Cuba Science Cooperation Negative - Gonzaga 2013

Science Diplomacy

Science Diplomacy fails

No Solvency- Generic Scientific Diplomacy fails – Multiple warrants. Dickson, science journalist, 6/28/10 [David. Director of SciDev.net. “Science in diplomacy: “On tap but not on top”.” June 28, 2010. http://scidevnet.wor...onference-2010/. JCook.] There’s a general consensus in both the scientific and political worlds that the principle of science diplomacy, at least in the somewhat restricted sense of the need to get more and better science into international negotiations, is a desirable objective. There is less agreement, however, on how far the concept can – or indeed should – be extended to embrace broader goals and objectives, in particular attempts to use science to achieve political or diplomatic goals at the international level. Science, despite its international characteristics, is no substitute for effective diplomacy. Any more than diplomatic initiatives necessarily lead to good science. These seem to have been the broad conclusions to emerge from a three-day meeting at Wilton Park in Sussex, UK, organised by the British Foreign Office and the Royal Society, and attended by scientists, government officials and politicians from 17 countries around the world. The definition of science diplomacy varied widely among participants. Some saw it as a subcategory of “public diplomacy”, or what US diplomats have recently been promoting as “soft power” (“the carrot rather than the stick approach”, as a participant described it). Others preferred to see it as a core element of the broader concept of “innovation diplomacy”, covering the politics of engagement in the familiar fields of international scientific exchange and technology transfer, but raising these to a higher level as a diplomatic objective. Whatever definition is used, three particular aspects of the debate became the focus of attention during the Wilton Park meeting: how science can inform the diplomatic process; how diplomacy can assist science in achieving its objectives; and, finally, how science can provide a channel for quasi-diplomatic exchanges by forming an apparently neutral bridge between countries. There was little disagreement on the first of these. Indeed for many, given the increasing number of international issues with a scientific dimension that politicians have to deal with, this is essentially what the core of science diplomacy should be about. Chris Whitty, for example, chief scientist at the UK’s Department for International Development, described how knowledge about the threat raised by the spread of the highly damaging plant disease stem rust had been an important input by researchers into discussions by politicians and diplomats over strategies for persuading Afghan farmers to shift from the production of opium to wheat. Others pointed out that the scientific community had played a major role in drawing attention to issues such as the links between chlorofluorocarbons in the atmosphere and the growth of the ozone hole, or between carbon dioxide emissions and climate change. Each has made essential contributions to policy decisions. Acknowledging this role for science has some important implications. No-one dissented when Rohinton Medhora, from Canada’s International Development Research Centre, complained of the lack of adequate scientific expertise in the embassies of many countries of the developed and developing world alike. Nor – perhaps predictably – was there any major disagreement that diplomatic initiatives can both help and occasionally hinder the process of science. On the positive side, such diplomacy can play a significant role in facilitating science exchange and the launch of international science projects, both essential for the development of modern science. Europe’s framework programme of research programmes was quoted as a successful advantage of the first of these. Examples of the second range from the establishment of the European Organisation of Nuclear Research (usually known as CERN) in Switzerland after the Second World War, to current efforts to build a large new nuclear fusion facility (ITER). Less positively, increasing restrictions on entry to certain countries, and in particular the United States after the 9/11 attacks in New York and elsewhere, have significantly impeded scientific exchange programmes. Here the challenge for diplomats was seen as helping to find ways to ease the burdens of such restrictions. The broadest gaps in understanding the potential of scientific diplomacy lay in the third category, namely the use of science as a channel of international diplomacy, either as a way of helping to forge consensus on contentious issues, or as a catalyst for peace in situations of conflict. On the first of these, some pointed to recent climate change negotiations, and in particular the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as a good example, of the way that the scientific community can provide a strong rationale for joint international action. But others referred to the failure of the Copenhagen climate summit last December to come up with a meaningful agreement on action as a demonstration of the limitations of this way of thinking. It was argued that this failure had been partly due to a misplaced belief that scientific consensus would be sufficient to generate a commitment to collective action, without taking into account the political impact that scientific ideas would have. Another example that received considerable attention was the current construction of a synchrotron facility SESAMEin Jordan, a project that is already is bringing together researchers in a range of scientific disciplines from various countries in the Middle East (including Israel, Egypt and Palestine, as well as both Greece and Turkey). The promoters of SESAME hope that – as with the building of CERN 60 years ago, and its operation as a research centre involving, for example, physicists from both Russia and the United States – SESAME will become a symbol of what regional collaboration can achieve. In that sense, it would become what one participant described as a “beacon of hope” for the region. But others cautioned that, however successful SESAME may turn out to be in purely scientific terms, its potential impact on the

Middle East peace process should not be exaggerated. Political conflicts have deep roots that cannot easily be papered over, however open-minded scientists may be to professional colleagues coming from other political contexts. Indeed, there was

even a warning that in the developing world, high profile scientific projects, particular those with explicit political backing, could end up doing damage by inadvertently favouring one social group over another. Scientists should be wary of having their prestige used in this way; those who did so could come over as patronising, appearing unaware of political realities. Similarly, those who hold science in esteem as a practice committed to promoting the causes of peace and development were reminded of the need to take into account how advances in science – whether nuclear physics or genetic technology – have also led to new types of weaponry. Nor did science automatically lead to the reduction of global inequalities. “Science for diplomacy” therefore ended up with a highly mixed review. The consensus seemed to be that science can prepare the ground for diplomatic initiatives – and benefit from diplomatic agreements – but cannot provide the solutions to either. “On tap but not on top” seems as relevant in international settings as it does in purely national ones. With all the caution that even this formulation still requires. Science diplomacy fails—Copenhagen talks proves Morton 09-Writer for The Age, news site (Adam, “Copenhagen chaos as talks fail”, The Age 2009, http://www.theage.com.au/environment/copenhagen-chaos-as-talks-fail-20091219-l6r5.html, MB) THE Copenhagen climate change conference last night ended in chaos after a handful of developing nations rejected a last-minute accord stitched up in a backroom between the world's biggest emitters and announced unilaterally by US President Barack Obama.¶ Two years of negotiations on a new worldwide climate treaty effectively dissolved on the United Nations conference room floor as Tuvalu and several Latin American countries opposed Mr Obama's proposed compromise Copenhagen Accord brokered with the leaders of China, India, Brazil and South Africa.¶ An exhausted Mr

Obama called the accord - in which all major economies for the first time accepted responsibility for lowering emissions, but are not legally bound to do so - "an unprecedented breakthrough". But he acknowledged that it still fell short of what was required to combat global warming.¶ After countless hours of highly emotion negotiations, it was finally decided that the UN would ''take note'' of the accord but not adopt it - effectively just acknowledging its existence.¶ The outcome pushes back work on a worldwide climate agreement by at least six months and raises doubts about the long-term viability of the limited Kyoto Protocol, if a binding treaty for non-developing countries is not signed next year.¶ Environmentalists warned that any delay would make it even less likely that global emissions would peak by 2015, the date after which, the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change has warned, the world is likely to pass the danger threshold of two degrees warming.¶ It was

blocked by six countries - Sudan, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Cuba and Tuvalu - who accused the US of trying to dictate to the developing world and who dismissed the plan as too weak to prevent serious climate change.

Science diplomacy focuses on national interest—impedes effective cooperation with international partners Dickson 09- Director of ScieDev.net (David, “Science diplomacy: the case for caution”, SciDev.net 2009, http://scidevnet.wordpress.com/2009/06/02/science-diplomacy-the-case-for-caution/, MB) There has been much lively discussion on the value of international collaboration in achieving scientific goals, on the need for researchers to work together on the scientific aspects of global challenges such as climate change and food security, and on the importance of science capacity building in developing countries in order to make this possible.¶ But there

remained little evidence at the end of the meeting on how useful it was to lump all these activities together under the umbrella term of “science diplomacy”.¶ More significantly, although numerous claims were made during the conference about the broader social and political value of scientific collaboration – for example, in establishing a framework for collaboration in other areas, and in particular reducing tensions between rival countries – little was produced to demonstrate whether this hypothesis is true.¶ If it is not, then some of the arguments

made on behalf of “science diplomacy”, and in particular its value as a mechanism for exercising “soft power” in foreign policy, do not stand up to close scrutiny.¶ Secondly, “science diplomacy” will only become recognised as a useful activity if it is closely defined to cover specific situations (such as the negotiation of major international scientific projects or collaborative research enterprises). As

an umbrella term embracing the many ways in which science interacts with foreign policy, it loses much of its impact, and thus its value.¶ Finally, when it comes to promoting the use of science in developing

countries, a terminology based historically on maximising self-interest – the ultimate goal of the diplomat

– and on practices through which the rich have almost invariably ended up exploiting the poor,

is likely to be

counterproductive. ¶ In other words, the discussion seemed to confirm that “science diplomacy” has a legitimate place in the formulation and implementation of policies for science (just as there is a time and place for exercising “soft power” in international relations).¶ But the dangers of going beyond this – including the

danger of distorting the integrity of science itself, and even alienating potential partners in collaborative projects, particularly in the developing world – were also clearly exposed. Scientists lack unity, and are ineffective at engaging governments, means no solvency National Research Council 12 The National Research Council (NRC) is the working arm of the United States National Academies, which produces reports that shape policies, inform public opinion, and advance the pursuit of science, engineering, and medicine. (“U.S. and International Perspectives on Global Science Policy and Science” *pgs.33-34]—2012 http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13300&page=33 KW) Many workshop participants underlined the failure of scientists to effectively engage policy makers and the public in the understanding the role of science and its potential value in diplomacy and in development. According to Volker ter Meulen, the main challenges are the lack of a unified voice to speak on behalf of science and the lack of experience within the political institutions to use science and effectively communicate with the science community. This challenge is often compounded by the multiplicity of other voices in a crowded world. In a very complicated diplomatic system, involving NGOs, intergovernmental organizations, media, and new communication modes and networks, the scientific community must learn how to inform and engage more effectively with all these groups and governments. Furthermore, several participants underscored the importance or recognizing that many of the major policy challenges require science in diplomacy across a broad front. For example, tackling the Millennium Development Goals requires understanding and action on food, health, and the environment, which involves multiple government departments and requires a coherent and integrated policy. Unfortunately, noted one discussant, there are often organizational barriers within and between governments, in addition to the low public understanding and support for such policies. Lack of cohesion, human capital, and infrastructure prevent effective science diplomacy National Research Council 12 The National Research Council (NRC) is the working arm of the United States National Academies, which produces reports that shape policies, inform public opinion, and advance the pursuit of science, engineering, and medicine. (“U.S. and International Perspectives on Global Science Policy and Science” *pgs.33-34]—2012 http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13300&page=33 KW) A serious lack of human capital, coherent national science and technology strategies, and research infrastructures in potentially partnering countries was identified by some workshop participants as an important barrier to more effective international engagement. Gebisa Ejeta and others stated that weak human capacity, in part owing to brain drain, and the lack of adequate research infrastructure in developing countries has too often derailed promising science-based developments or worse, prevented their successful exploitation. Ejeta also underlined the differences in goals and aspirations between institutions in the United States and those in developing countries that often create an awkward dialogue about the objectives of collaborative partnerships. Most of the advanced research institutions in the developed world aim at creating a global public good; in contrast, research centers in most developing countries focus on the development of locally needed products and services. Nevertheless, he believed that the two goals are mutually supportive, and if the parties communicate

and work together, a win-win scenario often can be reached. He also noted an overreliance in developing countries on external funding to capitalize on science diplomacy and global science cooperation opportunities, which is, of course, largely because of insufficient local resource commitment to science. There is a shortage of functional research centers and science support architecture such as science and technology commissions merit-based funding mechanism, or science academics in the developing world. Several participants identified building such structures as an important goal of science diplomacy.

No Solvency - Private Sector Key Lack of engagement with the private sector guts solvency National Research Council 12 The National Research Council (NRC) is the working arm of the United States National Academies, which produces reports that shape policies, inform public opinion, and advance the pursuit of science, engineering, and medicine. (“U.S. and International Perspectives on Global Science Policy and Science” *pgs. 32+—2012 http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13300&page=33 KW) Workshop presentations and discussions on barriers to progress and best practices for advancing science in the global context and for science diplomacy were very similar. Participants suggested several barriers to progress that are also encountered in science diplomacy. The U.S. government has been actively undertaking science diplomacy efforts in the last few years. Some participants stated that these efforts are most important when there are difficult governmental relationships, which can lead to sensitivity as to the motivation behind these efforts. They noted that the limitations on U.S. use of science in diplomacy are often long-standing policies and laws that were motivated originally and primarily by a concern for control of technology, whereas now what seems most needed is engagement and the embrace of competition. This is particularly salient in unnecessarily cumbersome mobility controls, that is, visas and travel restrictions. Foreign professionals were described as often being of two minds: They value collaborating with U.S. counterparts, yet many are also apprehensive about attending conferences within the United States because of visa uncertainties and difficulties, and security controls. Science envoy Gebisa Ejeta noted that implementation

of controls in the United States since September 11, 2001 has been very discouraging and has stifled its global engagement capacities. Several workshop participants also noted that U.S. policies ought to recognize that effective competition raises the bar for everyone and serves as a major source

As Eric Bone of the U.S. Department of State observed, partnerships with the private sector are essential, and science diplomacy should not be restricted to a government-to-government exercise. Unfortunately, of future opportunities. Many participants emphasized the importance of the private sector in global science and technology engagement.

capacity for this type of partnership is weak in the developing world, noted Gebisa Ejeta. A related impediment, he said, is that existing policy and regulatory frameworks have been perceived by some as biased towards the developed world. This is particularly relevant to intellectual property rights, such as the ones generated by the 1985 Utility Patent Act for biological agents and products. This act encouraged the heavy infusion of financial resources to to private-sector research in the field of molecular biology. It also resulted inadvertently in a significant reduction in public research spending in both developed and developing countries. These new investments in the private sector triggered a rush of patenting, in some cases fueling misunderstandings among poor and rich nations. Ejeta added that the public-private partnerships in the developed world also need to be revisited. For example, increases of private investments in agricultural biotechnology are associated generally with decreased public spending, thus creating an unhealthy imbalance.

No Solvency- Government Bureaucracy Government bureaucracy and short-termism inhibits scientific effectiveness National Research Council 12 The National Research Council (NRC) is the working arm of the United States National Academies, which produces reports that shape policies, inform public opinion, and advance the pursuit of science, engineering, and medicine. (“U.S. and International Perspectives on Global Science Policy and Science” *pgs. 33-34]—2012 http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13300&page=33 KW) Despite the many efforts put forward by the U.S. government, the discussion identified difficulties for foreign organizations in engaging U.S. governmental science agencies. Discussion leader Michael Clegg pointed to the diversity and the structural complexity of the U.S. science agencies and the lack of mechanism for coordinating and integrating diplomatic activities undertaken by the government, businesses, and NGOs. Existing bureaucratic diversity and inflexibility , he said, often makes communication with U.S. agencies difficult and inhibits science diplomacy endeavors . Eric Bone also noted the disconnect between the form that science diplomacy is taking today and the current organizational structure. Volker ter Meulen, of University of Wurzburg and former president of the German Academy of Sciences Leopoldina, underlined the common inflexibility in decision-making processes and described a political culture of “short-termism” among policy makers, where science is expected to provide easy answers quickly and contribute on short notice to single issues. Instead, he suggested building longer-term relationships between scientific and political communities based on trust and mutual confidence. He also noted the importance of creating and maintaining flexibility in political decision making and of being “prepared for the unexpected” to be able to deal with future developments and a changing evidence base.

The US breaks science diplomacy promises, undermines all solvency National Research Council 12 The National Research Council (NRC) is the working arm of the United States National Academies, which produces reports that shape policies, inform public opinion, and advance the pursuit of science, engineering, and medicine. (“U.S. and International Perspectives on Global Science Policy and Science” *pg.35+—2012 http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13300&page=33 KW) Some workshop participants felt that another challenge to effective science diplomacy is the failure of governments to implement commitments made in bilateral, summit, and other meetings, thus undermining the credibility of the science diplomacy process. As observed by Michael Clegg, the United States and other advanced nations make commitments that they do not always honor. For example, unmet expectations of U.S. agency participation in joint project of the U.S.-Mexico Foundation for Science, created by good intentions, have led to an awkward situation between the two partners. Larry Weber of NSF noted a similar situation after the U.S government put forward a broad Middle Eastern agenda, fueling large expectations in the Arab and Muslim worlds. Considerable efforts and progress have been made, yet financial support was insufficient to meet high expectations created by publicly announced agendas. There may be too much of a tendency to assume that new initiatives are needed, noted Gebisa Ejeta. In many cases there are already existing programs and agencies for international cooperation that have important goals and have built capabilities but do not have enough resources , and it may be effective to provide the programs already in place with needed resources.

Science diplomacy is limited by political policy Dickson 9-Director of ScieDev.net (David, “The limits of science diplomacy”, ScieDev.net 2009, http://www.scidev.net/global/capacity-building/editorial-blog/the-limits-of-science-diplomacy.html, MB) Perhaps the most contentious area discussed at the meeting was how science diplomacy can frame developed countries' efforts to help build scientific capacity in the developing world.¶ ¶ There is little to quarrel with in collaborative efforts that are put forward with a genuine desire for partnership. Indeed, partnership — whether between individuals, institutions or countries — is the new buzzword in the "science for development" community.¶ ¶ But true partnership requires transparent relations between partners who are prepared to meet as equals. And that goes against diplomats' implicit role: to promote and defend their own countries' interests.¶ ¶ John Beddington, the British government's chief scientific adviser, may have been a bit harsh when he told the meeting that a diplomat is someone who is "sent abroad to lie for his country". But he touched a raw nerve.¶ ¶ The truth is that science and politics make an uneasy alliance. Both need the other. Politicians need science to achieve their goals, whether social, economic or — unfortunately — military; scientists need political support to fund their research.¶ ¶ But they also occupy different universes. Politics is, at root, about exercising power by one means or another. Science is — or should be — about pursuing robust knowledge that can be put to useful purposes.¶ ¶ A strategy for promoting science diplomacy that respects these differences deserves support. Particularly so if it focuses on ways to leverage political and financial backing for science's more humanitarian goals, such as tackling climate change or reducing world poverty.¶ ¶ But a commitment to science diplomacy that ignores the differences — acting for example as if science can substitute politics (or perhaps more worryingly, vice versa), is dangerous. ¶ ¶ The Obama administration's commitment to "soft power" is already faltering. It faces challenges ranging from North Korea's nuclear weapons test to domestic opposition to limits on oil consumption. A taste of reality may be no bad thing. ¶

No Solvency- All Hype The role of science diplomacy in US policy is overstated Copeland 11-a Research Associate at CIPS and a former Canadian Diplomat (Daryl, “Science Diplomacy: What’s It All ¶ About?”, Center for International Policy Studies 2011, http://cips.uottawa.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Copeland-Policy-Brief-Nov-11-5.pdf, MB) However, there exists an even more fundamental ¶ difficulty: S&T issues are largely alien to, and ¶ almost invisible within , most international policy ¶ (IP) institutions. S&T and IP are effectively two ¶ solitudes, existing in separate floating worlds that ¶ rarely intersect. When diplomats or politicians ¶ talk about IP, you rarely hear anything about S&T. ¶ Similarly, when scientists get together to discuss ¶ their work, it is rarely in the context of diplomacy or ¶ international policy. Indeed, scientists, besides being ¶ notoriously poor communicators, tend to cherish their ¶ independence from politics and government. The skill ¶ sets, activity time frames and orientations of the ¶ two groups differ markedly. It must be asked: How ¶ many diplomats are scientists? How many scientists ¶ are diplomats? How often do scientists and diplomats ¶ mix? Foreign ministries, development agencies, and ¶ indeed most multilateral organizations are without ¶ the scientific expertise, technological savvy, cultural ¶ pre-disposition or R&D network access and crosscutting linkages required to understand and manage ¶ S&T issues effectively. ¶ Add up all of this, and a rather disturbing picture ¶ emerges. It is something akin to a “triple whammy”. ¶ In mainstream popular culture, (a) diplomacy

is seen¶ as irrelevant and ineffective; (b) international policy ¶ is viewed as

esoteric and exotic; and (c) science is ¶ perceived as complex and impenetrable. Raise any ¶ one of these subjects on its own and most people’s ¶ eyes glaze over. Put all three together, and you have a ¶ combination capable of stopping just about any dinner ¶ party conversation in its tracks.

The failure of the Cancun climate talks proves the achievements of science diplomacy are greatly exaggerated Bailey 10-science correspondent for The Reason (Ronald, “Cancun Climate Change Breakthrough Greatly Exaggerated”, The Reason 12/4/10, http://reason.com/archives/2010/12/14/cancun-climatechange-breakthr, MB) The United Nations climate change conference in Cancun is being hailed by many news outlets and environmental activists as a “breakthrough.” For example, the liberal magazine, Mother Jones headlined it as “Cancun Climate Breakthrough;” Canada’s Globe and Mail declared, “Global accord on climate change hailed as breakthrough;” and National Journal asserted, “Breakthrough Made in U.N. Climate Talks.” Breakthrough is generally taken to mean an activity that is characterized by major progress in overcoming some obstacle. Are

the Cancun Agreements really a breakthrough when it comes to addressing the issue of man-made global warming? Not so much.¶ Let’s start with the future of the Kyoto Protocol *PDF+. Under the Kyoto Protocol rich countries agreed in 1997 to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases, chiefly carbon dioxide, by an average of 5 percent below their 1990 levels by 2012. The United States never ratified the treaty. At the Cancun conference, the developing countries insisted that rich countries agree to continue and increase their commitments to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions past the 2012 end of the Kyoto Protocol. Poor countries actually wanted the rich countries to commit to more than Kyoto—they lobbied for cuts of 25 to 40 percent below their 1990 emissions levels. They didn’t get that commitment.¶ In fact, the negotiators merely agreed that the Conference of the Parties “shall aim to complete its work” [PDF] on extending the Kyoto Protocol with the goal of having “its results adopted by the Conference of the Parties...as early as possible and in time to ensure that there is no gap between the first and second commitment periods.” The operative phrase is “shall aim.” It is clear that the rich countries did not agree to continue the Kyoto Protocol; they agreed to continue talking about continuing the Kyoto Protocol. It is also worth noting that both Russia and Japan flatly stated that they were dropping out of the Kyoto Protocol after 2012.¶ What about legally binding emissions reductions commitments by the rich countries? As the Copenhagen climate change conference came to its chaotic end last year, the U.S., China, India, South Africa, and Brazil hastily put together the face-saving Copenhagen Accord. Under the Accord both rich and poor countries could make voluntary pledges to cut their greenhouse gas emissions and engage in other activities with the aim of mitigating future man-made climate change. The Accord had no official status under the United Nations climate negotiation process. The Cancun Agreements now take note of the emissions reduction targets promised under the

Copenhagen Accord, but the crucial point is that the pledges remain voluntary, they are not legally binding.¶ The spin coming out of Cancun is that these pledges now have official status under the U.N. negotiations process, so that they can form the basis for future legally binding commitments. In

plain fact, developed and developing countries not are legally bound to do anything about their emissions under the Cancun Agreements.

No Solvency- Term “Science Diplomacy” Using the phrase “science diplomacy” undermines soft power by making countries question political motives National Research Council 12 The National Research Council (NRC) is the working arm of the United States National Academies, which produces reports that shape policies, inform public opinion, and advance the pursuit of science, engineering, and medicine. (“U.S. and International Perspectives on Global Science Policy and Science” *pg.26+—2012 http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13300&page=33 KW) Youssef noted that one of the international science community’s main objectives, trust building, is not compatible with the idea of soft power. According to her, even though science diplomacy promises to rise above conflict, the term raises serious ideological questions and practical challenges. Such challenges are apparent in the Middle East, where U.S. policies evoke doubts about true intentions. John Boright, executive director for international affairs for the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS), cautioned against implying that potentially divisive national agendas are being pursued when using the term “science diplomacy,” in cases where the motivation is simply advancing science, addressing common problems, and building personal relationships. Scientific cooperation and exchanges between the United States and Iran were cited as an example of cases in which the label science diplomacy could affect scientific counterparts negatively.

Cuba says no Cuba doesn’t want to see normalization relations with the US AFP, 10. (“Cuba doesn’t want ties with US: Clinton.” 7/12/13. http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-newsworld/cuba-doesnt-want-ties-with-us-clinton-20100410-rz9d.html. KJ) Cuba's leadership does not want to normalise ties with Washington because they would "lose their excuses" for the country's lack of development and openness, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says.¶ Despite US efforts to "enhance cooperation", President Raul Castro and his brother Fidel "do not want to see an end to the embargo and do not want to see normalisation with the United States because they would then lose all their excuses for what hasn't happened in Cuba in the last 50 years," Clinton said.¶ "I find that very sad, because there should be an opportunity for a transition" to democracy in Cuba, the only country in the Americas run by a communist regime.¶ "The people of Cuba should have democratically elected leaders and a chance to chart their own future. But unfortunately, I don't see that happening while the Castros are still in charge," the top US diplomat said.¶ Raul Castro officially took office in 2008 after long-time leader Fidel was sidelined with serious health problems.¶ Cubans, led by Fidel, launched a popular revolution on the island in the late 1950s to oust dictator Fulgencio Batista, and the regime hardened its Marxist outlook in 1961. One year later, US president John F Kennedy declared an economic embargo on Cuba that remains largely in place to this day.¶ Clinton also pointed to what she said was a growing acknowledgment from the international community that Havana was cracking down on human rights.¶ "For the first time, a lot of countries that had done nothing but berate the United States for our failure to be more open to Cuba have now started criticising Cuba because they let people die," she said.¶ "Many in the world are now seeing what we have seen for a long time, which is a very intransigent, entrenched regime that has stifled the opportunity for the Cuban people."

