ‘5

[director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute (Daniel, 10/12, “Four Decades of Failure: The U.S. Embargo against Cuba,” http://www.cato.org/publications/speeches/four-decades-failure-us-embargo-against-cuba]

For all those reasons, pressure has been building in Congress for a new policy toward Cuba. In the past five years, the House and occasionally the Senate have voted to lift the travel ban to Cuba, and also to lift the cap on remittances and even to lift the embargo altogether. Yet each time efforts in Congress to ease the embargo have been thwarted by the administration and the Republican leadership. Support for the embargo certainly does not come from the general American public, but from a group of Cuban-American activists concentrated in southern Florida. By a fluke of the electoral college, Republican presidents feel obligated to please this small special interest at the expense of our broader national interest.