Cuba Has and Will Continue to Avoid Foreign Partnerships Feinberg, Latin American Columnist, 2012 *Richard, December 2012, Brookings, “The New Cuban Economy What Roles for Foreign Investment?”, http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2012/12/cuba%20economy%20feinberg/cub a%20economy%20feinberg%209.pdf, 7-12-13, JB & ML] In the case of biotechnology, government officials voice fears that foreign partners will take advantage of Cuban firms and pirate their innovations . Rather than turn to the European and Japanese ¶ multinational pharmaceutical giants to assist in marketing Cuban innovations and pharmaceutical ¶ products, Cuba has preferred to seek state-to-state commercial deals with developing countries ¶ (notably Venezuela), and to attempt JVs abroad (notably in China), where Cuban firms are the ¶ foreign investors

Cuba will continue to be anti-Americanism Suchlicki 3/4, the Emilio Bacardi Moreau Distinguished Professor and Director, Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies at the University of Miami. He is the author of Cuba: From Columbus to Castro, Mexico: From Montezuma to NAFTA and Breve Historia de Cuba. (Jamie “Why Cuba Will Still Be AntiAmerican After Castro.” 7/12/13. http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/03/whycuba-will-still-be-anti-american-after-castro/273680/. KJ) Similarly, any serious overtures to the U.S. do not seem likely in the near future. It would mean the rejection of one of Fidel Castro's main legacies: anti-Americanism. It may create uncertainty within the government, leading to frictions and factionalism. It would require the weakening of Cuba's antiAmerican alliance with radical regimes in Latin America and elsewhere.¶ Raul is unwilling to renounce the support and close collaboration of countries like Venezuela, China, Iran and Russia in exchange for an uncertain relationship with the United States. At a time that anti-Americanism is strong in Latin America and the Middle East, Raul's policies are more likely to remain closer to regimes that are not particularly friendly to the United States and that demand little from Cuba in return for generous aid.¶ Raul does not seem ready to provide meaningful and irreversible concessions for a U.S. - Cuba normalization. Like his brother in the past, public statements and speeches are politically motivated and directed at audiences in Cuba, the United States and Europe. Serious negotiations on important issues are not carried out in speeches from the plaza. They are usually carried out through the normal diplomatic avenues open to the Cubans in Havana, Washington and the United Nations or other countries, if they wish. These avenues have never been closed as evidenced by the migration accord and the anti-hijacking agreement between the United States and Cuba.¶ Raul remains a loyal follower and cheerleader of Fidel's anti-American policies.¶ The issue between Cuba and the U.S. is not about negotiations or talking. These are not sufficient. There has to be a willingness on the part of the Cuban leadership to offer real concessions - in the area of human rights and political and economic openings as well as cooperation on anti-terrorism and drug interdiction - for the United States to change it*it’s+ policies.

Cuba considers the US as an opposition figure Haven, 12. the Associated Press bureau chief in Havana, (Paul, “Cuba Claims U.S. Diplomats Undermine Raul Castro Government.” 7/12/13. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/02/cuba-us-diplomatsraul-castro_n_2064442.html. KJ.) U.S. officials have long maintained that they are doing nothing illegal in Cuba and that supporting free speech, cultural activities and Internet access is a common practice at missions around the world.¶ "We are absolutely guilty of those charges. The U.S. Interests Section in Havana does regularly offer free courses in using the Internet to Cubans who want to sign up. We also have computers available for Cubans to use," State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland told reporters in Washington. "Obviously this wouldn't be necessary if the Cuban government didn't restrict access to the Internet and prevent its own citizens from getting technology training."¶ Cuba accused the diplomatic mission of more nefarious motives.¶ "The U.S. Interests Section in Cuba continues to serve as a general headquarters for the subversive policies of the North American government," reads the statement, which was published in state-media on Friday.¶ It added that the Section's aim was "the impossible task of converting its mercenaries into a credible internal opposition movement."¶ Cuba considers all opposition figures to be stooges paid by Washington to cause trouble.¶ The American mission has long

provided Internet to dissidents and run cultural and language programs, and it was not clear why Cuba chose now to criticize the practice. But the timing could be linked to next Tuesday's U.S. election.¶ Republican candidate Mitt Romney has launched a Spanish-language ad in the key swing state of Florida implying that President Barack Obama is supported by the Castros and leftist Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez. The Obama administration says the ad itself rewards Chavez and the Castros with undeserved attention, and notes that relations with both countries have remained chilly under Obama.¶ In its denunciation of the U.S. administration, Cuba charged that those using the diplomatic facilities are indoctrinated into the opposition and trained to work against Cuba's interests.¶ It said millions of dollars in so-called democracy-building funds went into the effort, evidence, it said, that Washington was still living in the Cold War.¶ Cuba and the United States have been at odds since shortly after Fidel Castro's 1959 revolution, which ushered in a Communist government.

Cuba will say no to cooperation with the U.S. AFP’10, (Professional association of individuals responsible for generating philanthropic support for a wide variety of nonprofit, charitable organizations. http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-newsworld/cuba-doesnt-want-ties-with-us-clinton-20100410-rz9d.html) Cuba's leadership does not want to normalise ties with Washington because they would "lose their excuses" for the country's lack of development and openness, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says. Despite US efforts to "enhance cooperation", President Raul Castro and his brother Fidel "do not want to see an end to the embargo and do not want to see normalisation with the United States because they would then lose all their excuses for what hasn't happened in Cuba in the last 50 years," Clinton said. "I find that very sad, because there should be an opportunity for a transition" to democracy in Cuba, the only country in the Americas run by a communist regime. "The people of Cuba should have democratically elected leaders and a chance to chart their own future. But unfortunately, I don't see that happening while the Castros are still in charge," the top US diplomat said. Advertisement Raul Castro officially took office in 2008 after long-time leader Fidel was sidelined with serious health problems. Cubans, led by Fidel, launched a popular revolution on the island in the late 1950s to oust dictator Fulgencio Batista, and the regime hardened its Marxist outlook in 1961. One year later, US president John F Kennedy declared an economic embargo on Cuba that remains largely in place to this day. Clinton also pointed to what she said was a growing acknowledgment from the international community that Havana was cracking down on human rights. "For the first time, a lot of countries that had done nothing but berate the United States for our failure to be more open to Cuba have now started criticising Cuba because they let people die," she said. "Many in the world are now seeing what we have seen for a long time, which is a very intransigent, entrenched regime that has stifled the opportunity for the Cuban people." A leading Cuban political prisoner, Orlando Zapata, died in hospital February 85 days into a hunger strike to protest against appalling conditions inside the country's gaols.

Cuba will say no to any economic engagement short of lifting the entire embargo – empirical evidence Lacey 8 [Marc, correspondent for the New York Times, September 6, 2008, “Cuba Rejects American Offer of Hurricane Aid,” http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/world/americas/cubaforweb.html] WD

The Cuban government turned down Washington’s offer of hurricane assistance Saturday, saying the best way for the United States to help Cuban victims of Hurricane Gustav would be for it to lift the economic embargo on the island. Cuba said it had its own experts on the job while rejecting the State Department offer to send disaster specialists to assess the damages to the western Pinar del Rio Province and the Island of Youth. On Wednesday, Thomas A. Shannon Jr., assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere Affairs, told the Cuban Interests Section in Washington that the United States would aid Cuban victims with $100,000 in immediate aid and more once the extent of the need was known. The aid, State Department officials said, would be sent through non-governmental organizations and not to the Cuban government. But Cuba said that the trade embargo costs the island yearly damages that exceed the billions of dollars in destruction that it attributes to Hurricane Gustav. Cuba has accepted hurricane assistance from Russia, Venezuela and other allies. Such aid has frequently taken on a political dimension between Cuba and the United States over the years. “The only correct and ethical action,” Cuba’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement, would be to end “the ruthless and cruel economic, commercial and financial blockage imposed against our Motherland for almost half a century.”

Cuba says no – hates the US agenda in Latin America and is economically structured against American engagement Truthout 6 [Truthout.org, 501 nonprofit progressive news organization in the United States, April 30, 2006, “Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba Reject US Trade Plan,” http://www.truthout.org/archive/item/62482:venezuela-bolivia-cuba-reject-us-trade-plan] WD Bolivia's new left-leaning president signed a pact with Cuba and Venezuela on Saturday that rejects U.S.-backed free trade and promises a socialist version of regional commerce and cooperation. With Cuba's Fidel Castro and Venezuela's Hugo Chavez seated nearby, President Evo Morales signed an updated version of the so-called Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas, adding Bolivia as a third member. "In Cuba and Venezuela we find unconditional solidarity," Morales said. "They are the best allies for changing Bolivia." The document signed included the same language of the political declaration signed last year by Castro and Chavez. That pact contained much leftist rhetoric and few specifics, but was followed by closer economic ties and boosted trade between the two vehemently anti-U.S. governments. After Bolivia was joined in the earlier agreement on Saturday, the three presidents signed a second document with more concrete proposals. Cuba promised to send Bolivia doctors to provide medical care to poor people, and teachers to conduct literacy campaigns. Venezuela will send gasoline to the Andean nation and set up a $100 million ([ 80 million) fund for development programs and a $30 million ([ 24 million) fund for other social projects. Cuba and Venezuela also agreed to buy all of Bolivia's soybeans, recently left without markets after Colombia signed a free trade pact with the United States. Dressed in his typical olive green uniform, Castro, who turns 80 in August, said sharing the spotlight with two younger, like-minded leaders "makes me the happiest man in the world." Afterward, the three presidents were greeted by tens of thousands of cheering people gathered in the broad Plaza of the Revolution to celebrate the signing. The agreement is "a clever mixture of politics and economics, weighted toward the politics," said Gary Hufbauer, an economist at the Institute for International Economics, a Washington think tank. Venezuela-Cuba trade is expected to reach more than $3.5 billion ([ 2.9 billion) this year - about 40 percent higher than in 2005. The deal signed between Chavez and Castro has Venezuela - the world's fifth largest oil exporter and a major supplier to the

United States - selling 90,000 barrels a day of crude to the communist-run island at international market prices, but in exchange for agricultural products and other services instead of cash. The addition of Bolivia will beef up the grouping's economic potential with the Andean nation's vast natural gas reserves. Morales, a union leader who was swept to power on a leftist platform and has railed against American economic and drug policies, vowed during his campaign to be "the nightmare of the U.S. government." He, like Chavez, has tried to maintain a vibrant private sector while claiming an everlarger state role in managing the economy. He has also toned down his rhetoric since taking office in January. The Cuba-Venezuela deal - known by its Spanish acronym ALBA, also the word for dawn provided a framework for the leaders to blast Washington's efforts to expand its free trade with Latin American countries. The U.S.-backed Free Trade Area of the Americas hemispheric trade pact stalled last year, but Washington since has signed nine free-trade agreements with Latin American countries. The three presidents called the FTAA a U.S. effort to "annex" Latin America. Chavez and Morales have warned they could pull their countries from the Andean Community economic bloc if members Colombia, Peru and Ecuador go through with trade pacts with the United States. Colombia and Peru have reached such agreements with Washington. Negotiations between the United States and Ecuador were suspended after nearly two weeks of street protests in March by indigenous groups in Ecuador opposed to such a pact. "According to any reasonable definition of the term, this is not a trade agreement," Michael Shifter, a political analyst with the Inter-American Dialogue in Washington, said of last year's ALBA deal. "It's an attempt to pose a real counterweight to the U.S. role and agenda in Latin America."

Alt Cause

Generic Alt Cause- Sesame particle accelerator Lempinen 12 (Edward, Public Information Officer at The World Academy of Sciences (TWAS) 19 December 2012 “Science & Diplomacy: Concepts and Real-World Examples to Guide Success” http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2012/1219_science_and_diplomacy_dec.shtml)\\BJ “Synchrotron Light and the Middle East,” details the promising progress of the SESAME particle accelerator under construction in Amman, Jordan. The project seeks not only to advance research in the turbulent Middle East, but to build valuable partnerships and promote “a culture of peace through scientific collaboration,” writes Chris Llewellyn Smith, president of the SESAME Council.¶ Indeed, SESAME has attracted backing from a remarkable set of members: Bahrain, Cyprus, Egypt, Iran, Israel, Jordan, Pakistan, the Palestinian Authority, and Turkey. And while funding challenges must be addressed to keep SESAME on target for commissioning in late 2015, several of those nations plus the European Union have agreed to provide additional funding; Egypt and the United States also are considering significant investments, Smith writes.¶ Meanwhile, the project has allowed more than 400 scientists and engineers to participate in SESAME users’ meetings, workshops, and schools in the Middle East and elsewhere on the use of synchrotron light in biology, materials science, and other fields, as well as on accelerator technology. About 75 of them spent time at synchrotron-radiation facilities in Europe, the United States, Asia, and Latin America, Smith said, an experience that advanced training and fostered global research relationships.

Alt Cause- Laundry List Newman 13 (Harvey Newman, is an expert in experimental high energy physics. “Session Y5 at the April meeting” http://www.aps.org/units/fip/newsletters/201109/y5.cfm)\\BJ Speaking on "Science Diplomacy in Large International Collaborations", Barish spoke of the emergence of such collaborations in several fields of physics as the result of the imperative to combine resources, skills and ideas in a shrinking world empowered by communications and collaborative technologies, and the implications for U.S. science policy. The importance of pursuing each project varies from national priorities (ITER) to strategic priorities in the South Pole laboratory to transformational science and frontier research in ALMA, AUGER, LHC, AMS, ILC, SKA and many others. The tangible side benefits of such large scale projects are many, from the World Wide Web to accelerator development driving materials science as well as medical and industrial applications, and the development of large state-of-the-art facilities "advances technological technology applications for society, often in unpredictable ways."¶ After commenting on the varied forms of partnership in the projects mentioned, Barish returned to his central themes: "Developing and supporting such large facilities must be an important part of U.S. Science Policy, in order to keep U.S. science at the forefront", and "the U.S. must be part of the most important science to be most competitive and to have the biggest impact on society." He used the progress of the ILC Global Design Effort as a success example, while highlighting the key role of governments in establishing global projects that can move forward to successful completion over a period of one or more decades. He highlighted the challenges of integrating the U.S. system, with its one-year funding cycle and particular ways of governance, project management and accountability with those of other countries and/or international organizations. Looking to the future, if

the U.S. aspires to host a major international project to do frontier science, Barish said: "we must solve problems of governance, visas, in-kind contributions, accountability, contingency and [the way we handle] cost overruns" to work effectively with our international partners.¶ Speaking on "A Scientist’s Approach to Diplomacy – First Listen and Learn", Lane opened by quoting J. Thomas Ratchford (FIP Chair in 1996): "Physics is perhaps the most international of all human endeavors. Physicists naturally think internationally, and their closest research collaborators are as likely to be across the world as across the hall…" This helps explain why scientists, and

physicists in particular, have been so effective in facilitating or paving the way for international cooperation, along with the simple fact that many scientists have the ability to listen and learn. Lane spoke of two angles on science diplomacy: Diplomacy for Science which includes "research collaborations, international conferences and shared facilities" and Science for Diplomacy that includes the "use of scientific research to improve relations between nations; help solve world problems; protect the earth's environment and biodiversity, etc." As a former NSF Director, he reflected on NSF's many international activities, noting that NSF funding is largely reserved for international research and education activities in the U.S., or by the U.S. participants in an international collaborative project.¶ Lane discussed nanotechnology with China‟s President Jiang Zemin in 2001

ISS specific US plans to abandon ISS prove science diplo fails. Matter of years before US leadership declines. Hauser and John '09 (Marty. VP, Washington Operations, Research and Analysis. Mariel. Research analyst at the Space Foundation, Space Foundation, 2009, “The International Space Station: Decision 2015" http://www.spacefoun...cision_2015.pdf, 7-12-13, DAG) If the United States allows its leadership of the ISS program to expire in 2015, it will likely fuel negative international perceptions ¶ of U.S. capabilities, reliability, and leadership. The nation’s inability to lead the ISS to the end of its design life would reflect ¶ poorly on U.S. commitment to scientific and technical endeavors. Although unlikely, it is possible that international partners ¶ would continue to operate the ISS, even if the United States abandons its investment in the project. The image of the United ¶ States is likely to suffer as it retreats from the leadership role on the largest international technical project ever undertaken. As the ¶ Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee describes the situation, “Not to extend [ISS] operation would significantly ¶ impair U.S. ability to develop and lead future international spaceflight partnerships.”15 In addition, leaving the program would ¶ result in an unprecedented retrenchment: the United States abandoning a National Laboratory to other nations. Reduced to the ¶ role of a bystander, the nation would no longer benefit from the cutting-edge research and international collaboration conducted ¶ by other nations.

When the US lapses on the ISS it will devastate US credibility. Hauser and John '09 (Marty. VP, Washington Operations, Research and Analysis. Mariel. Research analyst at the Space Foundation, Space Foundation, 2009, “The International Space Station: Decision 2015" http://www.spacefoun...cision_2015.pdf, 7-12-13, DAG) If U.S. support for the ISS program lapses in 2015, it is likely that one of the most significant negative impacts would be on ¶ international relations, and global perceptions as to whether or not the U.S. is a reliable partner. Concern over U.S. intentions is ¶ already apparent. Even amid the excitement of the Kibo module being launched, an article was published in the Daily Yomiuri, ¶ an English-language online supplement to Japan’s largest selling newspaper, that warned people not to be overly optimistic.23¶ The article notes that the United States plans to shut down the ISS in 2015 and, if that happens, the Kibo laboratory will not be ¶ operational for the 10 years it was designed to last, in which case benefits from the project may be limited. The article highlights ¶ the risks of “international projects in cooperation with countries like the United States, ¶ where policies can change abruptly with the changing of administrations.” The article ¶ also says that Europe has engaged in diplomatic talks with Russia and the United ¶ States about the ISS, while Japan, “has relied almost completely on the United States, ¶ and has fallen behind Europe as a result.”24 At the 2009 Paris Air Show, international ¶ partners voiced their interest in continuing the ISS mission past 2015, possibly to 2025. ¶ European Space Agency partners noted that they have a strong desire to extend the ¶ program to fully exploit their Columbus science lab.25¶ The ramifications of a decision to withdraw from the ISS program in 2015 would, ¶ therefore, extend far beyond this single project. The United States’ choice to honor ¶ (or not) international

commitments vis-à-vis the ISS will affect other countries’ views ¶ of the United States as a partner in virtually all future endeavors. The ISS provides the ¶ opportunity to cement lasting partnerships and cooperation in many areas. A unilateral ¶ U.S. decision to end the program against the wishes of the international partners will ¶ adversely affect future programs. If the United States is unable to sustain its engagement ¶ with its international partners, it will either have to forgo future large-scale space ¶ programs, or undertake all costs on its own.

Status quo Solves The status quo solves, licenses and visas are attainable in the status quo Ordoñez 12 Franco covers immigration and the U.S. Department of Labor for McClatchy Newspapers, based in Washington, D.C. He also writes for The Charlotte Observer. (“Scientists work to bridge political gap between Cuba, U.S.”—5/21/2012 http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/05/21/149603/scientists-work-to-bridge-political.html#.Udid10CTjYs KW)

Cuban and American scientists have joined forces in an effort to protect baby sea turtles and endangered sharks. They’re studying Caribbean weather patterns that fuel the hurricanes that have devastated the Southeastern United States.¶ In the process, they’re chipping away at a half-century of government feuding, helping to bring the nations together for talks on vital matters, such as what to do in case of an oil spill.¶ The two countries are so geographically close, and the environmental concerns so similar, that scientists say it’s crucial to combine forces.¶ “If we’re going to have any hope of protecting our environment in the future, from climate change to our shared resources in the Gulf of Mexico, we have to collaborate,” said Dan Whittle, the Cuba program director at the Environmental Defense Fund.¶

Under the

Obama administration, cooperation between scientific organizations has increased , scientists say. Visas are being granted more regularly to Cuban scientists and it’s easier for Americans to get government licenses

the U.S.

needed to do research on the island.¶ Peter Agre, a Nobel laureate in chemistry and the head of the Johns

Hopkins Malaria Research Institute, led 18 U.S. scientists associated with the American Association for the Advancement of Science on a trip to Cuba in December to meet with counterparts about potential cooperation in marine and atmospheric sciences, and sustainable fisheries.¶ For some American scientists, going to Cuba is like tasting a piece of forbidden fruit. The scientific landscape has been largely untouched for decades.¶ The U.S. trade embargo, which has been in place for 50 years, has in many ways been a gift to Cuba’s forests, fish populations and coral reefs. It helped insulate Cuba’s ecosystem from the type of tourist development that’s wracked other nations.¶ Sea turtles that feed in Florida journey back each year to nest in Cuba. Many grunts and snapper fish that live off the North Carolina coast also spawn in Cuba. The oceanic whitetip shark has almost disappeared from U.S. waters, but preliminary studies show the predators in abundance around the island.¶ Cuban scientists see the collaboration with Americans as an honest exchange of work, as opposed to a plea for funding or resources.¶ They complain that they don’t get enough credit for their science, and they boast that Cuba represents 2 percent of the Latin American population but has 11 percent of the scientists in the region. There are thousands of Cuban doctors and health professionals on medical missions abroad.¶ The country includes more than 84 protected areas, making up almost 14 percent of the island. In Western Cuba at the 37,500-acre Vinales National Park, environmentalists study ways to protect the vast mountains that are home to an array of native plants and animals, including the renown “painted snails.” Legend has it that the sun painted their vibrant orange and yellow swirled shells.¶ “Of maximum importance is the need to protect and conserve the environment,” said Yamira Valdez, a Cuban environmental specialist at the park. “Our countries can share experiences, criteria. They can see what works here. And we can apply their experience to the work we do.”¶ Scientists and scholars have helped break through political barriers before. An environmental agreement reached with the Soviet Union in the 1970s is often credited with easing Cold War tensions.¶ “So later when things began to loosen up and relations warmed, there was a network of people who knew each other quite well who had actually had dinners together and been to each other’s homes,” said William Reilly, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency under President George H.W. Bush. “That is enormously constructive.”¶ The researchers understand that anything involving Cuba is going to be controversial. A decision to grant President Raul Castro’s daughter a visa to attend an academic conference in San Francisco this week sparked a wave of criticism from Cuban-American groups, calling her an enemy of democracy. But the researchers say their work is focused on science, not politics. Their cooperation will serve as a foundation for future dialogue, they say.¶ “The political relationship at some point, in five years, 50 years, 500 years, whatever it is, will change,” said Vaughan Turekian, an atmospheric geochemist and chief international officer at the American Association for the Advancement of Science.¶ In a rare move last year, the Environmental Defense Fund received State Department approval to bring a senior official from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to Cuba to meet with officials about rebuilding fish stocks for species of fish that populate the region.¶ Oil is a key area of cooperative interest.¶ Scientists

have helped facilitate talks between the nations as the specter of an oil spill has raised concerns in both of them. ¶ Cuban oceanographers reached out to their U.S. counterparts after the 2010 BP spill to help them gain reassurances that the U.S. government would step in should the gushing petroleum come near Cuban shores.¶ “The ocean doesn’t have borders. It’s more about the currents. It’s more how nature works and which are the vulnerable species,” said Roberto Perez, a scientist at the Antonio Nunez Jimenez Foundation of Man and Nature in Havana. “Fortunately, it didn’t come to our waters, but the idea really opened up the window of opportunity for the governments to talk.”¶ Those conversations have increased as Cuba prepares to drill for oil just 70 miles from the Florida Keys.¶ Last year, the U.S. Treasury Department granted a group of environmentalists and drilling experts, led by the Environmental Defense Fund, permission to travel to Cuban to meet with top officials at the Ministry of Basic Industry, which regulates the energy sector, as well as the staterun petroleum company. The group included Reilly, the co-chair of a bipartisan commission that investigated the 2010 BP spill. He said his goal was to share the commission’s findings with Cuban officials, who had no experience regulating offshore oil and gas, in hopes that they wouldn’t make the same mistakes that led to the BP disaster.¶ When he returned to the United States, Reilly briefed the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement and other administration agencies, whose officials, Reilly said, were very interested to learn that the

Cubans were reading the Interior Department’s regulatory reports and planned to adhere to American standards.¶ “That was not known,” he said.¶ U.S. officials also have engaged with the International Maritime Organization, which has sent technical teams to Cuba to evaluate its oil drilling procedures, and Cuban and U.S. officials met in the Bahamas in December along with officials from Mexico and Jamaica to discuss

all the entities that would need licenses to respond appropriately either have them or are in the process of getting them at this point,” said a senior administration official, who requested anonymity in order to speak freely.¶ Reilly notes that his disaster plans. A similar meeting was held in Trinidad and administration officials say more will come.¶ “In fact, we’re all comfortable

delegation spent several days speaking directly with top Cuban officials and was able to gather specific details about Cuban plans that may not have been discussed at other multinational meetings.¶ “On the oil and gas issues, we’ve

been moderately successful in getting the two governments to start talking with each other,” said the Environmental Defense Fund’s Whittle, who helped lead the trip and had several meetings with administration officials.¶ There are still considerable obstacles to be overcome. In addition to needing visas to travel to the United States, Cuban scientists work with fewer resources. The Internet also is not easily accessible.¶ In February, Fabian Pina, a scientist with Cuba’s Center for Coastal Ecosystems Research in Cayo Coco, Cuba, was awarded a $150,000 Pew Fellowship in Marine Conservation to study goliath grouper populations in Cuba, the first time a Cuban researcher has received the prestitigous grant, a kin, in the marine science world, to winning a MacArthur “genius grant.”¶ But Pina was supposed to be in the 2011 class. It took months to get proper approvals from U.S. officials, who were concerned the grant money would be taken or taxed by the Cuban government.

Cooperation is growing in the status quo; a recent US scientific visit proves Lumpkin 10 Bea is a long time Chicago Communist Party USA activist and was a major Obama supporter in both the 2008 and 2012 elections. (“Hope for US-Cuba scientific cooperation”—2/15/2010 http://www.peoplesworld.org/hope-for-us-cuba-scientific-cooperation/ KW)

Scientific cooperation between the U.S. and Cuba received a recent boost with the visit of a US delegation to Havana. The delegation was led by Peter Agre head of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).¶ The U.S. delegation went to Cuba for meetings aimed at building a foundation for expanded science and engineering cooperation between the two countries. Agre is a Nobel laureate in chemistry.¶ The widely respected AAAS is based in the U.S. The visit, November 10 to 13, 2009, brought together nongovernmental science and diplomacy leaders from the United States with science leaders from Cuban institutes and universities and staff from the Cuban Council of State.¶ The visit was funded by the Lounsbery Foundation, according to the article in Science, AAAS magazine that reported the visit (Mission to Cuba Yields Hope for Expanded S&T Collaboration. Science, VOL 326, 1656). The head of the Foundation, Maxmillian Angerholzer III, is quoted in Science as saying, "Cuba takes so much pride in its science and medical capacities. When you're trying to use science as a way to bring countries together, it's best to do it when there are similar interests and shared goals." ¶ That was one of the accomplishments of the exchange between U.S. and Cuban scientists. U.S. delegation members mentioned several fields where the two nations might work together-from meteorology and marine sciences to infectious diseases and informal science education.¶ The exchange was only the third since the 1960s.

Interest in scientific engagement between the two neighbors is growing . An October 2008

editorial in Science helped lay the groundwork for the visit. It was co-authored by Sergio Jorge Pastrana, foreign secretary of the Academia de Ciencias de Cuba, and Michael T. Clegg, foreign secretary of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Last spring, President Barack Obama opened up a freer flow of information and humanitarian aid to Cuba. Meanwhile, some members of the U.S. Congress are working on easing or ending the ban on travel to Cuba.¶ An interesting sidelight of the trip was the part played by Fidel Ángel Castro Díaz-Balart-Fidel Castro's oldest son. The younger Castro is a nuclear physicist and leader in Cuba's science policy community. Arrangements for the US-Cuba exchange had been delayed by the hurricanes that slammed the length of Cuba last fall. Fortunately, Castro Díaz-Balart attended a conference in Japan and met Vaughan Turekian, the chief international officer of AAAS. Turekian told Science, "I was able to tell him about our planned delegation and the fact that Peter Agre would be leading it. He was very receptive and helped facilitate a meeting with his own staff when we were in Havana."¶ The main topic of the exchange in Havana was on research collaboration. But the delegation also spent a lot of time talking about making sure that results of their research would be put to work for the people. Science reported how scientist leaders from both countries bonded:¶ "Agre

described 'a spark of friendship' that he experienced in a meeting where he sat with didn't know each other before ... but there was a common bond of science that just broke through,' he said." Pastrana and Academia de Ciencias President Dr. Ismael Clark Arxer. 'We

Cooperation over science in the squo Lempinen 12 (Edward, Public Information Officer at The World Academy of Sciences (TWAS) 19 December 2012 “Science & Diplomacy: Concepts and Real-World Examples to Guide Success” http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2012/1219_science_and_diplomacy_dec.shtml)\\BJ In an issue marking completion of the publication’s first year, an array of high-level, highly experienced authors describe projects that have worked to advance science while breaking down mistrust: a synchrotron particle accelerator in Jordan, for example, or a 16-nation network that cooperated to study the effect of aerosol and trace gas emissions on climate and ecosystems across Southern Africa.¶ Vaughan C. Turekian, the editor in chief of Science & Diplomacy,

offers an overarching view of the strategic steps that nations can take to initiate or develop their capacity for science diplomacy.¶ [IMAGE] Vaughan C. Turekian¶ “It is important to consider that science and technology-based issues, such as climate change and global health, are growing more important in the conduct and execution of a robust policy in an increasingly connected and less polarized world,” Turekian wrote in an editorial. “…As more countries begin to experiment with science diplomacy, an often-asked question is, what steps are needed to develop and implement a science diplomacy strategy?”¶ In “Building a National Science Diplomacy System,” Turekian posits that nations pursue science diplomacy with three goals—“The Three E’s”—in mind: expressing national power or influence, equipping decisionmakers with information to support policy, and enhancing bilateral and multilateral relations.¶ A variety of steps can be taken toward successful pursuit of science diplomacy strategy, he said, including creation of mechanisms to encourage interaction between the science and foreign policy communities and increasing the capacity of foreign ministries to pursue science-related issues.¶ “The

fundamentals of foreign policy continue to change,” Turekian concluded in his editorial. “Technology revolutions and the emergence of more civil society groups in international relations make diplomacy more dynamic and decentralized….Into this world, scientists and science (and its applications) are becoming ever more relevant to diplomacy. Individual countries can determine the best way to achieve their own strategic objectives. As national leaders begin grappling with these realities, science diplomacy will become an increasingly large part of the diplomacy tool kit, requiring new approaches.”¶ A valuable tool for advancing both science and diplomacy is the bi-lateral or multi-lateral science & technology agreement, writes Bridget M. Dolan, a recent research scholar at AAAS. In the 1960s, for example, the United States signed an agreemahent with Japan as part of an effort to build a new relationship in the aftermath of World War II; a second agreement was signed with China in the midst of the Cold War.¶ In

“Science and Technology Agreements as Tools for Science Diplomacy,” Dolan also describes a number of more recent S&T agreements—with Libya, Pakistan and India, for example. There are various motivations, she explains, ranging from promoting public diplomacy to protecting national security.¶ But all of the agreements have the intention of being transformational. In striking agreements with China and Japan, for example, “the use of S&T agreements…seeks to signal a shift in relations,” Dolan explained. “By expressing the desire to enter into an agreement, the United States indicates its intentions to build bridges using science as a tool of diplomacy.” Further, she added: “An S&T agreement can lay a foundation for cooperation in areas meant to connect societies and benefit all people, such as public health, water resources, environmental protection, and education.”¶ Other articles in the December 2012 issue of Science & Diplomacy:¶ “SAFARI 2000—a Southern African Example of Science Diplomacy,” explores how a remote-sensing project designed to understand local and regional land-atmosphere interactions and biogeochemical functioning proved to be an exercise in transformational science diplomacy. ¶ The authors, Harold J. Annegarn at the University of Johannesburg and Robert J. Swap at the University of Virginia, said that cooperative science projects between the developed and the developing world have the worrisome potential to be exploitive. But with SAFARI 2000, some 200 scientists from 16 nations worked between 1998 and 2003 to negotiate a range of challenges, from research objectives and organizational structures to multinational funding, in order to achieve a productive research outcome.¶ “In addition to a wealth of scientific productivity, SAFARI 2000 produced powerful outcomes for science diplomacy,” Annegarn and Swap write.

“There is a legacy of skilled professional scientists who have remained in the region, in academia, government, and the private sector. These scientists are inculcated with the knowledge and spirit of transformative collaborative international science and the modalities for making this happen.”¶ “Development Science and Science Diplomacy,” offers a similar perspective by focusing on USAID’s Partnerships for Enhanced Engagement in Research (PEER) program. Authors E. William Colglazier, the S&T adviser to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Alex Dehgan, S&T adviser to the USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah, say that the strongest opportunity for effective

science diplomacy occurs when substantive projects are undertaken in a nonpolitical environment, with clear benefits for all countries involved.¶ PEER, administered by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, promotes cooperation between U.S. scientists and the developing country investigators. Separate PEER programs in health and science offer grants to researchers in 87 nations to work with U.S. colleagues who receive federal research funds. Peer-reviewed applications assess the scientific merit of the proposal, its potential development impact, and the degree of interaction between researchers from the U.S. and the developing country. The program “addresses global development challenges through collaborative research, builds capacity in developing countries by directly funding the local investigators, and creates partnerships that will endure past the life of the research grant,” Colglazier and Dehgan write. “PEER is based on the premise that there is tremendous talent everywhere, but not always opportunity.”

US Science Diplomacy high now- Squo solves Dehgan and Colglazier 12 (Alex and E. William, science and technology adviser to the administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development, science and technology adviser to the U.S. secretary of state, 12/7, “Development Science and Science Diplomacy”, Date accessed: 7/12/13, http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/perspective/2012/development-science-and-science-diplomacy, LE)

Cooperation on science, technology, and engineering around development challenges provides U.S. diplomats with a significant opportunity to leverage science as a tool of smart power. U.S. scientific expertise is highly regarded around the world, even in areas where U.S. popularity may be low . Despite fierce competition and rapidly increasing parity in science, technology, and engineering assets among nations, the United States remains predominant in most fields and is a world leader in education, research, and innovation. Scientific engagement serves U.S. interests to promote stability by empowering a traditional source of moderate leadership. Scientists frequently are the intelligentsia of society and play important roles as leaders in many developing countries. The values inherent in science—honesty, doubt, respect for evidence, transparency and openness, meritocracy, accountability, tolerance, and hunger for opposing points of view—are values that Americans cherish. They are also values that achieve political goals, such as improving governance, transparency, and the rule of law. Scientific engagement can also build long-term frameworks that reinforce and support official relationships between the United States and other countries. Science diplomacy is not the relationship itself, but provides the scaffolding essential for the relationship to thrive

Squo solves US-Cuban Science Diplomacy Turekian and Neureiter 12 (Vaughan and Norman, editor-in-chief of Science & Diplomacy, chair of Science & Diplomacy's Senior Advisory Board, 3/9, “Science and Diplomacy: The Past as Prologue”, Date accessed: 7/12/13, http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/editorial/2012/science-and-diplomacy, LE) Today, efforts are underway to build on this legacy, especially where politics are challenged and official relationships are strained or limited. This new era of science diplomacy, which often involves nongovernmental scientists and academics, has provided connections to important communities in countries that include Cuba, Burma, Iran, and North Korea, even in the absence of formal governmentto-government relations and despite occasional political crises.

US-Cuba engage in Science Diplomacy in the squo Haven 13 (Paul, Writer for associated press, 4/10, “Under the radar, Cuba and US often work together”, Date accessed: 7/12/13, http://bigstory.ap.org/article/under-radar-cuba-and-us-often-worktogether, LE) Indeed, diplomats and observers on both sides of the Florida Straits say American and Cuban law enforcement officers, scientists, disaster relief workers, Coast Guard officials and other experts work together on a daily basis, and invariably express professional admiration for each other.¶ "I don't think the story has been told, but there is a real warmth in just the sort of day-to-day relations between U.S. and Cuban government officials," said Dan Whittle, who frequently brings scientific groups to the island in his role as Cuba program director for the Environmental Defense Fund.¶ "Nearly every time I talk to American officials they say they were impressed by their Cuban counterparts. There really is a high level of mutual respect."¶ Almost none of these technical-level interactions make the headlines, but examples are endless.¶ Just last week, Cuba's top environmental official Ulises Fernandez and several island oil experts attended a conference in New York of the International Association of Drilling Contractors after the State Department expedited their visas.¶ And in March, Cuba's leading weatherman, Jose Rubiera, traveled to North Carolina on a fast-track visa to give a talk about hurricane evacuation procedures. Last year's Hurricane Sandy, which slammed Cuba's eastern city of Santiago before devastating the northeastern United States, was a cruel reminder that nature cares not about man's political squabbles.

Science diplomacy is high now. The US has engaged in science diplomacy with over fifty countries. Hormats 12 (Robert D. Hormats, Under Secretary for Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment, Science Diplomacy and Twenty-First Century Statecraft, March 1 2012, http://www.state.gov/e/rls/rmk/2012/182545.htm, 7-12-13, DAG) Science diplomacy is a central component of America’s twenty-first century statecraft agenda. The United States must increasingly recognize the vital role science and technology can play in addressing major challenges, such as making our economy more competitive, tackling global health issues, and dealing with climate change. American leadership in global technological advances and scientific research, and the dynamism of our companies and universities in these areas, is a major source of our economic, foreign policy, and national security strength. Additionally, it is a hallmark of the success of the American system. While some seek to delegitimize scientific ideas, we believe the United States should celebrate science and see it—as was the case since the time of Benjamin Franklin—as an opportunity to advance the prosperity, health, and overall well-being of Americans and the global community.¶ Innovation policy is part of our science diplomacy engagement. More than ever before, modern economies are rooted in science and technology. It is estimated that America’s knowledgebased industries represent 40 percent of our economic growth and 60 percent of our exports. Sustaining a vibrant knowledge-based economy, as well as a strong commitment to educational excellence and advanced research, provides an opportunity for our citizens to prosper and enjoy upward mobility. America attracts people from all over the world—scientists, engineers, inventors, and entrepreneurs—who want the opportunity to participate in, and contribute to, our innovation economy.¶ At the same time, our bilateral and multilateral dialogues support science, technology, and innovation abroad by promoting improved education; research and development funding; good governance and transparent regulatory policies; markets that are open and competitive; and policies that allow researchers and companies to succeed, and, if they fail, to have the opportunity to try again. We advocate for governments to embrace and enforce an intellectual property system that allows innovators to reap the benefits of their ideas and also rewards their risk taking. Abraham Lincoln himself held a patent on an invention, a device for preventing ships from being grounded on shoals. He said in his "Second Lecture on Discoveries and Inventions" in 1859 that patents "added the fuel of interest to the fire of genius, in the discovery and production of new and useful things."¶ The practice of science is increasingly expanding from individuals to groups, from single disciplines to interdisciplinary, and from a national to an international scope. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development reported that from 1985 to 2007, the number of scientific articles published by a single author decreased by 45 percent. During that same period, the number of scientific articles published with domestic co-authorship increased by 136 percent, and those with international coauthorship increased by 409 percent. The same trend holds for patents. Science collaboration is exciting because it takes advantage of expertise that exists around the country and around the globe. American researchers, innovators, and institutions, as well as their foreign counterparts, benefit through these international collaborations. Governments that restrict the flow of scientific expertise and data will find themselves isolated, cut off from the global networks that drive scientific and economic innovation.¶ While the scientific partnerships that the United States builds with other nations, and international ties among universities and research labs, are a means to address shared challenges, they also contribute to broadening and strengthening our diplomatic relationships. Scientific partnerships are based on disciplines and values that transcend politics, languages, borders, and cultures. Processes that define the scientific community—such as merit review, critical thinking, diversity of thought, and transparency—are fundamental values from which the global community can reap benefits.¶ History

provides many examples of how scientific cooperation can bolster diplomatic ties and cultural exchange. American scientists collaborated with Russian and Chinese counterparts for decades, even as other aspects of our relationship proved more challenging. Similarly, the science and technology behind the agricultural "Green Revolution" of the 1960s and ‘70s was the product of American, Mexican, and Indian researchers working toward a common goal. Today, the United States has formal science and technology agreements with over fifty countries. We are committed to finding new ways to work with other countries in science and technology, to conduct mutually beneficial joint research activities, and to advance the interests of the U.S. science and technology community.¶ Twenty-first century statecraft also requires that we build greater people-to-people relationships. Science and technology cooperation makes that possible. For example, through the Science Envoy program, announced by President Obama in 2009 in Cairo, Egypt, eminent U.S. scientists have met with counterparts throughout Asia, Africa, and the Middle East to build relationships and identify opportunities for sustained cooperation. With over half of the world’s population under the age of thirty, we are developing new ways to inspire the next generation of science and technology leaders. Over the past five years, the Department of State’s International Fulbright Science & Technology Award has brought more than two hundred exceptional students from seventy-three different countries to the United States to pursue graduate studies. Through the Global Innovation through Science and Technology Initiative, the United States recently invited young innovators from North Africa, the Middle East, and Asia to post YouTube videos describing solutions to problems they face at home. The top submissions will receive financial support, business mentorship, and networking opportunities.¶ Advancing the rights of women and girls is a central focus of U.S. foreign policy and science diplomacy. As we work to empower women and girls worldwide, we must ensure that they have access to science education and are able to participate and contribute fully during every stage of their lives. Recently, we partnered with Google, Intel, Microsoft, and many other high-tech businesses to launch TechWomen, a program that brings promising women leaders from the Middle East to Silicon Valley to meet industry thoughtleaders, share knowledge and experiences, and bolster cultural understanding.¶ Science diplomacy is not new. It is, however, broader, deeper, and more visible than ever before and its importance will continue to grow. The Department of State’s first Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review highlights that "science, engineering, technology, and innovation are the engines of modern society and a dominant force in globalization and international economic development." These interrelated issues are priorities for the United States and, increasingly, the world.¶ The Department of State is committed to utilizing our capabilities in Washington, D.C. and throughout the world to connect with scientists, entrepreneurs, and innovators for the mutual benefit of all of our people. In addition to Environment, Science and Technology, and Health Officers stationed at U.S. embassies, almost fifty doctoral-level scientists and engineers work at the Department of State through the AAAS Diplomacy Fellows program and the Jefferson Science Fellows program. Through this cadre of science and foreign policy experts, the Department of State will continue to advance policies that bolster the global repertoire of scientific knowledge and further enable technological innovation.

Science Diplomacy in Cuba now. Status Quo solves The Seattle Times 09 (The Seattle Times, US scientists visit Cuba for `science diplomacy', November 11 2009, http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2010252325_apcbcubausscientists.html, 712-13, DAG) The Associated Press¶ HAVANA —¶ Eight American scientists, including Nobel laureate in chemistry Peter Agre, are in Havana to engage in "science diplomacy."¶ The group was scheduled to meet with officials at Cuba's foreign and public health ministries as well as visit the island's Academy of Sciences and the University of Havana.¶ There was no official word on the visitors' schedule, but they planned to remain in Cuba through Friday, according to a statement released by organizers.¶ The trip comes as Cuba and the U.S. are taking tentative steps toward improving nearly 50 years of frigid relations with recent talks on immigration and re-establishing direct mail service between the countries.

Disease Adv.

Alt Causes

Poverty Poverty is the root cause of NTDs Aagaard-Hansen & Lise Chaignat 10, Jens: Head of health promotion at Steno diabetes center, Member of the Training Strengthening Committee (TSC) Steering Committee, Geneva, Switzerland for TDR – Special Programme for Research & Training in Tropical Diseases UNICEF/UNDP/UNICEF/World Bank/WHO; Claire: in charge Global Task Force on Cholera Control at World Health Organization (Jens, Claire, “Neglected tropical diseases: equity and social determinants.” 7/12/13. http://www.who.int/neglected_diseases/Social_determinants_NTD.pdf. KJ) Poverty (in the sense of absolute low income, inability to pay for basic services and marked vulnerability to unforeseen health expenses) has been shown to be the most all-encompassing root cause for NTDs. A human rights approach would view the adoption of measures to reduce vulnerability to neglected diseases through poverty reduction as part of the fundamental human right to health (138). Poverty serves as a fundamental structural determinant and is at the same time a consequence of some NTDs, due to the direct and indirect costs incurred. Consequently, poverty alleviation and provision of affordable health care should be a central element in all efforts to address structural social determinants in relation to NTDs. An example from Japan and Taiwan showing the correlation between positive economic development and decreasing leprosy incidence illustrates the importance of poverty-alleviating interventions (47 ), though the relationship between disease and a number of socioeconomic factors, including willingness and ability to pay (139), is complex and largely beyond the scope of this chapter. There are a number of examples of how health sector reforms may inhibit access to treatment (140–142).

Poor sanitation and poverty are factors of NTDs Stone 12, MD, is an infectious disease specialist, experienced in conducting clinical research. She is the author of Conducting Clinical Research, the essential guide to the topic (Judy, “Hurricanes, Poverty, and Neglected Infections.” 7/12/13. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/molecules-tomedicine/2012/08/30/hurricane-katrina-poverty-and-neglected-infections/. KJ.) In the U.S., the NTDs tend to be clustered among the poor along the Gulf Coast states, Indian Reservations, and Appalachia. Many of these infections not only affect the poor disproportionately, but are also poverty promoting in and of themselves. For example as Dr. Peter Hotez has noted, helminth infections cause anemia, stunting, and learning difficulties, which leads to school absenteeism and lower economic productivity, furthering the cycle of poverty.¶ ¶ Many of the NTDs are found in the Gulf Coast states because of the climate, but they also thrive there because of large areas where sanitation is poor. Dilapidated housing further exposes populations to insect-transmitted diseases. According to the Katrina Pain Index, by Loyola professors Bill Quigley and Davida Finger, “Seventy percent more people are homeless in New Orleans since Hurricane Katrina. People living with HIV are estimated to be homeless at 10 times the rate of the general population, a condition amplified after Hurricane Katrina.” If does nothing else, homelessness certainly exposes people to insect borne diseases.

Areas associated with poverty are at a higher risk of NTDs Stone 12, MD, is an infectious disease specialist, experienced in conducting clinical research. She is the author of Conducting Clinical Research, the essential guide to the topic (Judy, “Hurricanes, Poverty, and Neglected Infections.” 7/12/13. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/molecules-tomedicine/2012/08/30/hurricane-katrina-poverty-and-neglected-infections/. KJ.) So what kinds of infections will we increasingly see in the Gulf states?¶ ¶ First, we can expect to see diseases that are associated with poverty, which therefore disproportionately affect AfricanAmericans (2.8 million with toxocariasis alone) and Hispanic Americans (e.g., Chagas and cysticercosis). Those specifically associated with poor housing, lack of air conditioning or adequate screens include:¶ ¶ Chagas¶ Leishmania¶ Dengue¶ ¶ In particular, poor sanitation/standing water will also serve as breeding grounds for mosquitoes, resulting in increased risk of dengue (via Aedes aegypti mosquito). In the last 10 years, dengue began to appear along the Texas-Mexico border; since 2009, it has been seen in Florida for the first time since 1934. Although practicing now in the mid-Atlantic, I’ve seen 2 patients in the past year with dengue acquired from the Florida area.¶ ¶ For much of our history, malaria was endemic in the U.S.; it was eradicated by 1951 after intensive use of pesticides (DDT) and wetland drainage—which brought their own problems. Interestingly, the impetus for the eradication efforts was to enhance the World War II training efforts. In 1932, the Office of Malaria Control in War Areas was established to reduce malaria and vector-borne infections, such as murine typhus, which were interfering with military base training exercises. ¶ We should also expect to see these NTDs associated with poor sanitation or soil transmission:¶ ¶ Helminths¶ Toxocara¶ Toxoplasmosis¶ Cysticercosis (Cysticercosis, from ingesting eggs of the pork tapeworm (e.g., fecal-oral transmission) is the major cause of seizures now in the Southwestern U.S.)¶ ¶ These infections are all most common among the poor, and tend to lead to a self-perpetuating cycle of less education and worsening poverty. Those affected are marginalized. They have no lobbying power. And soon they won’t be able to vote…

Poverty intensifies diseases severity Mackey & Liang 12. Senior Research Associate, Institute of Health Law Studies, California Western School of Law; San Diego Center for Patient Safety, University of California San Diego School of Medicine. (Tim K. MAS, and Bryan A. MD, PhD, JD. “Threats from emerging and re-emerging neglected tropical diseases (NTDs).” 7/12/13. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3426343/. KJ) Neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) reflect a country's socio-economic progress (1). The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates 1 billion people from 149 endemic countries and territories are affected by 17 NTDs (1). Impoverished environments exacerbate disease severity, including poor water sanitation, inadequate housing, rapid urbanization and poor disease vector control, and often lack access to needed healthcare and effective case detection/management (1).¶ Long-term disability from disfigurement, pregnancy complications, impaired childhood development and growth, and reduced productivity from NTDs fuel an endless ‘poverty trap’ (1–3). In addition, NTD's have a disproportionate impact on these already marginalized communities, compared to developed countries (1).

Other Countries Cuba and India are already collaborating on diseases Buisnesswire India, 10. (“Biocon and CIM to collaborate in Immunology Research Program.” 7/12/13. http://www.indianexpress.com/news/biocon-and-cim-to-collaborate-in-immunology-researchprogram/689021/1. KJ) Biocon Limited, Asia's premier biotechnology companies, and the Center of Molecular Immunology (CIM), based in Havana, Cuba, have strengthened their existing research partnership by joining forces for an integrated antibody program in immunology. Both entities have successfully collaborated for almost a decade on an integrated program to manufacture and clinically evaluate recombinant proteins with the aim of building a portfolio based on therapeutic biotechnology products for chronic diseases. Two drugs have already been approved for medical use in India and other territories. A novel monoclonal antibody targeting the Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor for the treatment of cancer, and the human recombinant Erythropoietin – for the control of anemia in chronic kidney diseases – were developed under stringent medical regulatory standards. ¶ Looking to build on this successful partnership, Biocon and CIM are moving to create an innovative product pipeline focused on autoimmune diseases and cancer. Fundamental research performed at CIM and Biocon has defined the anti-inflammatory capacity of a novel monoclonal antibody, an Anti-CD6 Monoclonal Antibody. This molecule targets lymphocytes, the key players in the immuno-pathology of autoimmune diseases. Experimental data supports its effect in controlling inflammation that can cause damage of tissues. Research results have been endorsed by scientific journals and discussed in international congresses.

Cuba and Portuguese have medical cooperation already Havana Reporter 12. Cuban news. (“Portugal Thanks Cuba for Medical Cooperation.” 7/12/13. http://havanareporternews.com/health-and-science/portugal-thanks-cuba-medical-cooperation. KJ.) Portuguese Health Minister Paulo Macedo praised the medical cooperation that Cuba has provided his country as part of an agreement reached between the two countries in 2009.¶ ¶ At a recent meeting with Cuban Ambassador Eduardo González in Lisbon, Macedo expressed his government’s gratitude for the work that has been carried out by a brigade of 44 Cuban doctors, and he praised their devotion and professionalism.¶ ¶ Portuguese doctors have spoken to the high level of their Cuban colleagues, he said. And the Cuban doctors’ professionalism also has been recognized by the local population, he added. For all of these reasons, Portuguese authorities decided to renew the bilateral agreement, Macedo said.¶ ¶ The 44 Cuban doctors all have more than 10 years’ experience as specialists in general family medicine, and each one of them has worked in another country at least once before as part of a similar brigade, Cuban diplomatic sources told Prensa Latina. In Portugal, the Cuban physicians are providing health services in the southern rural regions of Algarve and Alentejo, which are densely populated and have a shortage of primary medical care. Macedo told González that the Health Department was conducting a detailed study of the national health system with the goal of determining exactly how many doctors are needed to cover all areas of services for citizens.¶ ¶ González offered all of the experience that Cuba has acquired in the health field, which has enabled the island country to attain health rates similar to those of First World countries, despite difficult economic conditions that have been exacerbated by a 50-year-long U.S. blockade.

Cuba and Brazil increase Medical cooperations Havana Times, 5/6. (“Cuba to Send 6000 Doctors to Brazil.” 7/12/13. http://www.havanatimes.org/?p=92627. KJ.) HAVANA TIMES — Some 6,000 Cuban doctors will soon travel to Brazil to work in poor areas with a precarious health situation, the two governments decided today in Brasilia, reported DPA news. The negotiation of the agreement, carried out with the support of the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), was announced after the meeting held in Brasilia of Cuba’s Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez, and his Brazilian counterpart, Antonio Patriota. “We are organizing to receive a larger number of doctors here, to face the shortage of medical professionals in Brazil. Such cooperation has great potential, and we assign strategic value to it,” said the Brazilian minister. According to Patriota, details about how the Cuban doctors will work in Brazil still must be defined including whether they will receive a permanent or temporary residence visa: “We are still finalizing the understandings so that they (the doctors) can perform their professional activity in Brazil.” No mention was made whether the Cuban physicians would be allowed to travel with their families. The Cuban foreign minister highlighted the growing importance of the relationship between his country and Brazil, especially in the social areas, tourism and economic development: “There is an excellent exchange of ideas,” said Rodriguez. According to the Brazilian Foreign Ministry, during his visit to Brasilia, Rodriguez and discussed various issues of the bilateral and regional agenda, with emphasis on “development support and cooperation.”

Cuba increasing their medical relations in 68 countries, helping Cuban soft power and economy Global Insider, 5/16. (“Global Insider: Cuba Sends Doctors to Brazil as Bilateral Ties Grow.” 7/12/13. http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/trend-lines/12956/global-insider-cuba-sends-doctors-to-brazil-asbilateral-ties-grow. KJ) WPR: What is the extent of Cuba’s medical diplomacy in terms of numbers of doctors sent abroad and the benefits Cuba receives in return?¶ John M. Kirk: Cuba has been sending medical personnel abroad since 1960. At present there are some 39,000 Cuban medical personnel—including 15,000 doctors, approximately 20 percent of Cuba’s physicians—serving abroad in 68 countries. In Venezuela alone there are 32,000 Cuban medical personnel, 11,000 of them physicians. The export of professional, mainly medical, services is Cuba’s largest single source of hard currency, accounting for some $6 billion in 2012. Cuba has one doctor for every 170 patients, compared to one doctor per 390 patients in the United States, and continues to graduate large numbers of doctors. There is thus a surplus of trained medical personnel in Cuba, and this will continue to be a primary source of income.¶ In addition, because many of the medical services are provided free or at greatly reduced rates to developing nations, Cuba receives major diplomatic support, generating “soft power.” Finally, Cuban doctors receive significantly greater salaries for working abroad, which helps to compensate for the inverted social pyramid in Cuba, where their pay is poor. ¶ WPR: What is the significance of the plan to send doctors to Brazil?¶ Kirk: This strengthens bilateral ties, as well as the growing unity in Latin America. Brazil is Cuba’s second-largest trading partner in the region, and has invested $680 million in the construction of the Mariel port west of Havana, as well as giving credits of $176 million for modernizing five Cuban airports, which is needed, as tourism in Cuba reaches 3 million foreign visitors this year.¶ In terms of trade between Cuba and Brazil, which has increased sevenfold in the past decade, the plan will help to reduce the imbalance: $560 million of the $662 million in bilateral trade in 2012 were Brazilian

exports. Some 300 Brazilian companies are exporting to Cuba; the construction company Odebrecht is involved in a number of projects; and government ministers from both countries have made protocol visits. The relationship will continue to strengthen, with Cuba recognizing Brazil’s rapidly growing economy, and Brazil recognizing Cuba’s enormous political influence in the region.¶ WPR: How is Cuba’s gradual reform program likely to affect its medical policy going forward?¶ Kirk: Cuba’s exports of biotechnology and pharmaceutical products generated $700 million in 2012, but are expected to quintuple in value in the next five years. The Communist Party of Cuba has indicated the export of both medical services and biotechnology as prime growth areas for the economy, and indeed several Persian Gulf oil states have also hired large numbers of Cuban doctors. Cuba’s exports of medical goods and services will continue to increase greatly, and remain the anchor of the Cuban economy.

Trade The movement of people, war, and trade increases the spread of diseases. Aagaard-Hansen & Lise Chaignat 10, Jens: Head of health promotion at Steno diabetes center, Member of the Training Strengthening Committee (TSC) Steering Committee, Geneva, Switzerland for TDR – Special Programme for Research & Training in Tropical Diseases UNICEF/UNDP/UNICEF/World Bank/WHO; Claire: in charge Global Task Force on Cholera Control at World Health Organization (Jens, Claire, “Neglected tropical diseases: equity and social determinants.” 7/12/13. http://www.who.int/neglected_diseases/Social_determinants_NTD.pdf. KJ) “The movement of people between countries now accounts for approximately 130 million people (2% of the world’s population) per year”, and in “the mid 1980s, one billion people, or about one sixth of the world’s population, moved within their own countries” (48 ). Migration may be temporary or permanent and includes the movements of nomads, refugees, labour migrants and people subjected to forced resettlement. Examples from West Africa show how water resource development schemes lead to both planned and unplanned migration (63 ). Refugees may flee to neighbouring countries or to other areas within their own country (internally displaced persons), and the latter are often more vulnerable because they are not covered by international humanitarian laws and organizations. Health services, including control programmes for migrating populations, face particular logistic problems and are usually inadequate or absent (64–66). Negative health implications of war have been shown in Uganda and Sudan (67 ). Breakdown of health systems during conflict may be coincidental or purposive, as in the case of the Contra War in Nicaragua in the 1980s, when health facilities and staff were directly targeted (68 ). A historical overview of cholera transmission in Africa during the seventh pandemic (1970–1991) shows the association with migration and refugees (69 ). Cholera epidemics have been associated with the conflictinduced movement of refugees from Mozambique to Malawi (70 ) and from Rwanda to the Democratic¶ Republic of the Congo (48 ). The trade and movement of goods can also lead to the dissemination of parasites and vectors (61, 64). There is¶ evidence for the spread of Aedes albopictus from northern¶ Asia to North America via used tyres (71 ). This has¶ implications for transmission of dengue fever and other¶ arboviruses.

Status quo solves China is finding cures for neglected tropical diseases Zhou 2/14, Prof., National Institute of Parasitic Diseases, China CDC (Xiao-Nong, “China’s experience controlling neglected tropical disease and the lessons for other regions.” 7/12/13. https://www.globalhealth.duke.edu/media/blogs/china/chinas-experience-controllingneglected-tropical-disease-and-lessons-other-regions. KJ.) In the People’s Republic of China (P.R. China), NTDs are one of the most prevalent infectious diseases, with more than 100 pathogens recorded to infect humans. In the 1950s, the beginning of the P.R. China, the most heavily epidemic NTDs were schistosomiasis, malaria, lymphatic filariasis, hookworm, and leishmaniasis that affected local people’s health as well as social-economic development. Due

to great efforts by government leadership, professional guidance and community involvement, NTDs have declined significantly with the increase in economic development in China. For example, lymphatic filariasis was eliminated in China by 2007, and the national malaria elimination program has been launched with its goal to eliminate malaria by 2020. The working plan for national schistosomiasis elimination by 2020 is under development in P.R. China. The prevalence of soil-transmitted helminthiasis, like hookworm, has been reduced to under 20%. The leishmaniasis has been localized in northwestern China with less than 400 total of reported cases annually.¶ ¶ The new top five NTDs are schistosomiasis, malaria, echinococcosis, soiltransmitted helminthiasis and food-borne tremedotes, and already these infections have been significantly reduced. However, the prevalence of food-borne tremedotes is increasing with new outbreaks reported every year. Therefore, China has had success and has learned many lessons that could help other developing countries reduce or eliminate t ropical diseases.¶ ¶ For example, schistosomiasis japonica, which has been prevalent in P.R. China over 2000 years, was recognized as an important infectious disease and the national schistosomiasis control program was initiated in the 1950s. Great achievements have been gained. Five out of 12 endemic provinces have reached the criteria of elimination, and three provinces have reached the criteria of transmission- controlled. The remaining four provinces will reach the criteria of transmissioncontrolled by 2015. The lessons of political will, sustained financial and technical support, and an integrated approach readily adapted to different eco-epidemiological settings and fine-tuned over time have been learned to substantially reduce the burden of schistosomiasis.¶ ¶ In

addition to the integrated control strategy of schistosomiasis developed recently in P.R. China which transfers the morbidity control into transmission control, more technical developments in tropical diseases have accelerated the progress of the national control program significantly. These include novel chemical molluscicides, rapid diagnostics, new development of drugs, as well as new tools to monitor the transmission of tropical diseases. All of those control strategies and novel tools/products are ready to be used in the transition phase from control into elimination programs in other regions although the various species of pathogens are different in terms of biology and morbidity. It is promising for Chinese scientists to work together with local professionals in other regions to tailor the Chinese control strategy and experience into local settings, in order to achieve the goal of transmission-control leading to elimination of tropical diseases.

Relations Adv.

AT: Relations impact Latin America is not a global threat – historical and religious backgrounds block violent conflict Blanco et al, associate researcher for RIDES, 09 (Hernan, associate researcher, Peter Goldschagg, RIDES associate researcher, Alejandra Ruiz-Dana, RIDES researcher, “Regional integration, trade and conflicts in Latin America,” Regional trade integration and conflict resolution, ed. Dr. Shaheen Khan, 2009, Google Books, p.15-18)

Historically, wars in Latin America have taken place due to foreign intervention (e.g., independence wars) or internal struggles (revolutions). A couple of recurrent disputes,

often associated with unresolved border issues, have

erupted sporadically until the present day. The 1995 clash between Peru and Ecuador over a section of the Amazon River basin is an example. Most tensions associated with geopolitical ambitions of certain regimes have cooled down , but others have increased recently. Venezuela’s president, Hugo Chávez, is touting a Bolivarian project whose aim is to accelerate South American integration and, in his own words, draw a "new geopolitical map…to counterbalance the global dominance of the United States."29 This goes beyond the strengthening of diplomatic ties. Chávez has been stocking up on weapons, buying them from Russia and Spain. Most observers doubt this is merely an indication that Venezuela’s deficient military is being revamped (particularly in the face of deteriorating conditions in the border region shared with Colombia) and are concerned that these purchases affect the balance of power in the Andean region.

In general, the region “no longer represents a global threat in terms of security.”30 Indeed, Latin America is often trumpeted “as an example for the rest of the world when one deals with traditional security issues.”31 Latin America’s considerable religious and ethnic homogeneity helps to explain the absence of violent conflict to some degree.32 Simón Bolívar, leader of the independence movements

in South America, appealed to the region’s common cultural heritage to seek the union of American states in 1826.33 His call sparked an inter-American cooperation process that eventually led to the creation of the Organization of American States (OAS) in 1948, a predecessor to the United Nations (and, in some instances, much more effective than the latter). Prior to the founding of the OAS, the Inter-American Defense Board (IADB) was established in 1942 to coordinate security efforts in the region. This was a collective response to World War II. The IADB is the oldest international organization of its kind in the world and is linked to the OAS through

formation of the Tlatelolco Treaty of Non- Proliferation of 1967, which was an indirect response to the Cuban Missile Crisis. It set the standard for all the latter’s General Secretariat. 34 Other unprecedented diplomatic efforts include the

nuclear-weapon-free-zone (NWFZ) agreements.35 Direct conflict mediation has also been a hallmark. The Rio Protocol of 1942, for example, put an end to the first war between Peru and Ecuador (circa 1939-1941). Although the 1960s and 1970s were particularly turbulent and good will then faltered in the region, “[t]he strengthening of democracies and the creation of trade blocks in the ’80s–’90s in Latin America contributed to an atmosphere of growing trust and cooperation.”36 Simultaneously, the importance of the military diminished dramatically in the Latin American countries and societies. The end of the Cold War in 1989 marked the end of global bipolarity and the beginning of international and regional approaches to issues of security and economic concern. Latin America then ceased to look up to the United States as the command and control center for regional security matters, mostly because the economic incentives to do so were withdrawn and, as expected, the political justification was no longer relevant. In the absence of such a powerful benefactor, the challenges ahead seemed daunting for the individual Latin American states. They reacted to the end of the Cold War, to a large extent, in terms of integrated responses. This kind of response was also influenced by the strengthening of the process of globalization worldwide.37

Status Quo Solves Latin American relations are up now Pecquet, Foreign affairs reporter, 5/4/13 (Julian, The Hill, “Obama: No 'senior partners' in relationship with Latin America” http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/americas/297805-obama-no-seniorpartners-in-us-relationship-with-latin-america Date accessed: 7/12/13) KG President Obama continued his Latin American charm offensive on Saturday, telling Central American business leaders that he wants a relationship of equals with America's southern neighbors. Wrapping up a three-day visit to Mexico and Costa Rica, Obama reiterated his calls for cross-border cooperation to boost jobs and the economy on both sides of the Rio Grande. He called for joint investments in border infrastructure as a way to save money at a time of budget shortfalls while rooting out security risks. “The main message I have is the United States recognizes that our fates are tied up with your success,” Obama said at a forum on Inclusive Economic Growth and Development in Costa Rica following his meeting with central American government leaders. “We don't think there's senior partners or junior partners in that partnership. It's a partnership based on equality and mutual respect and mutual interests.”

Latin American relations are on their way up now Pace, White House Correspondent, 5/5/13 (Julie, “Issues back home trail Obama on Latin America trip” http://timeswv.com/headlinenews/x508493352/Issues-back-home-trail-Obama-on-Latin-America-trip Date accessed: 7/12/13) KG The shared priorities show how closely entwined the U.S. is with its southern neighbors. These ties stem not only from geography, but also from the growing number of Hispanics living in the United States — and their rapidly increasing political power. “The United States recognizes our fates are tied up with your success,” Obama said Saturday during an economic forum in San Jose, the Costa Rican capital where he wrapped up his three-day trip. “If you are doing well, we will do better. And if we are doing well, we think your situation improves,” he said. Obama’s stops in Mexico and Costa Rica marked his first visit to Latin America since winning re-election last November. His second-term victory resulted in part from the overwhelming support he received from Hispanic voters. He aimed to recast the relationship as one centered on economic issues, arguing that boosting jobs and growth is a central part of resolving the region’s security issues. “For me to be able to visit 50 years later and to see how much progress has been made both in the region and in the ties between the United States and Central America, I think indicates that President Kennedy’s vision was sound,” Obama said.

U.S. and Cuba work together on Coral reefs that will make them resilient to oil spills and other pollutants. Environmental defense fund, protects the Earth's resources using smart economics, practical partnerships & rigorous science, 2/1/13 (Environmental defense fund, “Improving Environmental Science in Cuba for Healthy Marine Ecosystems” http://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/improvingEnvironmentalScienceInCubaForHealthyMarineEcosyst ems.pdf Date accessed: 7/12/13) KG Monitoring activities for the cruise began near the southwestern portion of the island, inside siguanea Bay and extended around Punta Frances into the nearshore waters facing the Caribbean sea. This

portion of the Isle of Youth comprises a diverse array of habitats, exhibiting some of the healthiest and most intact coral reefs and mangroves in the region, as well as seagrass beds of different densities (i.e., low, medium and high) and soft sediment habitats. Operating a research expedition that cruises through different habitats provides a unique opportunity to observe the local faunal communities across benthic environments and in the water column surrounding these habitats. The expedition invited two benthic researchers to join the team, comprised mainly of shark scientists, to take full advantage of the opportunity and create a baseline monitoring program of faunal communities across habitats in the Gulf ofBatabanó and surrounding waters. The design of the monitoring program was a bi-national effort led by Dr. Ernie Estevez of Mote Marine Laboratory in the u.s. and Dr. Maickel Armenteros of Cuba’s Center for Marine Research. Monitoring programs generate baseline information about the status of the area prior to a major change (i.e. disturbance either natural or humanproduced), so that comparisons can be made. Having baseline data will help to measure the severity of an ecosystem alteration and aid in the projection of the impacts of various recovery strategies. Additionally, these data may help identify areas that are more or less resilient when monitored over longer periods of time, and the factors that enhance ecosystem health and resilience, as well as the factors that have negative impacts. Monitoring programs that span multiple years are some of the most powerful tools that managers and scientist have to describe and understand ecosystem function, variation and resilience. But long-term datasets are rare and of those that exist, most are limited in their geographic scope.

No Solvency

Latin America doesn’t take democracy and human rights seriously Ray Walser, 2013, Heritage Senior Policy Analyst specializing in Latin America relations; Foreign Service officer with the U.S. Department of State for 27 years; PhD from University of North Carolina, “Dictator Castro Now In Charge of Latin American Pro-Democracy Group” AP http://blog.heritage.org/2013/01/29/dictator-castro-now-in-charge-of-latin-american-pro-democracygroup/ In Santiago, Chile, on January 28, the new regional body, the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), passed its rotating presidency to Cuba’s dictator General Raul Castro. CELAC, according to prime backer Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, is part of a historic project to build a Latin American/Caribbean union that consciously excludes the U.S. and Canada. Its charter, nevertheless, says CELAC exists to promote democracy and human rights. The Santiago CELAC gathering also dovetailed with a European Union–CELAC Summit aimed at strengthening transatlantic ties, with Latin America appearing for now to have the economic upper hand. Human Rights Watch’s José Miguel Vivanco labeled Castro’s selection as CELAC president a human rights disaster: “It sends a message from the governments of the region that they couldn’t care less about the poor human rights record and the lack of fundamental freedoms in Cuba.” Andres Oppenheimer of the Miami Herald asked, “Isn’t it a joke that a regional organization committed to democracy elects as its new chairman none other than the region’s last military president?” Sadly, the answer is no. In short, the CELAC summit was a net gain for tyranny at the expense of liberty.

Castro consistently provides broken promises – Even if he said he is willing to work with America it’s not genuine Andrew Murray, 2012, Foreign Policy Intern at The Heritage Foundation; BA in Political Science, “Despite Castro’s Words, Hope and Change Not Likely to Define Cuba Anytime Soon” AP http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/07/despite-castros-words-hope-and-change-not-likely-to-define-cubaanytime-soon/ Anyone hoping to see serious changes to Cuba’s ruling system was again disappointed on January 28 when Raul Castro spoke. In a speech marking a critical conference, the Cuban leader promised change, term limits, economic reform, and a willingness to move younger party members to a more elevated status. Yet, as Raul Castro made many promises to his people during his 48-minute address, one could not help but notice the disparity between his words and the reality of Cuban life and politics. At one point, he boasted that Cuba is one of the safest and most peaceful nations in the world “without extrajudicial executions, clandestine jails or tortures…*Cuba has+ basic human rights that most people on Earth can’t even aspire to.” He forgot to point out that in a police state, law and order usually reign—at least on the surface. If Cubans have enviable human rights, then why must the government repress nearly all forms of dissent? Why, according to Human Rights Watch, “does the regime continue to enforce political conformity using short-term detentions, beatings, public acts of repudiation, forced exile, and travel restrictions”? How does it explain the brutal treatment of Cuban women, “las Damas de Blanco” (“the Ladies in White”) who speak for those unjustly jailed by Cuban authorities? Or why does it still hold American Alan Gross, who was jailed in 2009 after donating computer equipment to Cuban Jews? Castro railed at corruption but ignored the fact that its causes are rooted in the malfunctioning economy and the bureaucratic tyranny of the totalitarian state. And while he may want to jettison ration books in his “egalitarian” society, he fears letting go of the censorship of books and information or permitting free travel. He warned party loyalists that “opening up” did not give them a right to “meddle in decisions that should be left up to the government officials.” As for democracy and consent of the governed, Castro justified the 52-year-old dictatorship in the following manner: “to renounce the principle of a oneparty system would be the equivalent of legalizing a party, or parties, of imperialism on our soil.”

Obama won’t be able to cooperate with Cuba due to their close tie with Iran Ray Walser, 2012, Heritage Senior Policy Analyst specializing in Latin America relations; Foreign Service officer with the U.S. Department of State for 27 years; PhD from University of North Carolina, “In Castro’s Cuba: Academic Honors for Tyranny, Failing Grades for Freedom” AP http://blog.heritage.org/2012/01/19/in-castro%E2%80%99s-cuba-academic-honors-for-tyranny-failinggrades-for-freedom/ Friends of improved relations with Cuba argue that citizen contact, people-to-people interaction, and lifting current impediments to travel and trade will pave the way for an improved U.S.–Cuba relationship and greater mutual understanding. Yet if the climate for change is as favorable as they suggest, in a moment of heightened international tensions and growing fear regarding Iran’s rush to a nuclear weapon, why do the Castro brothers choose to host Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with grand fanfare as part of his recent fournation tour in Latin America? Questioned a confused Cuban blogger Irina Echarry: “I still don’t understand how the Cuban government is advocating changes in people’s mentality here (supposedly to advance, prosper, improve the country), when it welcomes a man with a policy as retrograde, anti-feminist, homophobic, warmongering and anti-environmental as *Ahmadinejad+.” Sadly, the truth is that as long as the heights of leadership of the state, the educational system, and the state-controlled media in Communist Cuba remain under the monolithic control of those who have more in common with the leader of “a vengeful, martyrdom-obsessed state in the midst of a never subsiding fury against the West” than with democracy, freedom, and human rights in the Americas, there is little reason to believe that the Obama Administration’s tepid policy of permissive engagement will ever alter the way Cuba’s leaders—not the man in the street—think or act.

The media is all hype –Castro has no intention of loosening his grip Mike Gonzalez, 2011, Vice President of Communications at Heritage, “Media Fails to Report on Castro Regime’s Brutal Oppression” AP http://blog.heritage.org/2011/07/26/media-fails-to-report-on-castro-regimes-brutal-oppression/ Last week, just outside Cuba’s holiest Catholic shrine, government thugs attacked in plain daylight a group of opposition women — beating them, stoning them and stripping them naked to the waist. The women, mostly black and middle-aged, suffered this public humiliation because they were trying to find a dignified way to bring attention to the plight of their husbands, who are in prison for freely speaking their minds.¶ The archbishop of Santiago de Cuba has condemned the attack. You can find an eyewitness account in Spanish in the above video.¶ It should make for poignant watching today, the anniversary of the start of the Cuban Revolution.¶ Unfortunately, there’s nothing unusual in this grotesque attack on the Damas de Blanco (or Ladies in White, the harassed association of wives of political prisoners) on the street outside the shrine of Our Lady of La Caridad del Cobre. It’s routine for Cubans to be publicly degraded, brutalized and imprisoned when they dare speak their minds. Their daily existence has been one of fear and wretched suffering for 50 years now.¶ Yet the chances are that you probably haven’t heard about this story. A quick Google search of the attacks on the Damas de Blanco turned up only about five hits, none from a major publication. Why?¶ Not because it’s a dogbites-man story (literally, in this case), as some journalists might have you believe. No, it’s simply because the media don’t report the daily attacks on the Cuban dissidents.¶ All the major international news wires, and at least two TV networks, have bureaus in Cuba. But they’re either so afraid of being expelled, or have so bought into the regime’s propaganda, that all they report is how Raul Castro is bringing economic reforms to Cuba.¶ So little is the story of Cuba’s oppression known outside that island prison that, were the constant repression reported occasionally, it might actually cause a stir. ¶ Clearly, Raul—Fidel’s brother, who was handed the day-to-day reins of the island when his elder brother fell ill a couple of years back— has no intention of doing anything that will threaten communism’s firm grip on Cuba. Otherwise, his goons would feel no need to terrorize and drag a bunch of older women naked through the streets.¶ What this dearth of news on the Gulag Next Door has produced is a strange double standard, where similar repression in far-away Burma, Zimbabwe or Libya — also by leftist regimes — gets far better coverage. Such is the ignorance of events in Cuba that MSNBC host Chris Matthews two years ago asked this question in an interview:¶ “Congressman Burton, why do you think Cubans on the island still support the Castro brothers? What is it that allows that lock on those people to continue?”¶ Well, Chris, here’s your answer to what happens to Cubans when they try to pick that lock. Leaving Cuba is illegal, so you either stay silent, brave shark-infested waters on inner tubes (it is illegal to own boats in Cuba, for reasons that should be apparent), or risk suffering the fate of the Damas de Blanco.¶

Alternate Cause

Europe European hatred for the US prevents genuine relations with Cuba Mike Gonzalez, 2010, Vice President of Communications at Heritage, “Castro’s European Apologists” AP http://blog.heritage.org/2010/05/24/castro%E2%80%99s-european-apologists/ Do left-wing European journalists and politicians share the blame for the 50-year duration of the Castro dictatorship? Cuban human rights campaigner Armando Valladares seems to think so, and he makes a good case.¶ Sure, the Castros and their goons—who beat up with truncheons and drag through the streets anyone who dares speak their minds in the “Socialist Paradise”—have ultimate responsibility for what they have wrought. But Valladares, who spent 20 years in Castro’s Gulag, has a point when he says that the support that Europe’s self-selected bien pensants have given to Cuba’s oppressors has been instrumental in the continuation of Cuba’s tragedy. Most galling to Valladares is that this support is given because of the hatred the Europeans feel for the United States, which seems to override the suffering of 10 million people.¶ Mr. Valladares came to the Heritage Foundation to speak on May 20 and this is what he said on the subject as he described a recent trip to Sweden and Norway:¶ “When I’m traveling I’m always asked this question, how come the Cuban dictatorship has lasted so long? I think I have the answer, which comes from my personal experience throughout the world. I say that if the Castro dictatorship had been established in Asia or Africa it would have disappeared from the world. The guarantee of its permanence is to be 90 miles away from the U.S. and to have confronted the U.S.¶ “The vast majority of the governments and press of the world hate this country. This is what I told their leaders: ‘you have channeled your hatred of the United States by supporting Castro’s crimes, and that’s why the crimes of the Castro dictatorship have lasted for so long. And you may still have these feelings.’¶ “But I explained to them that the people of Cuba should have nothing to do with the hostility they feel against the U.S. So these leaders asked me, ‘what can we do?’ I told them, ‘very simple: treat the Castro dictatorship in the same way that you treated the dictatorships of Pinochet (in Chile) and of South Africa under Apartheid.’¶ “Then there was a silence, so I asked them ‘or is it that you believe that people of Cuba do not deserve the same solidarity that you showed the people of Chile and South Africa?’¶ “And I can prove what I am saying is true. In Sweden there is a very well known politician named Pierre Schori. My wife went and met him in 1981 in her campaign around the world to gain my freedom and she told him, ‘you people do not know what is happening in Cuban prisons.’ And he said to her, ‘yes, we do know it.’ So my wife asked him, ‘why don’t you say something then?’ And he answered, ‘ah, because that would be to admit that the Americans are right.’¶ “When my book was being published in Sweden, Pierre Schori came looking for me and asked me to exclude from my memoires that episode with my wife.”

Civil Liberties Obama supports engagement with Cuba on the condition of improving civil liberties Ray Walser, December 2012, Heritage Senior Policy Analyst specializing in Latin America relations; Foreign Service officer with the U.S. Department of State for 27 years; PhD from University of North Carolina, “U.S. Policy for Cuba: Libertad” AP http://blog.heritage.org/2012/12/21/u-s-policy-for-cuba-libertad/ Speaking in Miami in May 2008, then-presidential candidate Barack Obama outlined his proposed Cuba policy: “My policy toward Cuba will be guided by one word: Libertad [Liberty]. And the road to freedom for all Cubans must begin with justice for Cuba’s political prisoners, the rights of free speech, a free press and freedom of assembly; and it must lead to elections that are free and fair.”¶ In his 2009 inaugural address, President Obama said, “To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.”¶ It is now 2012. The Obama Administration has opened the door for unrestricted travel by Cuban-Americans, a largely unrestricted remittance flow, and more liberal travel for educational and cultural groups. Yet official U.S.–Cuban relations remain stalemated because of the Castro regime’s refusal to unclench its fist and take even the first steps toward true liberty.¶ Absence of political change in Cuba, many argue, is an insufficient reason to retain the U.S. embargo. Siege warfare against the embargo continues. Many Americans are on the tenterhooks of conscience, suffering from acute symptoms of guilt, democracy fatigue, and loss of self-confidence in American values. Others claim that South Florida Cuban–Americans are losing their political grip. They are quick to assume that more trade, travel, and investment in Cuba will soften the hearts of Cuba’s leaders, not just line their pockets.¶ It is much easier to apply pressure on the Obama Administration for economic concessions that will ensure an ordered succession from the reign of the Castro brothers to a new generation of still unknown Communist leaders. While most hope a Gorbachev or Deng Xiaoping is waiting in the wings, without democracy they might see a post-Castro hardliner emerge to take charge after Raul.¶ In May 2008, in his Miami speech, candidate Obama said, “I will maintain the embargo. It provides us with the leverage to present the regime with a clear choice: if you take significant steps toward democracy…we will take steps to begin normalizing relations.”¶ Americans are smart enough to recognize when a new Cuba begins to emerge from the long nightmare of communist rule. It will occur when Cuba moves away from one-party rule; when suppression of individual rights ends; when a free, uncensored media is able to report on the island’s reality; and when Cuban citizens select their leaders on the basis of consent—not coercion.

Snowden/Morales US action with Snowden/Morales decks relations Achtenberg 7/12, Reporter for NAFTA (Elizabeth, “The Detention of Evo Morales: A Defining Moment For Latin America?”, July 12, 2013, http://nacla.org/blog/2013/7/11/detention-evo-moralesdefining-moment-latin-america, DH) As the international uproar continues over last week’s grounding of Bolivian President Evo Morales’s plane in Europe, after U.S. officials apparently suspected whistle-blower Edward Snowden of being on board, many questions remain unanswered about the United States’ role and motives.? 1892? Presidential jet grounded in Vienna. Credit: EFE/ La Razón.? But one thing is certain: if the U.S. government was seeking to intimidate Morales and other Latin American leaders who might consider harboring Snowden, its strategy has completely backfired. Instead, the incident has bolstered Morales’s domestic and international standing, consolidated regional unity, and emboldened the bloc of leftist governments that seeks to counter U.S. dominance in the region. It has also dealt a damaging, and potentially fatal, blow to the future of U.S.–Latin American relations under the Obama administration.? The crisis was set off by Morales’s statement on July 2 in Russia, where he was attending an energy conference, that he would be willing to consider a petition by Snowden for asylum. Later that evening, on his return flight to Bolivia, Morales’s plane was denied entry into the airspace of France, Italy, Spain, and Portugal, forcing it to make an unscheduled landing in Vienna where it was diverted for 13 hours before receiving clearance to proceed.? In response to Bolivia’s persistent questioning, the four European countries have offered equivocal and somewhat contradictory—if not preposterous—explanations for their actions. France, which has apologized to Morales, says it didn’t realize that the Bolivian president was on the presidential jet. Portugal, originally scheduled as a refueling stop, says its airport wasn’t capable of servicing the plane. Italy now completely denies having closed its airspace.? Spain, after initially attributing the problem to the expiration of its flyover permit during Morales’s unexpected layover in Austria, later admitted that the United States had asked it to block the flight (although the United States has not acknowledged any role in the incident). At first, Spanish officials also claimed that the plane was searched for Snowden in Vienna at the behest of the United States—an action which, if taken without Bolivia’s permission, would constitute a violation of international law even more egregious than the denial of airspace to the presidential jet.? 1889? Morales arrives home to a hero's welcome. Credit: AP/ Juan Karita.? More recently, Spain has insisted (and Bolivia concurs) that it ultimately granted airspace permission upon Bolivia’s written assurance that Snowden was not on board the plane. Spain, which has sought to improve economic relations with Bolivia after being hit hard by Morales’s nationalization of its airport management and electric companies, has also offered to apologize.? The apparent willingness of four European governments to put U.S. interests ahead of international law and Bolivia’s rights as a sovereign nation—despite themselves being victimized by illegal U.S. spying activities—stands in sharp contrast to Latin America, where the detention of an indigenous president is seen as the latest grievance in a long history of colonial and imperial transgressions. Bolivian Vice President Alvaro García Linera has denounced the incident as an imperial “kidnapping.”? For

many Bolivians, the episode is viewed as a deliberate effort by the U.S. government to punish Morales for his persistent anti-U.S. rhetoric and actions, including the expulsion of the U.S. Ambassador and Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) in 2008, and, most recently, USAID. It also strikes a special nerve since the United States hosts, and has refused to extradite, some of Bolivia’s most wanted criminals, including neoliberal ex-president Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada (Goni), facing charges of genocide in connection with the killing of 67 indigenous protesters during the 2003 “Gas Wars.”? Within hours of Morales’s detention, other leftist Latin American governments rallied in outraged solidarity with Bolivia. Argentine President Cristina Fernández labeled the incident “a remnant of the colonialism we thought had been overcome.” Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa tweeted, “We are all Bolivia!”? Along with expressions of support from ALBA, CELAC, Mercosur, and other regional blocs, UNASUR issued a statement condemning the action on July 4, signed by six heads of state (Bolivia, Argentina, Uruguay, Venezuela, Ecuador, and Suriname) who attended an emergency meeting. Governments from across the region’s political spectrum (including Mexico, Peru, Colombia, and Chile) closed ranks behind Morales.? On July 9, the OAS issued a consensus resolution expressing solidarity with Morales and demanding apologies and explanations from the four European nations (but not the United States.) Internationally, more than 100 UN member nations have collectively denounced the incident, bolstering Bolivia’s complaint before the UN High Commission on Human Rights.? 1890? UNASUR meeting, Cochabamba. Credit: Jorge Abrego/ EPA.? The provocative detention of Morales undoubtedly precipitated the decision of three leftist Latin American governments—Bolivia,

Venezuela, and Nicaragua (conditionally)—to offer asylum to Snowden, in open defiance of the United States. As journalist Stephen Kinzer has noted, with the U.S./ European rogue actions converting Snowden into a Latin American hero, the offer of asylum is politically popular in the region. This sentiment also stems from the regional legacy of dictatorship and political persecution, including the personal experiences of many leftist leaders. As Uruguayan President José Mujica (a former Tupamaro guerrilla) declared, “To all of us who have been persecuted, the right to asylum is sacred and must be defended.”? Broad regional support also makes it easier for any country offering shelter to Snowden to resist U.S. demands for extradition. As well, the mounting evidence of U.S. pressure on European and Latin American countries to deny sanctuary or transit assistance to Snowden, interfering with their sovereign decision-making processes, strengthens the case for asylum, legally and politically. U.S. officials have made it clear that any country aiding Snowden will be made to suffer, putting relations with the United States “in a very bad place for a long time to come.”? Still, in a region that remains heavily dependent on U.S. trade, the threat of U.S. retaliation through economic sanctions will be a major factor in the asylum calculus for any government, as illustrated by the recent case of Ecuador. After initially championing Snowden’s cause and apparently aiding his transit from Hong Kong to Moscow, Correa suddenly backed off after a phone call from Joe Biden, saying that Biden’s concerns were “worth considering.” While Correa has defiantly renounced Ecuador’s long-standing U.S. trade preferences as an instrument of “political blackmail,” he apparently hopes to replace them with an alternative set of duty-free waivers under the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) program, an option that could be jeopardized by an asylum offer.? Similar considerations will no doubt be of concern to Venezuela and Bolivia, should either of their asylum offers materialize into reality (a complex proposition, given the many obstacles to achieving Snowden’s safe transit). While political relations between these countries and the United States have been polarized for some time—with the U.S. government still failing to recognize Nicolás Maduro’s April election— Venezuela still exports 40% of its oil to U.S. markets, and the United States remains as Bolivia’s third largest trading partner (after Brazil and Argentina). Bolivia also enjoys some of the same GSP trade preferences that Ecuador is seeking, which cover around 50% of its U.S. exports.? 1891? La Paz marchers demand closing of US Embassy. Credit: Sara Shahriari, Indian Country Today.? Still, the incident has greatly strengthened both Morales and Maduro domestically and internationally, corroborating their anti-imperialist worldviews. For Morales—newly characterized by García Linera as the “leader of the anti-imperialist presidents and peoples of the world”—the wave of solidarity responding to his personal victimization has consolidated his political popularity in a pre-election year. Recalling the 2002 presidential election when the U.S. Ambassador’s negative comments about candidate Morales catapulted him unexpectedly into second place, García Linera jokes that Obama has become Morales’s new campaign manager.?

For Maduro, whose asylum offer is being promoted by Russia, the opportunity to champion Snowden’s cause and challenge the United States on a world stage, with substantial regional support, has allowed him to genuinely reclaim Hugo Chávez’s anti-imperialist mantle. “It provides the perfect opportunity for Maduro…to figure internationally, to show that he is a player among the big powers…and that he’s capable of challenging the United States,” says political analyst Eduardo Semetei.? In terms of overall U.S.-Latin American relations, the episode could be a defining moment for the Obama administration. As Kinzer notes, the downing of Morales’s jet may have reflected a genuine U.S. effort to capture Snowden—as opposed to a shot across the bow to intimidate Snowden’s potential supporters—but even so, the depth of misunderstanding as to how the incident would resonate in Latin America is telling. New daily revelations from Snowden's data trove about massive U.S. spying programs in the region are adding fuel to the fire, further strengthening the leftist popular bloc—and confirming Glenn Greenwald’s assessment that the U.S. government has been its own worst enemy throughout this entire episode. It is difficult to imagine how the Obama administration can recover the region’s trust any time soon.

Snowden/Assange Padgett 7/9, Reporter for TIME World (“How the West Enabled Snowden’s Bid for Latin American Asylum”, July 9 2013, http://world.time.com/2013/07/09/how-the-west-enabled-snowdens-bid-forlatin-american-asylum/, DH) Let’s say, as Bolivian President Evo Morales insists, that the U.S. did urge European officials to deny Morales their air space on his flight home from Moscow last week because fugitive NSA leaker Edward Snowden was rumored (falsely) to be onboard. If that’s true — and we may never know, since U.S. officials aren’t commenting — did the Obama Administration just make it easier for Snowden to win political asylum in Latin America?? Up until that July 2 incident, it wasn’t at all certain that the Latin American left, which includes Morales, would follow through on its threats to grant asylum to Snowden, who is wanted in the U.S. on espionage charges after he exposed secret NSA communications surveillance at home and abroad. Socialist Venezuela—which confirmed July 9 that it

had received Snowden’s asylum request—and the rest of the region’s anti-U.S. bloc seemed to be waiting for a stronger pretext for giving Snowden refuge, and preferably their favorite kind of pretext, an act of U.S.-backed imperialismo. That’s exactly the gift that Spain, Portugal, France and Italy provided by forcing Morales’ plane to land in Vienna for inspection.? (MORE: Putin to Offer Snowden Asylum, but With a Catch)? Suddenly, South America’s leftist presidents, whose hemispheric influence had been waning of late, found their mojo again. They rushed breathlessly to Bolivia to greet Morales, who shouted, “United we will defeat American imperialism!” while calling for the closure of the U.S. embassy there. By Friday evening, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, in need of a political boost after just barely winning a special April election to succeed his mentor, the late Hugo Chávez, formally offered the “young American” Snowden asylum from “persecution from the empire.” Bolivia said it too was willing to give refuge to the 30-year-old Snowden, who has been holed up in Moscow’s Sheremetyevo Airport since June 23. Nicaragua said it would also consider it, as has Ecuador.? Bottom line: Snowden may well now elude U.S. authorities after he seemed to be cornered in Sheremetyevo’s transit lounge. “If the U.S. was involved in diverting Evo’s plane, it was a bit of old-style cold-war maneuvering that backfired,” says Ariel Armony, director of the University of Miami’s Center for Latin American Studies. “But even if it wasn’t *involved+, the global perception is that those four European countries wouldn’t have decided to do this of their own volition. Either way, it puts the U.S. at risk of failing to get Snowden in the end.”? Perhaps most baffling is the fact that the U.S. and Europe had already seen something like this play out last summer. It was then that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who had released thousands of classified U.S. diplomatic cables, showed up at Ecuador’s embassy in London. He hoped to avoid extradition not just to Sweden, where he faced sexual assault charges, but possibly to the U.S. as well. Leftist and anti-U.S. Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa hemmed and hawed about giving Assange asylum — until British authorities made the blunder of reminding Correa that U.K. law revokes an embassy’s diplomatic immunity if it’s judged to be harboring a fugitive.? (MORE: Snowden and Putin: U.S. Whistle-Blower’s Fate Is in Russian President’s Hands)? That was all Correa needed to hear: He accused the Brits of practicing imperialista gunboat diplomacy in the service of Washington. Feeling global opinion shift in his favor, Correa used what he called London’s threat to storm his embassy as justification for going ahead and granting Assange asylum as the only honorable thing for Ecuador to do. (Assange, however, is still holed up in the embassy building.)? What the Brits failed to remember then, and what the U.S. and its European allies seemed clueless about last week, was the centuries of often ugly foreign intervention that Latin American countries have experienced. The Latin American left exploits that resentment at every opportunity — and it will certainly get stoked when world powers so much as appear to be pushing around the President of South America’s poorest nation (its first indigenous head of state to boot) on the flimsy basis of a rumor that he’s ferrying a U.S. fugitive at 40,000 feet.? Even so, John Maisto, a former U.S. ambassador to Venezuela and Nicaragua, says he doesn’t believe the Venezuela-led bloc was necessarily waiting for an excuse to offer Snowden sanctuary and kick the “empire” in the shins. “I don’t think they needed a pretext,” says Maisto, now chairman of the Washington-based American Committees on Foreign Relations board of advisers. “For them, this is about thwarting the national interests of the U.S., which has a real, justified and important interest in getting Snowden.” Without or without Morales’ flight diversion, he adds, one of those anti-yanqui allies was probably bound to invite Snowden in.? (MORE: What Snowden Needs Now Is a Good Lawyer)? But did the Morales episode make that easier to do? Before Snowden leaked the NSA surveillance details to the media last month, for example, Venezuela and the U.S. had begun a post-Chávez process of rapprochement. If Venezuela had come forward before July 2 and given Snowden asylum as a poke in the Obama Administration’s eye, Maduro may well have looked diplomatically churlish. After July 2, he seemed to decide that the Morales fiasco gave him an out — in other words, international political cover for jilting the new outreach between Caracas and Washington.? And he could do so amid a sudden air of moral support

from the rest of Latin America. Even as Morales was fuming on the tarmac in Vienna last week, new Snowden media leaks revealed a massive NSA surveillance operation in more U.S.-friendly Brazil, prompting its Foreign Minister to voice “deep concern” and Brasília to launch an investigation. (The U.S. insists the program is standard intelligence-gathering practiced by all nations.)? Yet if Snowden does go to Venezuela — and that may depend on whether communist Cuba’s leader, Raúl Castro, who is involved in his own fledgling detente with the U.S. right now, lets Snowden stop in Havana enroute to Caracas — he’ll face the irony of receiving asylum from a government that’s hardly a champion of his own free speech and open information values. Under Chávez and now Maduro, in fact, Venezuela is better known for tough anti-defamation laws, including criminal prosecution for insulting officials like the President. Ditto for Assange: Correa just pushed through a measure that essentially makes him Ecuador’s media censor.? That’s just one more reason to ask whether what happened last week in the skies over Europe was the height of folly.?

Venezuela Relations Low Now – Snowden Proves Maduro’s Anti-US Washington Post 7/8 (Juan Forero and Will Englund, “With Snowden offer, Venezuela’s Maduro is on world stage”, July 8 2013, http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/with-snowden-offer-venezuelasmaduro-is-on-world-stage/2013/07/08/35d83f42-e812-11e2-818e-aa29e855f3ab_story.html, DH) BOGOTA, Colombia —American fugitive Edward Snowden’s diminishing possibilities of remaining free to continue releasing information about secret U.S. surveillance programs increasingly appear to hinge on Venezuela, which awaited word Monday on whether the former National Security Agency contractor would accept its offer of asylum and fly to the oil-rich country.? Bolivia and Nicaragua also say they could give refuge to Snowden, who is on the run from American officials and is thought to be marooned in the vast transit zone of Moscow’s Sheremetyevo International Airport. And the president of communist Cuba, Raúl Castro, on Sunday expressed support for Latin American allies that might take in the 30-year-old computer expert, opening the possibility that Snowden could fly through Havana as a first leg on his flight to asylum. Among those offering sanctuary to Snowden, antiimperialist Venezuela stands out: a country with an intense antipathy toward the United States and just enough muscle to make his escape from American law enforcement a possibility. It also appears that Russian officials, eager to end the diplomatic fallout of having Snowden in Moscow, see their close ally, Venezuela, as offering the clearest solution.? “The situation with Snowden is creating additional tension in relations with Washington that are complex as they are,” Alexei Pushkov, head of the foreign affairs committee of the lower house of the Russian parliament, told the newspaper Kommersant on Monday.? Pushkov, whose comments dependably reflect the Kremlin’s position on foreign affairs, said the Snowden saga needed to be settled before President Obama arrives in September to meet with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin. “And judging by the way things are unfolding,” Pushkov told the newspaper, “this is how it’s going to be.”? Over the weekend, Pushkov had also said that giving asylum to Snowden in Venezuela could not damage Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, because his government’s relations with Washington are already in tatters. “It can’t get worse,” Pushkov said in a Twitter message.? Late Tuesday afternoon, Pushkov said on Twitter that Snowden, “as expected,” had accepted Maduro’s offer of asylum, but he didn’t address the question of how Snowden might get to Caracas. Shortly afterward, the tweet was deleted.? Pushkov then tweeted again, claiming he had heard the news about Snowden on Russian television. “Direct all your questions to them,” he wrote.? By Tuesday evening, Pushkov had issued yet a third tweet: “According to News 24 [a TV news program], with reference to Maduro, Snowden accepted his offer of asylum. If so, he has found that to be the safest option.”? Newly elected and facing staggering economic problems at home despite the country’s oil wealth, Maduro appears to have made a high-pitched, openly hostile position against the Obama administration a cornerstone of his government’s foreign policy. He took his most provocative stand Friday in announcing that Venezuela would take in Snowden. On Monday, Maduro

said that a letter from Snowden requesting asylum had been received and that the young American would simply have to decide when to fly to Caracas. Maduro has accused the United States of fomenting protests against his government after his disputed April 14 election victory, which gave him the presidency his predecessor, Hugo Chávez, had held for 14 turbulent years until his death from cancer.? The Snowden saga — a young American revealing secrets the U.S. government wants to contain — provided the perfect opportunity for Maduro to take on the Obama administration, said Eduardo Semtei, a former Venezuelan government official. “To figure internationally, to show that he is a player among big powers, he offered asylum to Snowden,” said Semtei, who had been close to Chávez’s brother, Adán, a leading ideologue in the late president’s radical movement. “This grabs headlines, and it shows that he’s a strong president, one with character, and that he’s capable of challenging the United States.”? Maduro and Venezuela came late to the Snowden saga, as tiny Ecuador, an ally also committed to opposing American initiatives, heaped praise on Snowden and expressed a willingness to help him after he had flown from Hong Kong to Moscow on June 23 to avoid American justice. When? Ecuador backed away from its initial enthusiasm over Snowden, Venezuela stepped in last week as Maduro arrived in Moscow for an energy summit.? The 50-year-old Maduro, who found his political calling as a socialist activist with close ties to Cuba, took a sharply anti-? imperialist stand in embracing Snowden. He said the United States had “created an evil system, half Orwellian, that intends to control the communications of the world,” and characterized Snowden as an antiwar activist and hero who had unmasked the dastardly plans of America’s ruling elite.? Political analysts say the opportunity to take sides against Washington was simply irresistible for a government that has for years characterized itself as a moral force speaking out for the weak against “the empire,” as the United States is known in Caracas. And the fact that the secrets Snowden divulged were embarrassing to the Obama administration only gave more fuel to Venezuela, former Venezuelan diplomats and political analysts in Caracas said.? “Edward Snowden became the symbol for the antiimperialist rhetoric, for progressivism, for international radicalism,” said Carlos Romero, an analyst and author who closely tracks Venezuela’s international diplomacy.? Venezuela helped channel the fury of Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador, Uruguay and Suriname after Bolivian President Evo Morales’s plane was apparently refused entry into the airspace of as many as four European countries last Tuesday because of the belief that Snowden was hiding aboard. And on Monday, Venezuela’s state media apparatus seemed to take more offense than the Brazilian government over revelations that the NSA had collected data on countless telephone and e-mail conversations in Brazil.? But former diplomats familiar with Venezuela say that there are other aspects to consider in deciphering Maduro’s support for Snowden.? Ignacio Arcaya, a diplomat who served the Chávez government in the United States in the early part of his presidency, said Maduro has had the challenge of trying to ease the concerns of radicalized sectors in his movement that have been worried about a resumption of relations with Washington now that Chávez is gone. Indeed, until recently, Maduro was spearheading an effort at rapprochement, as shown by a meeting in Guatemala on June 5 between Secretary of State John F. Kerry and his Venezuelan counterpart, Elías Jaua.? “What Maduro is doing is aimed at quieting the radical sectors of his party who think he is negotiating with the United States and think that he’s talking to private industry,” Arcaya said.? Maduro also has to consider his own unstable political position after the April 14 election, which is being contested by his challenger, Henrique Capriles, who says the vote was stolen from him. At the same time, Maduro faces millions of Venezuelans tired of the country’s sky-high inflation, rampant homicide rate and serious shortages of everything from chicken to toilet paper.? Myles R.R. Frechette, a retired American diplomat who served in Venezuela and other Latin American countries, said Maduro is using a tried-and-true strategy: loudly oppose the United States to distract from domestic problems.? “It plays very well,” said Frechette. “It’s the card to play. It’s what you’ve always got in your drawer. You open your drawer and play to your most radical elements.”

Surveillance US Surveillance hampers relations Castaldi 7/12, Reporter for Reuters (Malena, “South American bloc repudiates U.S. on spying, Snowden”, July 12, 2013, http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/12/us-usa-security-snowdenlatinamerica-idUSBRE96B0TP20130712, DH) (Reuters) - South American leaders sent a tough message to Washington on Friday over allegations of U.S. spying in the region and to defend their right to offer asylum to fugitive U.S. spy agency contractor Edward Snowden.? Washington wants Snowden arrested on espionage charges after he divulged extensive, secret U.S. surveillance programs. Stuck in the transit area of Moscow's international airport since late June, he is seeking asylum in various countries.? Capping two weeks of strained NorthSouth relations over the Snowden saga, presidents from the Mercosur bloc of nations met in Montevideo, Uruguay. Complaints against the United States were high on the agenda, as Washington warned the international community not to help the 30-year-old computer whiz get away.? "We repudiate any action aimed at undermining the authority of countries to grant and fully implement the right of asylum," Mercosur said in a statement at the close of Friday's summit.? "We emphatically reject the interception of telecommunications and espionage activities in our countries, as they are a violation of human rights and citizens' right to privacy and information," it said.? The Mercosur bloc comprises Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay.? "This global espionage case has shaken the conscience of the people of the United States and has upset the world," Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro said. "It raises key issues of political ethics."? The meeting began as reports emerged that Snowden plans to eventually travel to Latin America after seeking temporary asylum in Russia. Leftist leaders in Venezuela, Bolivia and Nicaragua have offered him asylum.? The U.S.-Russian relationship would be troubled if Moscow were to accept an asylum request from Snowden, the U.S. State Department said on Friday.? LATIN AMERICAN RESPONSE? Leaders throughout Latin America are furious over reports that the U.S. National Security Agency targeted most Latin American countries with spying programs that monitored Internet traffic, especially in Colombia, Venezuela, Brazil and Mexico.? "This is the world we live in; a world with new forms of colonialism," Argentine President Cristina Fernandez said in her closing remarks in Montevideo. "It is more subtle than it was two centuries ago, when they came with armies to take our silver and gold."? Colombia, Washington's closest military ally in Latin America, and Mexico, its top business partner, joined the chorus of governments seeking answers after the espionage allegations were published by a leading Brazilian newspaper on Tuesday.? "Any act of espionage that violates human rights, above all the basic right to privacy, and undermines the sovereignty of nations, deserves to be condemned by any country that calls itself democratic," Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff told reporters on arrival at the meeting.? Rousseff, who was imprisoned and tortured under military rule in Brazil in the early 1970s, said the rights issue was particularly important for South American countries that lived under dictatorships for years and are now democracies.? U.N. human rights chief Navi Pillay made her first comment on the Snowden case on Friday, saying people needed to be sure their communications were not being unduly scrutinized and calling on all countries to respect the right to seek asylum.? Snowden said in a letter posted on Friday on the Facebook page of the New-York based Human Rights Watch that the United States has been pressuring countries not to accept him. And U.S. President Barack Obama has warned of serious costs to any country who takes him in.? Despite their public offers of asylum and fiery rhetoric, few in Latin America seem particularly keen to welcome Snowden and risk damaging trade and economic ties with Washington.? Cuba and Venezuela are both in a cautious rapprochement with the United States that could be jeopardized if they helped Snowden.? Still, leaders recalled that many of

their own citizens sought asylum abroad during the military dictatorships of the Cold War era.? South American leaders rallied in support of Bolivian President Evo Morales last week after he was denied access to the airspace of several European countries on suspicion the 30-year-old Snowden might be on board his plane as Morales flew home from a visit to Russia.? Bolivia is an associate member of Mercosur and Morales attended Friday's meeting.

Latin American countries upset over US Surveillance Boadle 7/9, Reporter for Reuters (Anthony, “NSA Surveillance: Latin American Countries Demand Explanation Of U.S. Spying Program”, July 9 2013, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/11/nsasurveillance-latin-american-countries_n_3579080.html, DH) BRASILIA, July 9 (Reuters) - Irate Latin American nations are demanding explanations from the United States about new allegations that it spied on both allies and foes in the region with secret surveillance programs.? A leading Brazilian newspaper reported on Tuesday that the U.S. National Security Agency targeted most Latin American countries with spying programs that monitored Internet traffic, especially in Colombia, Venezuela, Brazil and Mexico.? Citing documents leaked by Edward Snowden, the fugitive former U.S. intelligence contractor, O Globo newspaper said the NSA programs went beyond military affairs to what it termed "commercial secrets," including oil and energy resources.? Regional leaders called for a tough response to the alleged espionage that O Globo said included a satellite monitoring stations based in Brazil's capital.? "A shiver ran down my back when I learned that they are spying on all of us," Argentine President Cristina Fernandez said in a speech on Tuesday.? She called on the Mercosur bloc of South American nations, due to meet on Friday, to issue a strong statement and demand explanations from Washington. "More than revelations, these are confirmations of what we thought was happening," she said.? Peruvian President Ollanta Humala, who has emerged as a close U.S. ally, said the reported spying was worrisome.? "We are against these kinds of espionage activities," he said in a televised interview. "It would be good for (Peru's) Congress to look with concern at privacy issues related to personal information."? Brazil's government said it set up a task force of its defense, communications, justice and foreign affairs ministries to investigate the alleged espionage and establish whether the privacy of Brazilian citizens had been violated.? The Brazilian Senate's foreign relations committee has asked U.S. ambassador Thomas Shannon to testify on the allegations. It is unclear whether Shannon, who is not obliged to testify, will do so.? Gilberto Carvalho, a top aide to President Dilma Rousseff, said a "very hard" response to the United States was needed. "If we lower our heads, they will trample all over us tomorrow," he said.? The espionage allegations surfaced one week after South American nations were outraged by the diversion of Bolivian President Evo Morales' plane in Europe because of the suspicion that Snowden was on board.? U.S. ALLY PRIME TARGET? O Globo said a main NSA surveillance target was Colombia, the United States' top military ally in the region, where drug trafficking and movements by the FARC guerrilla group were monitored.? It said the NSA spied on military procurement and the oil industry in Venezuela, and in Mexico it gathered information on the drug trade, the energy sector and political affairs.? Also swept up in what O Globo termed as U.S. spying were Argentina, Ecuador, Panama, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Honduras, Paraguay, Chile and El Salvador.? The article was written by Glenn Greenwald, Roberto Kaz and José Casado.? An American citizen who works for Britain's Guardian newspaper and lives in Rio de Janeiro, Greenwald was the journalist who first revealed classified documents provided by Snowden that outlined the extent of U.S. communications monitoring activity at home and abroad.? Greenwald said on Sunday in a Twitter message that he had worked with O Globo on the reports to relay more quickly the scope and reach of the alleged surveillance. The bulk of Greenwald's stories thus far have appeared in the Guardian.? As disclosed by Snowden to the Guardian, the NSA's "Prism" program collated mail, Internet chat and files directly from the servers of companies such as Google, Facebook and Skype.? O Globo cited documents saying that NSA agents carried out "spying actions" via "Boundless Informant," which it said

cataloged telephone calls and access to the Internet.? The newspaper reported on Sunday that the NSA and the Central Intelligence Agency had gathered telephone and email data in Brazil, based on documents Snowden provided to Greenwald.? Brazil's telecommunications agency said on Monday it would investigate whether local operators had violated customer privacy rules in alleged surveillance of Brazilian telecommunications data by the U.S. spy agencies.? According to O Globo, access to Brazilian communications was obtained through U.S. companies that were partners with Brazilian telecommunications firms. The report did not identify any of the companies but said an NSA program called Silverzephyr was used to access phone calls, faxes and emails.? O Globo also reported this week that the CIA and the NSA jointly ran monitoring stations to gather information from foreign satellites in 65 countries, including five in Latin America, citing documents dating from 2002 leaked by Snowden.? The so-called Special Collection Service operated from the capitals of Colombia, Venezuela, Panama, Mexico and Brazil. The newspaper said it was not known whether the alleged satellite espionage continued after 2002. (Additional reporting by Jeferson Ribeiro in Brasilia, Terry Wade in Lima, Hugh Bronstein in Buenos Aires and Pablo Garibian in Mexico City; Editing by W Simon, Kieran Murray and Philip Barbara)

Terror List As long as Cuba is on the terror list relations will be where they stand today Los Angeles Times, News agency, 3/13/13 ( Los Angeles Times, “Cross Cuba off the blacklist” http://articles.latimes.com/2013/mar/13/opinion/la-ed-cuba-terrorist-list-20130313 Washington has for three decades kept Cuba on a list of countries that sponsor terrorism, even though it has long since changed the behavior that earned it that distinction. By all accounts, Cuba remains on the list — alongside Iran, Sudan and Syria — because it disagrees with the United States' approach to fighting international terrorism, not because it supports terrorism. That's hardly a sensible standard. None of the reasons that landed Cuba on the list in 1982 still exist. A 2012 report by the State Department found that Havana no longer provides weapons or paramilitary training to Marxist rebels in Latin America or Africa. In fact, Cuba is currently hosting peace talks between the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia and President Juan Manuel Santos' government. And Cuban officials condemned the 9/11 attacks on the United States. Moreover, keeping Cuba on the list undermines Washington's credibility in Latin America. During last year's Summit of the Americas in Cartagena, Colombia, presidents from the hemisphere expressed frustration that the U.S. remains frozen in its relations with Cuba, enforcing an embargo that dates to the Kennedy administration. Cuba is not a model state. The government often fails to observe human rights. Its imprisonment of Alan Gross, a subcontractor for the U.S. Agency for International Development who was sentenced to a 15-year jail term in 2009 after bringing communications equipment into the country, has prompted repeated visits to the island by U.S. officials seeking to secure his release. The list, however, is reserved not for human rights violators but for countries that export or support terrorism. Clinging to that designation when the evidence for it has passed fails to recognize Cuba's progress and reinforces doubts about America's willingness to play fair in the region.

Environment Adv.

AT: Oil Spills

Alt Cause Government mismanagement means the impact is inevitable Loris, Economic Policy Studies ‘10 *Nicolas Loris, 6, 2010 at 5:47 pm, heritage.org, “Surprise! Oil Spill Commission Critical of Government Response,” http://blog.heritage.org/2010/10/06/surprise-oil-spill-commission-critical-of-governmentresponse/, 7/12/13, MVL] President Obama’s National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling released four papers discussing several aspects of the federal response, including the use of dispersants and contingency plans for possible future spills. But a large part of the commission’s report and what’s garnering most of the attention in the media is the government’s mismanagement of the spill. One of the four paper says, “The federal government created the impression that it was either not fully competent to handle the spill or not fully candid with the American people about the scope of the problem.” The

commission faults the Administration for underreporting the initial spill amounts and the Office of Management and Budget for denying requests from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to make worst-case scenarios known to the public. The report was also critical of the inefficiencies and the overreaction by the Unified Command Center. The Wall Street Journal reports: While Coast Guard personnel told the commission in interviews that they had enough equipment by the end of May, the president announced around that same time that he would triple the federal manpower responding to the spill. The paper calls this “the arguable overreaction to the public perception of a slow response.” The tripling effort resulted in resources being thrown at the problem in an inefficient way. For example, the commission paper says, the National Incident Command staffers thought they needed to buy every skimmer they could find, even though they were hearing that responders had enough skimmers. Not

enough urgency in the beginning. Too much urgency when everything was under control. If the public was overreacting and the government responded to that overreaction, you wouldn’t know it. The government was quick and persistent in publicly slamming BP but not when it came to conveying messages to the public about the extent of the spill. The commission is right to point out that the legislation in place was never meant to handle an oil spill of this magnitude. State and local governments are more familiar with and prepared to respond through the Incident Command relationships as conducted through the National Response Framework by the authority of the Stafford Act. On the other hand, the Incident Command system established under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 is not well suited for handling multiple states and diverse jurisdictions within states. For example, during the Deepwater Horizon response, the Coast Guard had to establish liaison officers at the county level in order to facilitate a more harmonious relationship between local authorities and the Incident Command team. Furthermore, in the Gulf region, a major oil-producing area, preparations should account for the real possibility that there could have been a major hurricane during the course of the recovery. The President may well have had to exercise his authority under the Stafford Act, with the Federal Emergency Management Agency playing the lead role in hurricane recovery. Thus, under current laws the federal government could have two competing disaster operations occurring at the same time. This is nonsensical. The

Oil Pollution Act should be amended to harmonize responses for Spills of National Significance with the National Response Framework. The commission is right to fault the Administration’s response effort.

Lack of safety regulations are the reasons why oil spills get out of hand Curwin, Oceana, 12 *2/2012, Oceana, “Offshore Drilling Reform,” http://breakingenergy.sites.breakingmedia.com/wpcontent/uploads/sites/2/2012/04/Offshore_Drilling_Report_Card_2012_FINAL.pdf, 7/12/13, MVL] ¶ As we reported from the very get-go, the oil spill response was “stuck on stupid.” On April 20, 2010 the world watched as BP lost control of a well it was drilling using the Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico. For the next 87 days, 200 million gallons of oil poured into the ocean, devastating the region’s environment and economy, including fisheries and tourism. The spill also claimed the lives of 11 individuals and injured many more, and hundreds of sea birds, turtles, dolphins and other sea life were also killed. Two years later, the impacts of the oil to deep sea corals and other less visible animals and plants are still being uncovered. According to recent figures, BP has spent more than $32 billion in cleanup-related costs, and billions have been paid to Gulf Coast residents that were affected by the spill, either from loss of work or direct damages. Billions more will be required to settle up on penalties and natural resource damages, though those are still the subject of litigation. In the aftermath of the worst accidental oil spill in world history, several

high-

level commissions and panels reported on the causes of the spill and made important recommendations to prevent such events from re-occurring. In particular, the Presidentiallyappointed National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling (hereafter referred to as the National Commission) made a series of recommendations on how regulation and safety issues should be addressed. Similarly, the National Academy of Engineering and the National Research Council (hereafter collectively referred to as NAE) also analyzed the causes and recommended actions to prevent future spills. Unfortunately, our review demonstrates that little to no progress has been made to improve the regulation and safety conditions of offshore drilling in the U.S. Even where actions were taken, Oceana finds the efforts to be woefully inadequate. In this report, Oceana has graded the effectiveness of the U.S. government and industry in improving the regulation and safety of offshore drilling since the Deepwater Horizon oil disaster two years ago. Building on our previous report, entitled False Sense of Safety, Oceana has analyzed the progress made towards reaching the key recommendations of the National Commission and NAE . Categoryof Recommendations(from the National Commission) Grade¶ Improving the safety of offshore operations: government’s role D¶ Improving the safety of offshore operations: industry’s role F¶ Safeguarding the environment D¶ Strengthening oil spill response, planning and capacity F¶ Advancing well-containment capabilities F¶ Overcoming the impacts of the Deepwater Horizon spill D¶ and restoring the Gulf¶ Ensuring financial responsibility F¶ Promoting Congressional engagement to ensure F¶ responsible offshore drilling¶ Moving to frontier regions F Tankers are a bigger contributor to oil spills

ITOPF, 12 *1/2012, ITOPF, “Oil Tanker Spill Statistics 2012,” http://www.itopf.com/news-andevents/documents/StatsPack.pdf, 7/12/13, MVL] The causes and circumstances of oil spills are varied, but can have a significant effect on the final quantity spilt. The following analysis explores the incidence of spills of different sizes in terms of the operation that the vessel was undertaking at the time of the incident and the primary cause of the spill. For small and medium sized spills, operations have been grouped into Loading/ Discharging, Bunkering, Other Operations and Unknown Operations. Other Operations includes activities such as ballasting, de-ballasting, tank cleaning and when the vessel is underway. Reporting of larger spills tends to provide more information and greater accuracy, which has allowed further breakdown of vessel operations. Therefore, operations for larger spills have been grouped into Loading/Discharging, Bunkering, At Anchor (Inland/ Restricted waters), At Anchor (Open water), Underway (Open water), Underway (Inland/Restricted waters), Other Operations and Unknown Operations. The primary causes have been designated to Allisions/ Collisions, Groundings, Hull Failures, Equipment Failures, Fire and Explosion, and Other/Unknown. Other causes include events such as heavy weather damage and human error. Spills where the relevant information is not available have been designated as Unknown. Small and medium sized spills account for 95% of all the incidents recorded; a large percentage of these spills, 40% and 29% respectively, occurred duringloading and discharging operations which normally take place in ports and oil terminals (Figures 9 and 12). While the cause of these spills is largely unknown, it can be seen that equipment and hull failures account for approximately 46% of these incidents for both size categories (Figures 11 and 14). Nevertheless, when considering other operations, there is a significant difference in the percentage of allisions, collisions and groundings between these two size groups where we see the percentage increasing from 2% for smaller spills to 39% for medium spills (Figures 11 and 14). Large spills account for the remaining 5% of all the incidents recorded and the occurrence of these incidents has significantly decreased over the past 43 years. From Figure 15, it can

be seen that 50% of large spills occurred while the vessels were underway in open water; allisions, collisions and groundings accounted for 59% of the causes for these spills (Figure 17). These same causes account for an even higher percentage of incidents when the vessel was underway in inland or restricted waters, being linked to some 95% of spills. Restricted waters include incidents that occurred in ports and harbours. Perhaps unsurprisingly, activities during loading or discharging result in significantly more small or medium sized spills than large spills. However, large spills do still occur during loading and discharging, and from Figure 17 and Table 6, it can be seen that 59% of these incidents are caused by fires, explosions and equipment failures.

Status quo Solves New technology allows for faster oil spill response Selbig, a reporter at KBBI in Homer, 6/13 [Aaron Selbig, 6, June 5, 2013 - 5:47 pm, alaskapublic.org, “New Oil Spill Technology A ‘Game Changer,’ Says CIRCAC,” http://www.alaskapublic.org/author/aaron-selbig/, 7/12/13, MVL] A large oil spill in Cook Inlet is the stuff of nightmares for Alaskans who call the area home. One of the organizations dedicated to cleaning up potential spills is CIRCAC, the Cook Inlet Regional Citizens Advisory Council. CIRCAC

has a new tool in its clean-up toolbox that it’s calling a “game changer.” Vm P Imagine a disc-shaped device – like a large donut – that’s coated in a soft, fuzzy material. That’s about as good a description as any for oil skimmers – devices that are attached to oil booms for the purpose of soaking up oil in the event of an offshore spill. Linda Giguere is Public Outreach Director for CIRCAC. She says that oil skimmers have been around for a long time – since before the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill – and have figured prominently in oil spill cleanup all over the world. The problem is that in reality, they just aren’t that efficient. Giguere says that the industry-standard equipoment, called “Transrecs,” actually pick up as much as 80 percent water to only 20 percent oil, a ratio that some in the oil spill response community were never happy with. Giguere says the new skimmers have been in development since 2007. “It started with a lot of research … to find out what manufacturers would be willing to invest in capital and take a risk to build the skimmer that would meet the standards we were looking at,” said Giguere. It was Eric Haugstad, Tesoro Alaska’s Director of Emergency Response, who took the lead on developing the project. Haugstad pored over catalogues of many different products, eventually finding a company from Gretna, Louisiana, called Crucial, Incorporated. It was Crucial who agreed to develop a new skimmer to meet Alaska’s standards. With help from the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation and Cook Inlet Spill Response, Incorporated – or CISPRI – the

new skimmers went through many rounds of testing. The new skimmers passed all of the tests with flying colors, says Giguere – even surpassing the highest expectations by collecting as much as 84 percent oil to 16 percent water. “The response industry is really optimistic that this is going to be … quite a gamechanger,” she said. Giguere says the old-style skimmers will eventually be completely replaced by the new disc skimmers. CISPRI has already bought two 56‐disc skimmers to pair with two larger response vessels, the Perseverance and Endeavor. They have also purchased five 13‐disc skimmers for near-shore cleanup to be used with two smaller vessels. Giguere

says CIRCAC is in the process of revising oil spill contingency plans and once that is completed, the new oil skimmers will be put into place

Newly developed technology solves oil spills Curwin, CNBC, 12 *Trevor Curwin, Monday, 23 Apr 2012 | 1:01 PM ET, CNBC.com, “Hope After an Oil Spill: Breakthrough Cleanup Technology,” http://www.cnbc.com/id/46222428, 7/12/13, MVL] “There’s

a tremendous amount of work being done,” says Ken Lee, executive director of the Centre for Offshore Oil, Gas and Energy Research with Canada’s Department of Fisheries and Oceans. An oil spill veteran since the 1980s, Lee spent four months in the Gulf of Mexico after the BP spill at the request of the U.S. government. He says it spurred research that has “opened a whole new window” in cleanup. In

fact, the Coast Guard and Environmental Protection Agency received tens of thousands of submissions for new spill-killer products in 2010 after the BP disaster was on its way to becoming the nation's largest offshore spill. Cleanup technologies range from “old school” booms and dispersants to cuttingedge absorbents and bio-remediation. The most famous piece of new technology from the BP spill at Transocean’s Deepwater Horizon was actor Kevin Costner’s oil-skimming centrifuge, designed to spin oil out the contaminated water it collected.

Research in Hydrocarbon-consuming Bacteria and other biological methods to restore contaminated waterways solves the impact Curwin, CNBC, 12 [Trevor Curwin, Monday, 23 Apr 2012 | 1:01 PM ET, CNBC.com, “Hope After an Oil Spill: Breakthrough Cleanup Technology,” http://www.cnbc.com/id/46222428, 7/12/13, MVL+ Lee, whose

research has focused on bioremediation technologies, using hydrocarbon-consuming bacteria and other biological methods to restore contaminated waterways, beaches and wetlands, says that letting “nature do its thing” could be the latest — and cheapest — approach. He says the BP spill proved that bacteria, fungi and other organisms found in nature may hold the best techniques for tackling spills. According to various firms providing

bioremediation approaches to oil cleanup, the cost can be up to 80 percent less, since less human labor is needed. “The gulf recovered much faster than previously thought possible,” says Lee, about the aftermath of Deepwater Horizon. With all these new advances, from mechanical improvements to biotech solutions, and with oil exploration moving into new environments, the future of the oil spill clean-up business looks busy. Says Canadyne’s Riminic, "It’s still a little Wild West.”

Mineral Dust solves ocean acidification Carrington 1/13 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jan/22/mineral-dust-oceans-carbon-geoengineering “Mineral dust sprinkled in oceans could absorb vast amounts of carbon: study” The Guardian Damian Carrington 1/22/2013, Peter Kohler Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research KG)

Sprinkling billions of tonnes of mineral dust across the oceans could quickly remove a vast quantities of climate-warming carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, according to a new study. The proposed "geoengineering" technique would also offset the acidification of the oceans and could be targeted at endangered coral reefs, but it would require a mining effort on the same scale as the world's coal industry and would alter the biology of the oceans. "It certainly is not a simple solution against the global warming problem," said Peter Köhler, at the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in Bremerhaven, Germany, who led the study. It would require 100 large ships operating all year to distribute 1bn tonnes of the mineral olivine, although it might be possible to use the ballast water in existing shipping instead. Geoengineering – global-scale intervention to combat climate change – is a controversial idea because of the risk of unintended consequences on a planet-wide scale. But scientists

argue it needs to be researched in case international efforts to cut the emission of greenhouse gases from human activities fail to prevent dramatic changes in climate and emergency measures are needed. Dissolving mineral dust in the ocean makes sea water more alkaline and able to absorb more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The mineral olivine is attractive because it would dissolve within a year or two – delivering nearinstant carbon reductions – and is present below the Earth's surface around the world. Köhler's research, published in Environmental Research Letters, found that sprinkling 3bn tonnes of olivine would remove almost 10% of manmade carbon emissions from the atmosphere. More than 10% would be absorbed by the oceans, but the energy needed to grind and ship the mineral dust would result in carbon emissions. Up to one-third of that would be absorbed in the seas if coal-fired power stations were the source of the electricity. The mineral needs to be ground down to 1 micron size to prevent it sinking to the ocean floor before it dissolves. The oceans already dissolve billions of tonnes of silicate minerals which flow into the oceans in the sediment carried by rivers. Adding more silicate would alter the species of plankton that grew in the oceans, said Köhler. "Silicate is a limiting nutrient for diatoms, a specific class of phytoplankton. The added silicate would shift the species composition within phytoplankton towards diatoms." Using

mineral dust for geoengineering would have some advantages over the main type of alternative, injecting sulphate particles into the atmosphere to block sunlight. "With atmospheric geoengineering, once you start you have to keep going. If you stop there may be a very abrupt increase in warming on a magnitude you do not know, if carbon emisisons have not been reduced," said Köhler. Rather than temporarily blocking heat from the sun ,

the mineral dust approach

removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, so halting dust sprinkling would only mean no more carbon was sequestered. It also reduces ocean acidification, Köhler noted.

Oil Spill turn Oil spills cause a transition away from fossil fuels Hargreaves 10- *Steve , 6/10/2010, “Never let a good oil spill go to waste,” http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/10/news/economy/oil_spill_waste/index.htm, 7/12/13, MVL] NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Never let a good crisis go to waste. That's paraphrasing White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel's supposed argument for sweeping reforms to the American economy amid the financial meltdown. Now many say lawmakers are doing just that with the oil spill: failing to enact sweeping energy reform to wean the nation off fossil fuels while the public is fixated on events in the Gulf. "This incident is a punctuation point," said Joseph Stanislaw, an independent energy adviser at Deloitte & Touche. "We've never had an energy policy, and we've been squandering opportunities for decades." The energy policy favored by Stanislaw, many Democrats in Congress, and most renewable energy advocates, involves making fossil fuels more expensive either by adding some type of tax or putting a price on carbon emissions. That's designed to both reduce greenhouse gas emission by cutting the use of fossil fuels, and to make alternative forms of energy more competitive. The policy also involves requirements that utilities buy more clean energy, as well as lots of money for energy conservation.

Coral reefs are super resilient to global warming.

Goklany, science and technology policy analyst, 4/17/08 (Indur, 4/17/8, Cato institute, “The Remarkable Resilience of Nature”, http://www.cato.org/blog/remarkable-resilience-nature Date accessed: 7/12/13, KG) It was blasted by the largest nuclear weapon ever detonated by the United States but half a century on, Bikini Atoll supports a stunning array of tropical coral, scientists have found. In 1954 the South Pacific atoll was rocked by a 15 megaton hydrogen bomb 1,000 times more powerful than the explosives dropped on Hiroshima. The explosion shook islands more than 100 miles away, generated a wave of heat measuring 99,000ºF and spread mist-like radioactive fallout as far as Japan and Australia. But, much to the surprise of a team of research divers who explored the area, the mile-wide crater left by the detonation has made a remarkable recovery and is now home to a thriving underwater ecosystem. 99,000 degrees Fahrenheit! By comparison the upper-bound estimate for global warming is a puny global temperature increase of 11.5 degrees Fahrenheit (less in the ocean). So even if global warming wipes out life on earth, global warming catastrophists can take comfort that nature will, as it inevitably must, reassert itself. Some, convinced that humanity is the problem, may even welcome such an outcome — no humans, but plenty of nature (over time). [Fifty-four years later at Bikini Atoll, recovery is not complete. Perhaps 28 percent of coral species may still be absent.]

No Impact BP spill proves ecosystems resilient- no extinction National Geographic, 11 *National Geographic News Reporter, 4/19/11, National Geographic, “Nature bouncing back, but Gulf economy still faltering,” http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/04/110420-gulf-oil-spill-anniversary-year-later-science-nation-environment, 7/12/13, MVL]

On the first anniversary of the Gulf oil spill, scientists caution that it could take years to understand the full scope of the disaster. (See photos of the Gulf oil spill in National Geographic magazine.) But many are encouraged because the damage could have been far worse—and nature is already showing signs of resilience. On April 20, 2010, a massive explosion rocked the Transocean oil rig Deepwater Horizon, a state-of-the art mobile offshore drilling platform at work on a well in the Gulf of Mexico. Eleven workers were killed by the blast and survivors had just minutes to flee an inferno that would soon burn and sink the rig. The accident unleashed a torrent of oil that began roaring from an underground Macondo reservoir into the Gulf waters. During the first few frantic days of the BP crisis that became the worst oil spill in U.S. history, experts had a hard time determining what was happening—much less what the spill's ultimate environmental and economic consequences might be. (See satellite pictures of the Gulf oil spill's evolution.) As people around the world fixated on oil spewing from a pipe 1 mile (1.6 kilometers) beneath the Gulf's surface, scientists clambered to discern just how much was gushing out. Estimates climbed from 1,000 barrels a day to 12,000 barrels to 62,000 barrels a day. Even less certain was how the damaged wellhead would finally be plugged—and for a while, people feared the leak could continue for years. Authorities finally capped it in July. A spill that started with the tragic loss of life soon wrought major environmental devastation over huge region of the Gulf. Disturbing images appeared daily of oiled wildlife, iridescent surface slicks, overwhelmed cleanup workers, fouled beaches, burning oil fires, and blackened wetlands. The damage from nearly five million barrels of oil was very real, yet many expert predictions missed their marks. Hurricanes didn't drive enormous quantities of oil ashore, giant dead zones didn't materialize, and oil didn't round the tip of Florida to rocket up the East Coast via the Gulf Stream. Fisheries now appear poised to rebound instead of suffering the barren years or decades some feared. And Mother Nature had her own surprises in store, showcasing an ability to fight back against the spill and, later, to bounce back from the damage—at least in the short-term.

AT: Invasive Species

Status quo solves EPA battling Invasive Species Now Flesher, Huffington Post, 2011 [John, 11/30/11, Huffington Post, “Ship Ballast Water Regulation Plan Released By EPA To Fight Invasive Species”, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/30/ship-ballast-water-regulation_n_1121782.html, 7/12/13, JB] TRAVERSE CITY, Mich. — The Environmental Protection Agency proposed stricter requirements Wednesday for cleaning ballast water that keeps ships upright in rolling seas but enables invasive species to reach U.S. waters, where they have ravaged ecosystems and caused billions of dollars in economic losses.¶ The new standards would require commercial vessels to install technology strong enough to kill at least some of the fish, mussels and even microorganisms such as viruses that lurk in ballast water before it's dumped into harbors after ships arrive in port. Environmentalists whose lawsuits forced the EPA to implement rules in the first place said the new proposal is largely inadequate.¶ More than 180 exotic species have invaded the Great Lakes, about two-thirds of which are believed to have been carried in ballast water. Among them are zebra and quagga mussels, which have spread across most of the lakes and turned up as far away as California. Ballast water also has brought invaders to ocean coasts, including Asian clams in San Francisco Bay and Japanese shore crabs on the Atlantic seaboard.\

Invasive Species Solved in now by U.S. Technology Gilroy, University of Notre Dame, 2013 *William, 3/29/13, Science Daily, “New Technologies Combat Invasive Species”, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130329090622.htm, 7-12-13, JB] A new research paper by a team of researchers from the University of Notre Dame's Environmental Change Initiative (ECI) demonstrates how two cutting-edge technologies can provide a sensitive and real-time solution to screening real-world water samples for invasive species before they get into our country or before they cause significant damage. "Aquatic invasive species cause ecological and economic damage worldwide, including the loss of native biodiversity and damage to the world's great fisheries," Scott Egan, a research assistant professor with Notre Dame's Advanced Diagnostics and Therapeutics Initiative and a member of the research team, said. "This research combines two new, but proven technologies, environmental DNA (eDNA) and Light Transmission Spectroscopy (LTS), to address the growing problem of aquatic invasive species by increasing our ability to detect dangerous species in samples before they arrive or when they are still rare in their environment and have not yet caused significant damage."¶ Egan points out that eDNA is a species surveillance tool that recognizes a unique advantage of aquatic sampling: water often contains microscopic bits of tissue in suspension, including the scales of fish, the exoskeletons of insects, and the sloughed cells of and tissues of aquatic species. These tissue fragments can be filtered from water samples and then a standard DNA extraction is performed on the filtered matter. The new sampling method for invasive species was pioneered by members of the ND Environmental Change Initiative, including David Lodge and Chris Jerde, Central Michigan University's Andrew Mahon, and The Nature Conservancy's Lindsay Chadderton. ¶ Egan explains that LTS, which was developed by Notre Dame physicists Steven Ruggiero and Carol Tanner, can measure the size of small particles on a nanometer scale (1 nanometer equals 1 billionth of a meter). LTS was used in the research for DNA-based species detection where the LTS device detects small shifts in the size of nanoparticles with short single-stranded DNA fragments on their surface that will only bind to the DNA of a specific species.¶ "Thus, these nanoparticles grow in size in the presence of a target

species, such as a dangerous invasive species, but don't in the presence of other species" Egan said. "In addition to the sensitivity of LTS, it is also advantageous because the device fits in a small suitcase and can operate off a car battery in the field, such as a point of entry at the border of the U.S."¶ The Notre Dame researchers demonstrated the work with manipulative experiments in the lab for five highrisk invasive species and also in the field, using lakes already infested with an invasive mussel, Dreissena polymorpha or the zebra mussel.¶ "Our work implies that eDNA sampling and LTS could enable rapid species detection in the field in the context of research, voluntary or regulatory surveillance and management actions to lower the risk of the introduction or spread of harmful species," Egan said. "In the Great Lakes alone, 180 nonindigenous species have been established since European settlement, with about 70 percent arriving through the ballast tanks of transoceanic ships. Ballast water monitoring is one of many potential applications for LTS with ramifications for environmental protection, public health and economic health."

Food supply turn Turn- Invasive species means greater food supply LeTrent, CNN Associate Editor, 2012 *Sarah, 8/7/12, CNN, “Eat Them Before They Eat Everything”, http://eatocracy.cnn.com/2012/08/07/eat-them-before-they-eat-everything/?iref=allsearch, 7/12/13, JB] From feral hogs running wild in Texas to lionfish eating their way through the Gulf of Mexico to kudzu, whose nickname “the vine that ate the South” speaks for itself, the United States is facing an invasion of the natural resource snatchers.¶ While kudzu may have swallowed up the South, conservationists and food activists are encouraging American consumers to bite back.¶ “Why not combine the growing locavore movement with an ecological awareness and try and reduce some of these species?” says Joe Roman, conservation biologist, author and editor of EatTheInvaders.org. “It’s unlikely we’re ever going to eat them to extinction but we can reduce the numbers that are there and also get an excellent meal.”¶ Because these species typically won’t encounter natural predators, it’s primarily up to humans to control or remove the invaders. Some managerial methods involve mechanical control, like digging or mowing, or chemical control, like pesticides and herbicides. Or, people could eat them.“Here in America, we’ve raised two generations of consumers to think that only luxury cut from the center of the animal is what we should eat,” says Andrew Zimmern, the host of “Bizarre Foods” on the Travel Channel. “And only from three or four animals, I might add.” Although population control is obviously at the forefront of the invasive species battle and consumer appeal is only part of the invasive solution, Zimmern says there is another opportunity: take them out of the ecosystem and find a way to feed hungry people.¶ “The biggest problem with the invasive species argument - in terms of not eating them - is people are hungry, these are good foods,” he says.¶ With protein’s high expense and one in six people living in hunger, Zimmern advocates in collecting invasive species and using that meat to feed children, seniors, people in the jail system and other people living below the poverty line.¶ “I will tell you right now, as someone that’s had a bologna sandwich in jail, I would prefer to eat nutria every day of the week,” he says

Invasive Species Are Being Integrated Into Our Food Supply Rosenthal, New York Times, 2011 *Elisabeth, 7/9/2011, New York Times, “Answer for Invasive Species: Put It on a Plate and Eat It”, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/10/science/earth/10fish.html, 7-12-13, JB] An invasive species, the lionfish is devastating reef fish populations along the Florida coast and into the Caribbean. Now, an increasing number of environmentalists, consumer groups and scientists are seriously testing a novel solution to control it and other aquatic invasive species — one that would also takes pressure off depleted ocean fish stocks: they want Americans to step up to their plates and start eating invasive critters in large numbers.¶ “Humans are the most ubiquitous predators on earth,” said Philip Kramer, director of the Caribbean program for the Nature Conservancy. “Instead of eating something like shark fin soup, why not eat a species that is causing harm, and with your meal make a positive contribution?”¶ Invasive species have become a vexing problem in the United States, with population explosions of Asian carp clogging the Mississippi River and European green crabs mobbing the coasts. With few natural predators in North America, such fast-breeding species have thrived in American waters, eating native creatures and out-competing them for food and habitats.¶ While most invasive species are not commonly regarded as edible food, that is mostly a matter of marketing,

experts say. Imagine menus where Asian carp substitutes for the threatened Chilean sea bass, or lionfish replaces grouper, which is overfished.¶ “We think there could be a real market,” said Wenonah Hauter, the executive director of Food and Water Watch, whose 2011 Smart Seafood Guide recommends for the first time that diners seek out invasive species as a “safer, more sustainable” alternative to their more dwindling relatives, to encourage fisherman and markets to provide them.

Alt Cause Shipping Perpetuates Invasive Species Moyle, Marine Biologist, 2004 [Peter, September 2004, MarineBio Conservation Society, http://marinebio.org/oceans/conservation/moyle/ch10.asp, 7-12-13, JB] Hitch-hiking is an increasingly common source of alien species. Many of our major pests, from Mediterranean fruit flies to star thistle to black rats were carried to North America hiding in ships and airplanes. At the present time, thousands of species of small fish and invertebrates are being introduced all over the world through ballast water of ships. Ballast water is pumped into an empty or loaded ship to alter its trim and stability. Modern cargo ships often carry millions of gallons back and forth across the ocean. Planktonic plants and animals, including the larvae of fish and mollusks, are pumped in with the water and dispersed as the water is released, often thousands of miles away. Clams, fish, and zooplankton brought in with ballast water are now causing major problems in the Great Lakes and in San Francisco Bay. In the Great Lakes, the tiny zebra mussel has become so abundant that it is clogging water intakes to towns and power plants, shutting some down completely. Keeping the clams under control is now a major expense. The zebra mussel also competes with native clams, helping to push them to endangered status.

No Solvency Invasive Species Are Impossible To Eradicate Moyle, Marine Biologist, 2004 [Peter, September 2004, MarineBio Conservation Society, http://marinebio.org/oceans/conservation/moyle/ch10.asp, 7-12-13, JB] The release of pets, better called misdirected kindness, is a surprisingly common method of introduction. Hundreds of alien species are brought to North America to occupy aquaria, cages, and backyards and many escape or are released by owners tired of taking care of them. In the majority of cases, these pets die of stress, starvation or being eaten by predators soon after their release, and do not become a problem. However, there are numerous cases where the release of pets has resulted in the establishment of harmful populations. This is especially the case with exotic fish that have been released in large numbers by hobbyists or have escaped from fish farms. Because these fish are tropical, they are only able to inhabit warm waters in North America; hence, introduced tropical fish are found in waters of Florida, Southern California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. In many cases, these species have become pests and now are virtually impossible to eradicate. The combination of predation and competition from these species and habitat alteration has put many native species in these areas on the endangered list. Alien birds have also found their way into areas of North America and Hawaii by means of unwise hobbyists. The intentional release of colorful tropical birds such as parrots and parakeets has been quite common in Florida, Southern California, and Hawaii where they are destructive to agricultural plants, especially fruit trees. Another widespread problem is that of house cats which are abandoned by careless owners. Those that survive the first few weeks of release often move into natural areas where they drastically decrease the populations of nesting and migratory birds, as well as lizards and other creatures. It is likely, for example, that California quail are largely absent from Davis because of predation on nesting birds and young by cats. The absence of fence lizards probably has a similar cause.

Invasive Species Are Irreversible Burnett, University of Puget Sound Research Economist, 2006 [Kimberly, April 2006, PugetSound.edu, http://webspace.pugetsound.edu/facultypages/kburnett/arer2.pdf, 7-12-13, JB] The case of Hawaii is used to illustrate dynamic policy options for invasive species. In most if not all cases, the most costly anticipated changes are irreversible. Due to the need to anticipate irreversible change, policy decisions may vary with the status of ecosystem health, i.e., the levels of invasion and the imminence of the threat. In this work, we seek to explain how biology and economics work together to determine policy outcomes, and introduce the possibility of integrating optimal policy across and among existing and potential invasive species. To improve results and avoid costly mistakes ranging from denying beneficial introductions to spending money on ecologically impossible control or eradication efforts, these policies must be seen as a continuous effort to manage ecosystems rather than separate decisions handled as emergencies as they arrive.¶

AT: Ocean Biodiversity

Alt Cause Alt causes- over-fishing and large scale whaling hurt biodiversity Shah, 3/3/2013- Global Issues (Anup, “Loss of Biodiversity and Extinctions”, Accessed on 7/12/2013, http://www.globalissues.org/article/171/loss-of-biodiversity-and-extinctions) This first Census of Marine Life (CoML) hopes to act as a baseline of how human activity is affecting previously unexplored marine ecosystems. A database of global marine life has also published as well as numerous videos (also on YouTube) and images. Although it is a large project (in terms of cost, scope and duration), there are still many unknowns that will need further research. For example, the current number of known marine species is estimated at 250,000. However, scientists believe that there as many as three times this number are yet to be discovered and named. (See page 3 of their main 2010 report.) The Census was able to determine, however, that over-fishing was reported to be the greatest threat to marine biodiversity in all regions followed by habitat loss and pollution. One of the summary reports also added that “the fact that these threats were reported in all regions indicates their global nature.” A collection of regional and overview reports were also published on the Public Library of Science web site. In the past century, commercial whaling has decimated numerous whale populations, many of which have struggled to recover. Whaling stations like this one in the Faroe Islands is also used to hold hunted dolphins and other animals. (Image source: Wikipedia) Commercial whaling in the past was for whale oil. With no reason to use whale oil today, commercial whaling is mainly for food, while there is also some hunting for scientific research purposes. Large scale commercialized whaling was so destructive that in 1986 a moratorium on whaling was set up by the International Whaling Commission (IWC). As early as the mid-1930s, there were international attempts to recognize the impact of whaling and try and make it more sustainable, resulting in the actual set up of the IWC in 1946. Many commercial whaling nations have been part of this moratorium but have various objections and other pressures to try and resume whaling. Japan often claims its whale-hunting is for scientific research; the general population is often quite skeptical of such claims. (Image source: © Greenpeace) Japan is the prime example of hunting whales for the stated aim of scientific research while a lot of skepticism says it is for food. Greenpeace and other organizations often release findings that argue Japan’s whaling to be excessive or primarily for food, and for research as secondary. General public negativity of commercial whaling has also led to a difference between traditional whaling communities in the arctic region and conservationists. Traditional indigenous communities have typically hunted whale in far smaller numbers commercially, mostly for local food consumption, but the impacts of large-scale commercial whaling has meant even their hunting is under pressure. Alt causes- global warming is harming a multitude of marine species Imtiyaz et al, 2011- Professor of Marine Sciences at Bhavnagar University (Belim, “Threats to Marine Biodiversity”, Accessed on 7/12/2013, http://academia.edu/3424137/Threats_to_Marine_Biodiversity) Global warming will cause sea level rise. As a result higher temperature decreases the ability of water to dissolve oxygen. Humans, however, have been increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by burning enormous amount of fossil fuels. Loggerhead Turtle nests in Florida have already producing 90% females owing to high temperatures, and if warming raises temperatures by an additional 1º C or more, no males will be produced there. Coral reefs require particular environmental conditions for growth and water temperatures from 23–29°C are optimal for growth. Increasing temperature too much can cause the coral polyps to expel the zooxanthellae and lead to coral bleaching where the zooxanthellae are expelled from the coral by the polyps. Coastal power plants use seawater for cooling and discharge the warmed water at the coast. This locally disturbs the ecological balance of

the marine communities, especially if it is already a low oxygen environment (gases are less soluble in warm water). Warming is bad for polar communities, the Arctic pack-ice has been getting thinner at a rate that if maintained will result in the Arctic becoming ice-free in a few decades, and with its disappearance will go polar bears, walruses and many of the other Arctic species. Alt causes- pollution severely harms marine biodiversity Imtiyaz et al, 2011- Professor of Marine Sciences at Bhavnagar University (Belim, “Threats to Marine Biodiversity”, Accessed on 7/12/2013, http://academia.edu/3424137/Threats_to_Marine_Biodiversity) “Pollutants in the air, water, and soil can affect organisms in many different ways, from altering the rate of plant growth to changing reproduction patterns, in certain extreme situations, leading to extinction.” Coral reefs can be damaged by a variety of pollutants that are produced by a variety of sources. Because algae can potentially grow so much faster than coral, they can out-compete corals. Human sewage, often untreated, can add nutrients, microorganisms, and other pollutants to coral reefs (depletion). Nutrients in sewage can cause eutrophication. Industrial wastes enter the sea as a result of deliberate dumping in specified location. These could be highly toxic, acidic or alkaline in the form of solid, liquid, inert substances. Mass mortality of fish or other marine organism has been reported from different regions caused by the release by industrial wastes. Earlier, both sewage and industrial wastes used to be dumped right along the shoreline. Now these are released through pipelines, either exposed or underground, some distance away where circulation of water is faster so that these are carried farther in to deeper water. Of all heavy metals, those which cause concern are mercury, cadmium, lead and arsenic. These occur us extremely low concentration in the waters of the open ocean but tend to increase as we come to coastal waters because of industrial material discharged in to sea. Sources of oil pollution are normally, tanker disaster, ballast water and bilage washings, factories etc. Animals can be poisoned or suffer internal damage from ingesting oil so marine animals may become “sleepy” and drown. One of the most prevalent side effects of an oil spill is hypothermia. This is an illness often endured by marine creatures which have been exposed to it. Once the oil drifts into the water, it creates a sticky substance called the ‘mousse’. This mousse gets stuck simply to the fur or feather of sea animals. The fur and feathers that are typically constructed up of air space to aid insulation are unable to fly and die due to starvation. Oil spills affect marine life like filter feeders by concentrating in the flesh of these animals. Clams, mussels, and oysters may quickly accumulate toxins which can kill the animals or be passed on along the food chain. Human consumers often complain that shellfish harvested from an area impact by an oil spill taste heavy and oily. Animals that rely on these filter feeders for food may become sick and die as a result of consuming them. Oil spill can be especially harmful if they occur during coral spawning because the oil can kill eggs and sperm.

Alt causes- climate change decreases ocean biodiversity Villarica 11/3/11-Time Magazine (Hans, “New Evidence That Climate Change Threatens Marine Biodiversity”,Jul. 12, 2013, http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/11/new-evidencethat-climate-change-threatens-marine-biodiversity/247813/) Even though the world's oceans and seas aren't warming up as fast as landmass, there is still cause for concern for marine life. A new study published in the journal Science presents evidence that the speed and direction of climate change as well as the timing of seasonal shifts are moving just as fast in large bodies of water as in land, and these point to serious conservation problems for regions rich in marine biodiversity. Scientists led by Scottish Marine Institute ecologist Michael Burrows calculated two metrics -- the velocity of climate change and the shifts in seasonal timing -- that they argue are more accurate gauges of biodiversity, or the health of ecosystems, than traditional temperature records. Using 50 years of global temperature and climate data, they made detailed predictions on the ability of organisms to cope with warming, including biogeographic range shifts and life-cycle changes, that involve much more than simple migration toward the Earth's poles and earlier springs coupled with later autumns. They found that some marine reserves, such as the Coral Triangle in Southeast Asia, may be in danger of losing their ambient temperatures rapidly. "What we have done is think about warming from a different perspective: If I started off at one point experiencing a particular temperature, how fast and in what direction would I need to walk or swim or crawl to remain at exactly the same temperature?"

says co-author David Schoeman. "This takes the idea of warming and turns it from a question of time to a question of space."

Increased carbon emissions increases ocean acidification which hurts biodiversity SCBD 2009- Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity(“Scientific Synthesis od the Impacts of Ocean Acidification on Marine Biodiversity”, 7/12/13, http://coralreef.noaa.gov/education/oa/resources/cbd_ts46_oceanacidification-web.pdf) RN Ocean acidification is irreversible on timeframes of at least tens of thousands of years and is determined in the longer term by physical mixing processes within the ocean that allow ocean sediments to buffer the changes in ocean chemistry. Warming of the oceans as a result of global climate change may also reduce the rate of mixing with deeper waters, which would further delay recovery. Despite the projected increase in dissolution rates and CO2 uptake from the atmosphere, associated with decreasing CaCO3 saturation states, it is likely that the rapid increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations could eventually overwhelm the natural buffering mechanisms of the ocean, leading to a reduced efficiency for carbon uptake by the oceans over the next two centuries. Reduced buffering capacity of the ocean to take up CO2 will increase the fraction of CO2 retained in the atmosphere, a negative feedback loop leading to further ocean acidification. Changing pH levels have potentially vast consequences for marine ecosystems because of the critical role pH plays in mediating physiological reactions. Furthermore, many important groups of marine organisms have a skeleton of CaCO3, which dissolves when it reacts with corrosive acidified seawater. Hence, declining pH could interfere with critical processes, such as reef building, carbon sequestration via phytoplankton sedimentation, and consumer-resource interactions among marine organisms. The ecosystem-wide response to changing pH is neither a simple function of having calcareous body parts, nor a general decline in organism function, and depends on the specific pH regulation and adaptation mechanisms of individual organisms, and the interplay among ecosystem components. The current understanding of the response of marine organisms to ocean acidification has been based largely on invitro, short-term, tank and mesocosm experiments, leaving large knowledge gaps of the physiological and ecological impacts, and the broader implications for ocean ecosystems. Despite recent advances, early studies have not included key variables, such as temperature, light and nutrients, known to affect calcification rates, and few observations are available over sufficient periods to indicate if organisms will be able to genetically adapt to the changes. Furthermore, it is unknown if the observed responses of single species can be extrapolated to the genetically diverse populations that exist in natural ecosystems . Experimental results have, however, clearly demonstrated that the rate of calcification in marine calcifiers is directly related to the seawater carbonate saturation state. It can therefore be predicted that the goods and services provided by the ocean, upon which human populations are dependent, will be different under future acidified oceans as increasing partial pressure of CO2, exerted by seawater (pCO2) influences the physiology, development and survival of marine organisms. The understanding of the short-term impacts of ocean acidification on different species of marine biota is building, and ongoing scientific experimentation is facilitating a growing understanding of the wider ecosystem and longer-term implications.

Cuba Turn Turn- Engagement with Cuba hurts biodiversity Lovgren 8/4/06-National Geographic News (Stefan, “Castro the Conservationist? By Default or Design, Cuba Largely Pristine”, 7/12/13, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060804-castrolegacy.html) RN Though Cuba is economically destitute, it has the richest biodiversity in the Caribbean. Resorts blanket many of its neighbors, but Cuba remains largely undeveloped, with large tracts of untouched rain forest and unspoiled reefs The country has signed numerous international conservation treaties and set aside vast areas of land for government protection. But others say Cuba's economic underdevelopment has played just as large a role . Since the collapse of the Soviet Union—its main financial benefactor—Cuba has had to rely mostly on its own limited resources. It has embraced organic farming and low-energy agriculture because it can't afford to do anything else. And once Castro is gone, the experts say, a boom in tourism and foreign investment could destroy Cuba's pristine landscapes.

"I think the Cuban government can take a substantial amount of credit for landscape, flora, and fauna preservation," said

Jennifer Gebelein, a professor at Florida International University in Miami who studies environmental issues in Cuba. More

than 20 percent of Cuba's land is under some form of government protection. The island's wetlands have been largely shielded from pesticide runoff that has destroyed similar areas in other countries. In addition, the more than 4,000 smaller islands surrounding the main island are important refuges for endangered species. The coastline and mangrove archipelagos are breeding grounds for some 750 species of fish and 3,000 other marine organisms. "Because Cuba's tourist industry has not developed quickly in regard to reef exploitation, the reefs have been spared the fate of Florida's reefs, for example," Gebelein said. At about 1.5 million acres (600,000 hectares), the Ciénaga de Zapata Biosphere Reserve is Cuba's largest protected area and has been designated a "Wetland of International Importance" by the Ramsas Convention on Wetlands in 1971."The Zapata Swamp is the Caribbean's largest and most important wetland," said Jim Barborak, who is based in San Pedro, Costa Rica, and heads the protected areas and conservation corridors program for Conservation International. Originally, Cuba was in the Pacific Ocean, not the Caribbean Sea. Continental drift slowly brought the island into the Caribbean some 100 million years ago, and an astonishing variety of life emerged." Cuba

has tremendous biological diversity ," Barborak said. "The

levels of plant endemism—unique species limited to Cuba—is particularly high, especially in highland ecosystems in eastern Cuba."More than half of Cuba's plants and animals, and more than 80 percent of its reptiles and amphibians, are unique to the island.Endemic birds include the Cuban trogon, the Cuban tody, and the Cuban pygmy owl. The world's smallest bird, the bee hummingbird—which weighs less than a U.S. penny—is found there."Important populations of many North American migratory birds, whose declining populations require international action to conserve both breeding and wintering grounds, spend much of the year in Cuba," Barborak said.Cuba is only one of two nations with a primitive mammal known as a solenodon, a foot-long (0.3-meter-long) shrewlike creature.The island also has a great diversity of giant lizards, crocodiles, and tortoises. A key player in Cuba's green movement has been Guillermo García Frías, one of five original "comandantes" of the 1959 Cuban revolution.A nature lover with strong ties to Castro, García has pushed for a strong environmental ethic for a generation of scientists and government officials."Comandante García's enthusiasm for nature conservation has been critical to the successful development of a conservation infrastructure in Cuba," said Mary Pearl, president of the Wildlife Trust in New York City.Cubans are leaders in biological research, with thousands of graduates from the country's ten universities and institutes devoted to work in ecology."The country has the best intellectual infrastructure for wildlife conservation in the Caribbean," Pearl said.Students in every department at the University of Havana, for example, have had the opportunity to share a bonding experience by living in an impoverished fishing village while working to protect marine turtles."As a result, many of Cuba's leaders in all spheres have had a common experience reconciling poverty alleviation and nature conservation," Pearl said. "It is not surprising that this has left a legacy of concern for nature, despite the country's economic challenges." But Cuba has earned its green credentials partly by default. Isolated in part because

of the U.S. trade embargo against the island, Cuba has been excluded from much of the economic globalization that has taken its toll on the environment in many other parts of the world."The healthy status of much of the wetlands and forests of Cuba is due not to political influence as much as the lack of foreign exchange with which to make the investments to convert lands and introduce petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers," Pearl said. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, many Cuban factories and agricultural fields have sat dormant. The island has had to become self-sufficient, turning to low-energy organic farming. It has had to scrap most of its fishing fleet because it can't afford to maintain the ships. Population pressure has also been a nonissue, with many Cubans fleeing the country for economic and political reasons. However, Conservation International's Barborak says it would be wrong to think Cuba's environmental success is simply due to its economic underdevelopment."If this were true, then Haiti could be expected to be a verdant ecological paradise, instead of being the most environmentally devastated country in the region, with just a tiny fraction of its forest cover intact," he said."Cuba's stable population, high literacy rate, clear land-tenure system, large cadre of well-trained conservationists,

and relatively strong enforcement of laws and regulations are certainly all associated with its conservation achievements."So what will happen if Castro's regime falls and a new, democratic government takes root? Conservationists and others say they are

worried that the pressure to develop the island will increase and Cuba's rich biodiversity will suffer . Barborak said he is concerned that "environmental carpetbaggers and scalawags will come out of the woodwork in Cuba if there is turbulent regime change."One could foresee a flood of extractive industries jockeying for access to mineral and oil leases ," he said."A huge wave of extraction of unique and endemic plants and animals could occur to feed the international wildlife market. And a speculative tourism and real estate boom could turn much of the coastline into a tacky wasteland in short order."" If foreign investments take a much firmer hold, more hotels will be built and more people will descend on the reefs ," added Gebelein, the Florida International University professor."If the Cuban government does not have a swift policy framework to deal with the huge influx of tourists, investors, and foreign government interests, a

new exploitative paradigm will be the beginning of the end for some of the last pristine territories in the Caribbean." Turn- US engagement in Cuba would lead to loss of biodiversity Canney, 3/1/2012- Vassar College (Alexis, “The Threat of Lifting the US Embargo”, Accessed on 7/12/2013, http://pages.vassar.edu/cubantransitions/the-threat-of-lifting-the-us-embargo/) Cuba’s political isolation and economic limitations have spelled success for its wildlife in the last 50 years. With Cuba’s limited ability to develop as other Caribbean nations have, and the continuing US embargo helping to keep Cuba in the past, Cuba’s natural resources have been preserved in a way not seen in most of the world. However, no embargo can last forever, and many believe that the US embargo will end soon. While some might look forward to celebrating the end to the hostility and the new potential to enrich the Cuban economy, others worry about the future of Cuba’s unique natural environment. Like any other country, Cuba does have a history of environmental exploitation. Only a few years after Columbus’ “discovery,” Spanish settlers arrived and began to clear the land to establish plantations. This deforestation only worsened through the following centuries. Cuba’s original forest cover had been 90%. In 1959, it stood at a meager 14%. However, one of Fidel Castro’s priorities since 1959 has been to conserve Cuba’s natural resources. Since then, reforestation has slowly taken place, and today over 26% of the country is forested. Although

Castro, and Cuba as a whole, should be recognized for its dedication to conservation, in truth, a lot of the preservation of Cuba’s land has been due to Cuba’s inability to develop it as most first world countries would have done. With the withdrawal of support from the Soviet Union in 1991, Cuba’s economy collapsed. Without access to modern technologies, Cuban turned to sustainable organic farming practices. Without capitalism driving its development, Cuba has avoided much of the environmental destruction seen in other first world countries. Due to these political and economic factors, and also to the fact that Cuba is an island, Cuba has developed in a unique way. Cuba boasts incredible biodiversity and is home to more than 7,000 endemic species of plants and animals. One of these includes the bee hummingbird, the smallest bird in existence. Cuba’s coral reefs are of particular excitement for marine scientists. As coral reefs worldwide have been suffering the effects of global warming, pollution, boats, and fishing, Cuba’s reefs have been the least affected. Unfortunately, this paradise is threatened by many problems, despite efforts, including pollution, biodiversity loss, and deforestation. On top of this, threat of US tourism looms. If the embargo is lifted, US tourists will flood the island, promoting the construction of new resorts which will destroy beach habitats along the coasts. With the economy also flooded with US dollars, possibly pulling Cuba out of its economic downturn, will Cuba continue to refuse the tempting technologies which have devastated richer countries’ environments? With US companies eager to drill for oil off Cuba’s shores, putting pressure on the government to lift the embargo, this question becomes especially urgent. To complicate matters further, environmentalists from both Cuba and the US are limited in the amount of work they can do by the embargo. Communication is tricky. Calls to the US in Cuba are expensive, while the internet is restricted to most Cubans. While scientists can sometimes receive academic permits to study in Cuba, the US rarely allows Cuban scientists to enter the country.

Although lifting the embargo would end these problems, as well as enriching the Cuban

economy, the question is, as always, would the environmental degradation be worth it? As it moves forward, is there a way that Cuba can preserve its unique environment?

Relaxing embargo destroys Cuban environment Dean 12/25/2007-New York Times(Cornelia, “Conserving Cuba, After the Embargo”, 7/12/13, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/25/science/25cuba.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)RN Through accidents of geography and history, Cuba is a priceless ecological resource. That is why many scientists are so worried about what will become of it after Fidel Castro and his associates leave power and, as is widely anticipated, the American government relaxes or ends its trade embargo . Cuba, by far the region’s largest island, sits at the confluence of the Atlantic Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea. Its mountains, forests, swamps, coasts and marine areas are rich in plants and animals, some seen nowhere else. And since the imposition of the embargo in 1962, and especially with the collapse in 1991 of the Soviet Union, its major economic patron, Cuba’s economy has stagnated.

Cuba has not been free of development, including Soviet-style top-down agricultural and mining operations and, in recent years, an expansion of tourism. But it also has an abundance of landscapes that elsewhere in the region have been ripped up, paved over, poisoned or otherwise destroyed in the decades since the Cuban revolution, when development has been most intense. Once the embargo ends, the

island could face a flood of investors from the United States and elsewhere, eager to exploit those landscapes. Conservationists, environmental lawyers and other experts, from Cuba and elsewhere, met last month in Cancún, Mexico, to discuss the island’s resources and how to continue to protect them. Cuba

has done “what we should have done — identify your hot spots of biodiversity and set them aside,” said Oliver Houck, a professor of environmental law at Tulane University Law School who attended the conference. In the late 1990s, Mr. Houck was involved in an effort, financed in part by the MacArthur Foundation, to advise Cuban officials writing new environmental laws. But, he said in an interview, “an

invasion of U.S. consumerism, a U.S.-dominated future, could roll over it like a bulldozer” when the embargo ends. By some estimates, tourism in Cuba is increasing 10 percent annually. At a minimum, Orlando Rey Santos, the Cuban lawyer who led the law-writing effort, said in an interview at the conference, “we can guess that tourism is going to increase in a very fast way” when the embargo ends. “It is estimated we could double tourism in one year,” said Mr. Rey, who heads environmental efforts at the Cuban ministry of science, technology and environment. About 700 miles long and about 100 miles wide at its widest, Cuba runs from Haiti west almost to the Yucatán Peninsula of Mexico. It offers crucial habitat for birds, like Bicknell’s thrush, whose summer home is in the mountains of New England and Canada, and the North American warblers that stop in Cuba on their way south for the winter. Zapata Swamp, on the island’s southern coast, may be notorious for its mosquitoes, but it is also known for its fish, amphibians, birds and other creatures. Among them is the Cuban crocodile, which has retreated to Cuba from a range that once ran from the Cayman Islands to the Bahamas. Cuba

has the most biologically diverse populations of freshwater fish in the region. Its relatively large underwater coastal shelves are crucial for numerous marine species, including some whose larvae can be carried by currents into waters of the United States, said Ken Lindeman, a marine biologist at Florida Institute of Technology. Dr. Lindeman, who did not attend the conference but who has spent many years studying Cuba’s marine ecology, said in an interview that some of these creatures were important commercial and recreational species like the spiny lobster, grouper or snapper. Like corals elsewhere, those in Cuba are suffering as global warming raises ocean temperatures and acidity levels. And like other corals in the region, they reeled when a mysterious die-off of sea urchins left them with algae overgrowth. But they

have largely escaped damage from pollution, boat traffic and destructive fishing practices. Diving in them “is like going back in time 50 years,” said David Guggenheim, a conference organizer and an ecologist and member of the advisory board of the Harte Research Institute, which helped organize the meeting along with the Center for International Policy, a private group in Washington. In a report last year, the World Wildlife Fund said that “in dramatic contrast” to its island neighbors, Cuba’s beaches, mangroves, reefs, seagrass beds and other habitats were relatively well preserved. Their

biggest threat, the report said, was

“the prospect of sudden and massive growth in mass tourism when the U.S. embargo lifts.”

Status quo solves Status quo solves- policies that help marine biodiversity are currently in place Asaeda et al, March 2013- APN (Takashi, “Seagrass-Mangrove Ecosystem: Bioshield Against Biodiversity Loss and Impacts of Local and Global Change Along Indo-Pacific Coasts”, 7/12/2013, http://abs.aseanbiodiversity.org/images/documents/Workshops/3rd%20Regional%20Workshop/Featur ed%20Articles/APN%20Science%20Bulletin%20-%20March%202013.pdf) The project aims to provide (1) an ecosystem model that enables testing of scenarios of various decisions on human impacts combined with climate change; (2) a framework for a local Marine Emergency Contingency Policy (MECP); and (3) a system to support and enhance local governance. The products include students trained in practical, state-of-the-art techniques for water quality monitoring and trophic dynamics, and peer‐ reviewed publications. Student mentoring will ensure that, after training, expertise would be available to continue critical aspects of the project. The

MECP will be translated into policy regulations through an Integrated Decision Support System, which will be developed in collaboration with other projects at the sites. The project relevance resides in its intent to identify, explain and predict impacts of coastal changes on seagrass and mangrove ecosystem goods and services via a science-based understanding of the systems’ strengths and vulnerabilities. This knowledge will be used as a base of an integrated decision support system to promote research on habitat response to local and global change. The support system, in turn, is the framework of capacity development and policy decisions to enhance ecosystem integrity and sustainable use.

AT: Coral Reefs

Status Quo solves Coral reefs recover with greater resistence CRC, 05 *CRC Reef Research Center, June 2005, CRC Reef Research Center Ltd, “Can corals reefs recover from bleaching?” http://www.reef.crc.org.au/publications/brochures/cancoralsrecover.htm, 7-12-13, JZ] The coral communities on a recovering reef may be different from those that were present before the reef was bleached. A few species appear quickly after a reef is damaged and grow rapidly. Other species that are slower to appear and slower growing may not be present on the reef at their previous levels for some decades. The community on a reef may shift from coral species that are prone to bleaching to those with higher resistance or a more rapid recovery rate.

Reefs can survive increased temperatures IUCN, 09 [International Union for Conservation of Nature, 1-9-09, IUCN, “Coral Reef Resilience to Climate Change”, http://www.iucn.org/cccr/resilience_to_climate_change/, 7-12-13, JZ] Even though climate change and coral bleaching pose a serious threat to the future survival of coral reefs, there is still hope that these ecosystems will be able to survive increased SSTs. Some coral reefs are able to withstand stresses to a greater degree (are more resistant) while other coral reefs are able to recover from bleaching events more rapidly (are more resilient) depending on a number of oceanographic, ecological and physiological factors. The principles of resistance and resilience are emerging as a promising paradigm to aid the management of coral reefs in the face of climate change, and give hope in the face of adversity. The figure below illustrates the stages in the coral bleaching process where it is possible for a coral or coral reef to survive the disturbance. It illustrates four main processes that can allow a coral reef to survive: protection, resistance, tolerance and resilience. ¶ Protection¶ Oceanographic and other environmental factors that create pockets of reduced or nonstressful conditions where ecosystems are protected from disturbances (Salm et al, 2001). A coral reef can be protected against increased SSTs or light levels and therefore against bleaching by local upwelling, fast water flow, shading and screening.¶ Resistance¶ The ability of an organism or ecosystem to withstand disturbance without undergoing a phase shift or losing neither structure nor function (Odum, 1989). For example a coral reef’s ability to withstand bleaching and mortality. Coral morphology, different zooxanthellae clades and coral acclimatisation can all influence a coral reef's resistance to bleaching.¶ Tolerance¶ The ability of an organism to absorb a disturbance and not suffer mortality (Obura, 2006). For example, a coral’s ability to bleach, and then recover its zooxanthellae to become healthy again.¶ Resilience The ability of a system to absorb or recover from disturbance and change, while maintaining its functions and services (Adapted from Carpenter et al, 2001). For example a coral reef’s ability to recover from a bleaching event. Factors that can improve a coral reef's resilience to a mass bleaching event include good species and functional diversity, good connectivity to larval sources, appropriate substrates for larval settlement and protection from other anthropogenic impacts.

Coral depletion can be solved with artificial reefs that are more resilient to pollution McIntyre, Director of sustainability, 11/15/12 (Mary, “How Artificial Reefs will Save the Oceans” date accessed: 7/12/13, KG) In the past few years, society has become more and more environmentally conscious. People drive electric cars, use solar panels, and recycle all kinds of goods. When many people think of carbon dioxide emissions, they immediately think of the atmosphere and global warming, but what they do not know is that the oceans are being drastically affected as well. Coral reefs are dying off at an alarming rate due to this pollution, and it is hard to believe that something as vast as the ocean is unable to dilute the contamination enough to save the coral. Coral reefs are extremely diverse ecosystems necessary for sustaining an innumerable amount of species, including ones that humans have not yet identified. Coral reefs grow at a very slow rate, so it is necessary that humans who have caused its destruction work to encourage its regrowth. One of the best ways to approach this is artificial reefs—they can range from massive ships to car tires to refrigerators to human remains. Artificial reefs are by far the best way to combat the destruction of coral reefs. In Alabama, the increase in the fish population is thanks to artificial reefs. Overfishing is a global problem affecting both first and third-world countries. According to the World Wildlife Fund, “60 percent of the world’s fisheries are overfished or fished to the limit.” More recent reports show that the number is growing. Artificial reefs are the best solution to this problem because they simply produce more fish and help restore depleted areas (Bailey). The benefits of artificial reefs are not limited to the increase of biodiversity. The National Artificial Reef Plan, known as Rigs-to-Reefs, involves the cooperation between “environmental groups, the government, and the oil industry”—an extremely rare situation. Oil companies donate the structures to states along the Gulf of Mexico, and these states deploy the rigs into the water. The oil companies benefit because the disposal of these materials is very expensive; in fact, they donate half the cost of the disposal to the state that accepts the rig for use in an artificial reef. This money goes toward environmental research and fishery maintenance (“Artificial Reefs”). According to “Artificial Reefs,” the density of the fish populations near these artificial reefs is “twenty to fifty times greater than in surrounding waters.” Critics of the Rigs-to-Reefs program claim that the high density of fish only encourages overfishing, but this is not true. Overfishing has always been a problem, and people will always take the maximum amount of fish that an area provides—whether it is a high density or a low density. Artificial reefs do not cause overfishing, and they do not completely solve it; in order to end overfishing, government regulations are necessary. Once regulations are in place by the government, an overfished and depleted area can be restored by an artificial reef. Artificial reefs are beneficial economically due to tourism, restoration of fisheries, and disposal of otherwise unusable materials. They are beneficial environmentally because they restore the marine environment in one of its particularly fragile and diverse ecosystems. Artificial reefs are beneficial politically—even the government, oil companies, and environmentalists can agree that they are valuable. Lastly, artificial reefs are beneficial socially because with Eternal Reefs, a person can finally be able to say goodbye to his or her loved one. In the future, artificial reefs will be used more often to reverse the negative effects of climate change, contamination, and overfishing on the ocean’s reefs. Artificial reefs are the best way to restore coral reefs because they are beneficial economically, environmentally, politically, and socially.

Coral reefs are super resilient to global warming. Goklany, science and technology policy analyst, 4/17/08 (Indur, 4/17/8, Cato institute, “The Remarkable Resilience of Nature”, http://www.cato.org/blog/remarkable-resilience-nature Date accessed: 7/12/13, KG) It was blasted by the largest nuclear weapon ever detonated by the United States but half a century on, Bikini Atoll supports a stunning array of tropical coral, scientists have found. In 1954 the South

Pacific atoll was rocked by a 15 megaton hydrogen bomb 1,000 times more powerful than the explosives dropped on Hiroshima. The explosion shook islands more than 100 miles away, generated a wave of heat measuring 99,000ºF and spread mist-like radioactive fallout as far as Japan and Australia. But, much to the surprise of a team of research divers who explored the area, the mile-wide crater left by the detonation has made a remarkable recovery and is now home to a thriving underwater ecosystem. 99,000 degrees Fahrenheit! By comparison the upper-bound estimate for global warming is a puny global temperature increase of 11.5 degrees Fahrenheit (less in the ocean). So even if global warming wipes out life on earth, global warming catastrophists can take comfort that nature will, as it inevitably must, reassert itself. Some, convinced that humanity is the problem, may even welcome such an outcome — no humans, but plenty of nature (over time). [Fifty-four years later at Bikini Atoll, recovery is not complete. Perhaps 28 percent of coral species may still be absent.]

Alt Causes Trade International trade decimates coral reefs

Moore, U.S. Agency for International Development, 2001 [Franklin Moore, Ph.D. in Development Studies, career member of the Senior Executive Service, Barbara Best, Senior Coastal Resource Management and Policy Specialist for the U.S. Agency for International Development, 2-19-01, AAAS, “Coral Reef Crisis: Causes and Consequences”, http://www.aaas.org/international/africa/coralreefs/ch1.shtml, 7-12-13, JZ] While coral bleaching may be one of the largest threats facing coral reefs, international trade is having significant impacts on even the most remote and pristine reefs. Recent surveys of reefs worldwide found that many species of high commercial value were absent, or present in very low numbers, in almost all the reefs surveyed (Hodgson, 1999). Results suggest that almost all coral reefs have been affected by overfishing, and that there may be no pristine reefs left in the world.¶ International trade is also posing significant threats to mangrove forests, another critical coastal ecosystem that is intimately connected to coral reefs. Mangrove forests serve as important nurseries for many reef species. They help to maintain coastal water quality by reducing the run-off of sediments, pollutants and excess nutrients from the land. Nutrients and energy flow between these habitats as species move between them.¶ Trade Drives Destructive Fishing Practices¶ How does the international trade in wild coral reef animals and products more directly impact reefs? Primarily through overfishing and the use of destructive fishing practices. Live fish for both the food trade and marine ornamental trade are often caught with the use of cyanide or other poison, which temporarily stuns the fish for easy collection. Cyanide use is a serious threat to some of the world's richest coral reefs, as the cyanide kills corals and many other coral reef organisms. The lucrative and unregulated international trade in reef fishes drives the use of cyanide. It is estimated that since the 1960's, more than one million kilograms of cyanide has been squirted onto Philippine reefs alone, and the practice has spread throughout East Asia and the Indo-Pacific (Bryant et al., 1998).¶ Various explosives, such as dynamite and homemade bombs, are also used to kill fish for easy collection, but at an enormous cost to the reef which is reduced to rubble. In Komodo National Park in Indonesia, about half of the reefs have already been destroyed through the use of explosives, forming beds of coral rubble that can extend several football fields in length. While the use of explosives to collect dead fish is usually for domestic trade, some of the fish that are only stunned will enter the international trade stream.¶ International trade is also driving the removal of the calcareous skeleton or base of the reef itself; reef skeletons are sold as "live rock" for marine aquaria. This base is the resulting accumulation of coral skeletons over tens to hundreds and thousands of years. Living coral, which constitutes the essential reef habitat for a myriad of species, is also collected and shipped live for marine aquaria, or killed and dried for the curio and shell trade.¶ Trade Drives Overfishing and Removal of Targeted Groups¶ In addition to destructive practices, international trade is driving overfishing and the selected removal of key groups from coral reefs. Major groups targeted for trade are:¶ groupers and wrasses for the live food fish trade;¶ dead fish and invertebrates for food, medicinal products, and ornamentals including sharks, sea cucumbers, sea stars, mollusks and sea horses;¶ live fish, coral and other invertebrates for marine aquaria and the ornamental hobby; and¶ "live rock" or the calcareous base of the reef for marine aquaria.¶ The marine ornamental trade for the pet industry often targets rare fish and coral species, as these can fetch the highest prices. The trade is also targeting large-polyped corals, which tend to be the slowest growing and the least common. By targeting the large groupers and wrasses, the live food

fish trade removes key species from these ecosystems, thus altering their dynamics. The loss of some is comparable to the loss of major predators from terrestrial ecosystems. Other fishes feed on algae, and thus play an important role in ensuring that corals are not overgrown by more rapidly growing algae. The removal of coral for the marine aquarium trade and for use as curios and knickknacks, and the removal of the "live rock" base, reduces the essential reef habitat.¶ There are strong economic incentives associated with this international trade. The live food fish trade through Hong Kong alone is estimated to have a retail value of about one billion dollars a year. Some species of fish, selected live from a restaurant tank, can sell for almost $300 per plate. The global retail of marine ornamental fishes and aquarium hobby supplies is estimated at $500 million. Last year, for example, a pair of rare fish sold for over $5,000 each. Over 1000 different species of coral reef animals are now traded for marine aquaria.¶ The impacts from international trade are quite different from other more chronic causes of reef degradation, as these impacts are felt even in the most remote, pristine reefs. The use of destructive fishing practices, such as the use of cyanide, is spreading throughout the Indo-Pacific as fishing boats venture farther to find new unexploited fishing grounds Temperatures will continue to rise

Stricherz, 11 [Vince Stricherz, 2-15-11, University of Washington, “If greenhouse gas emissions stopped now, Earth still would likely get warmer”, http://www.washington.edu/news/2011/02/15/if-greenhouse-gasemissions-stopped-now-earth-still-would-likely-get-warmer/, 7-12-13, JZ] While governments debate about potential policies that might curb the emission of greenhouse gases, new University of Washington research shows that the world is already committed to a warmer climate because of emissions that have occurred up to now There would continue to be warming even if the most stringent policy proposals were adopted, because there still would be some emission of heat-trapping greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane. But the new research shows that even if all emissions were stopped now, temperatures would remain higher than pre-Industrial Revolution levels because the greenhouse gases already emitted are likely to persist in the atmosphere for thousands of years. In fact, it is possible temperatures would continue to escalate even if all cars, heating and cooling systems and other sources of greenhouse gases were suddenly eliminated, said Kyle Armour, a UW doctoral student in physics. Thats because tiny atmospheric particles called aerosols, which tend to counteract the effect of greenhouse warming by reflecting sunlight back into space, would last only a matter of weeks once emissions stopped, while the greenhouse gases would continue on.“The aerosols would wash out quickly and then we would see an abrupt rise in temperatures over several decades,” he said. Reefs require specific temperature ranges to survive NOAA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 12 *NOAA, December 2012, CoRIS NOAA, “Hazards to Coral Reefs”, http://coris.noaa.gov/about/hazards/, 7-12-13, JZ] Reefs are dependent on specific environmental conditions. Most require a specific water temperature range (23 to 29 °C) for optimal growth. Some can tolerate higher temperatures, but only for limited periods of time. When temperatures fall outside this preferred range, corals can "bleach," when they lose their symbiotic zooxanthellae and begin to effectively starve. If the temperatures are too high or continue unabated long enough, it results in mass coral mortality. In addition, specific levels of salinity

(32 to 42 parts per thousand), water clarity and light levels generally must be consistent throughout the year for corals to grow optimally. Impacts associated with global climate change, such as increased concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, are disrupting the delicate balance of the ocean's chemistry, a worrying phenomenon called "ocean acidification." Warming trends can elevate seawater temperatures and levels as well, rendering conditions unfit for coral survival (NMFS, 2001).

No Impact Coral reefs resilient Main, Staff Writer for Our Amazing Planet and Live Science, 13 (Douglas, April 4 2013, Live Science, “Isolated Coral Reefs Can Heal Themselves”, http://www.livescience.com/28440-coral-reefs-can-regenerate.html, 7-12-13, DH) Coral reefs may be more independent and resilient than previously thought.? New research shows that an isolated reef off the northwest coast of Australia that was severely damaged by a period of warming in 1998 has regenerated in a very short time to become nearly as healthy as it was before. What surprises scientists, though, is that the reef regenerated by itself, found a study published today (April 4) in the journal Science.? Until now, scientists have thought that damaged reefs depend on new recruits from nearby reefs to quickly heal themselves, said study author James Gilmour, a researcher at the Australian Institute of Marine Science. But this study found that may not always be the case ― at least with reefs like this one, which has good water quality and isn't heavily impacted by humans, Gilmour told OurAmazingPlanet in an email.? Hot water? In 1998, unusually warm weather heated up waters off the northwest coast of Australia by about 4 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) above average. These temperatures persisted for several weeks. ? The heat led to the bleaching of the corals, in which corals kick out the tiny symbiotic algae housed within them that provide corals food. If the water's temperature quickly returns to normal, the coral can recover. But often, it dies, becoming a white skeleton of its former self.? The 1998 event killed 70 percent to 90 percent of corals in various parts of the reef, and the number of coral embryos collected by researchers monitoring the reef dropped to almost zero. Gilmour said this shows that the remaining corals weren't reproducing and that there weren't any coral embryos washing in from surrounding reefs. Recovery was expected to take many decades, Gilmour said. [Stressed Coral: Photos of Great Barrier Reef]? Recovery? At first, the reef grew slowly, mostly through the enlargement of existing coral colonies. But to really recover, the coral needs to sexually reproduce, creating sperm and egg that form embryos that then land on the ocean floor and grow into adult corals ― if all goes well. These larvae can survive for hundreds of miles, swept along by ocean currents, and colonize new areas under the right circumstances.? Larvae floating in from other reefs could have helped the reef, had it not been so isolated.? But amazingly, after about six years, the surviving corals matured and began to reproduce, creating even more new colonies than before the bleaching. "They recovered, and the larvae they produced settled and survived, at much higher rates than is often reported," Gilmour said. By 2012, the reef was basically back to its old self.? The study suggests that, when it comes to reefs, being isolated from human activity may trump being connected to other reefs . Why? Human activities can hurt reefs in a number of ways. Overfishing, for example, removes fish that keep algae from choking out and outcompeting corals, and sediment and pathogens in runoff water can lead to coral diseases and death.? But the results also mean that local decisions about fishing and other issues can help preserve reefs, which are threatened by global warming. "Managing local conditions is a tangible way to maximize the resilience of coral reefs while the more difficult problem of addressing the causes of climate change are resolved," Gilmour said.

Loss Inevitable Coral reefs decline inevitable Science Daily, 12 (Science Dailey, 9-16-12, “Most Coral Reefs Are at Risk Unless Climate Change Is Drastically Limited, Study Shows”, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120916160926.htm, 7-12-13, DH) Coral reefs house almost a quarter of the species in the oceans and provide critical services -- including coastal protection, tourism and fishing -- to millions of people worldwide. Global warming and ocean acidification, both driven by human-caused CO2 emissions, pose a major threat to these ecosystems.? "Our findings show that under current assumptions regarding thermal sensitivity, coral reefs might no longer be prominent coastal ecosystems if global mean temperatures actually exceed 2 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial level," says lead author Katja Frieler from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. " Without a yet uncertain process of adaptation or acclimation, however, already about 70% of corals are projected to suffer from long-term degradation by 2030 even under an ambitious mitigation scenario." Thus, the threshold to protect at least half of the coral reefs worldwide is estimated to be below 1.5 degrees Celsius mean temperature increase.? A more comprehensive and robust representation than in previous studies? This study is the first comprehensive global survey of coral bleaching to express results in terms of global mean temperature change. It has been conducted by scientists from Potsdam, the University of British Columbia in Canada and the Universities of Melbourne and Queensland in Australia. To project the cumulative heat stress at 2160 reef locations worldwide, they used an extensive set of 19 global climate models. By applying different emission scenarios covering the 21st century and multiple climate model simulations, a total of more than 32,000 simulation years was diagnosed. This allows for a more robust representation of uncertainty than any previous study.? Corals derive most of their energy, as well as most of their famous color, from a close symbiotic relationship with a special type of microalgae. The vital symbiosis between coral and algae can break down when stressed by warm water temperatures, making the coral "bleach" or turn pale. Though corals can survive this, if the heat stress persists long enough the corals can die in great numbers. "This happened in 1998, when an estimated 16% of corals were lost in a single, prolonged period of warmth worldwide," says Frieler.? Adaptation is uncertain and ocean acidification means even more stress? To account for a possible acclimation or adaptation of corals to thermal stress, like shifts to symbiont algae with a higher thermal tolerance, rather optimistic assumptions have been included in the study. "However, corals themselves have all the wrong characteristics to be able to rapidly evolve new thermal tolerances," says co-author Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, a marine biologist at the University of Queensland in Australia. "They have long lifecycles of 5-100 years and they show low levels of diversity due to the fact that corals can reproduce by cloning themselves. They are not like fruit flies which can evolve much faster."? Previous analyses estimated the effect of thermal adaptation on bleaching thresholds, but not the possible opposing effect of ocean acidification. Seawater gets more acidic when taking up CO2 from the atmosphere. This is likely to act to the detriment of the calcification processes crucial for the corals' growth and might also reduce their thermal resilience. The new study investigates the potential implications of this ocean acidification effect, finding that, as Hoegh-Guldberg says: "The current assumptions on thermal sensitivity might underestimate, not overestimate, the future impact of climate change on corals."? This comprehensive analysis highlights how close we are to a world without coral reefs as we know them. "The window of opportunity to preserve the majority of coral

reefs, part of the world's natural heritage, is small," summarizes Malte Meinshausen, co-author at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and the University of Melbourne. "We close this window, if we follow another decade of ballooning global greenhouse-gas emissions."

Biotech Adv.

No Solvency Fed funding of research experiments fails Miller ’12 (Henry Miller, MS, MD, is the Robert Wesson Fellow in Scientific Philosophy and Public Policy at the Hoover Institution. His research focuses on public policy toward science and technology, served for fifteen years at the US Food and Drug Administration, “Investing in Bad Science”, Hoover Institution, Harvard University, 2-1-2013, http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/139306)

The federal government expends vast amounts of money on “research” of innumerable kinds. Many of these expenditures are unwise and unwarranted, falling into the category of pork or overlapping with work that would otherwise be performed by private-sector entities. Public funding for scientific research should largely be limited to basic scientific discoveries or proof-of-principle experiments — which would reasonably be defined as public goods — rather than efforts to extend science into marketable technologies or products. From an economic perspective, one can justify government funding for public goods because they are far enough removed from “fencing” through intellectual property rights that no individual or company has sufficient economic incentive to pay for the research. If an entity cannot capture at least part of the financial gains from the research investment, the research, in effect, supplies information on which anyone can capitalize. No

one ought to be able to monopolize basic scientific principles or

natural phenomena, and our intellectual property regime does, in fact, attempt to prevent that. (The recent Supreme Court decision in Mayo v. Prometheus reiterates that point.)

Cuban innovation in biotechnology has all but collapsed Stephen Johnson, 2002, Heritage Senior Policy Analyst, “Time For Consensus On Cuba” AP http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2002/08/time-for-consensus-on-cuba Similarly, Castro built up Cuba's sophisticated biotechnology industry in the 1980s, educating thousands of scientists and investing heavily in research facilities--purportedly to manufacture pharmaceuticals for domestic needs and for export. (See text box, "Cuban Biotechnology--Weapons Research or Wasted Effort?") But the potential of this research was squandered by stifling bureaucracy and the state's arbitrary decision to use tourism to attract foreign capital. Today, public pharmacies lack even basic medicines. According to José de la Fuente, former director of the Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (CIBG) in Havana, Cuba's biotech industry lacks "capacity, creativity, and credibility" and is "a paled and perhaps dangerous shadow of its former self."16

Cuban biotech is hampered by nationalization, economic crises Fuente ’01 (Jose de la Fuente, ex Director of Investigations and Research, Genetics and Biotechnology, Cuba, “Wine into Vinegar—the Fall of Cuba’s Biotechnology”, La Nueva Cuba, 10-11-2001, http://www.lanuevacuba.com/archivo/notic-01-10-1200.htm) Although we could not see it at the time, during the subsequent months, Cuba's

biotechnology research gradually came under the influence of increasing institutional and political paralysis. Research centers lost the possibility of deciding internal policy; even for small things, decisions were now made by the Secretary of the State Council, José M. Miyar Barrueco ("Chomi") at Castro's personal insistence. For example, every proposal to attend a scientific meeting was personally reviewed and subject to Miyar's approval. But as Miyar was incapable of deciding scientific matters because of his background, he alternated between being overly cautious and extremely arrogant, and quickly became an unassailable wall between the centers and the government. As a consequence of the

deteriorating economic situation of the country between 1990 and 1995, very

limited resources were allocated for R&D. This both seriously impaired the possibilities for future scientific development and had negative repercussions for scientific enthusiasm and creativity. Research conducted during these years used the materials and resources stockpiled during the pre-1990 heavy-investment period. Despite repeated expressions of concern by the Cuban scientific community to policy-makers and Miyar, a

desperate need for hard currency forced biotechnology medical products to the market without the due diligence that had previously characterized the country's biotechnology program. This is the case with a less than-successful recombinant erythropoietin produced in CHO cells and developed by the CIGB and CIM. Remaining resources were allocated only to short-term applied research or grandiose projects like the creation of a vaccine for AIDS. In the important area of agriculture, where biotechnology held great promise for Cuba, expectations have not been fulfilled because the fundamental problems lay in the inefficiency of the Cuban system of crop management, cultivation, and distribution, none of which is addressable by biotechnological intervention. This situation has led to a loss of confidence in the enterprise by the scientists whose enthusiasm and energy is needed to meet even modest goals, let alone the government's inflated claims for agbiotech progress on the island12.

In the struggle to escape from the economic crisis, the government changed policy and decided that tourism, not biotechnology, was the way to rapidly attract capital. The commitment to biotechnology research decreased, and the technological gap between Cuba and industrialized countries continued to widen.

In the past 10 years, for example, almost no capital

improvements have been made to the CIGB, which at the time of its inauguration in 1986 was a state-of-the-art biotechnology facility. Scientific cooperation also suffered. While camaraderie between research centers continued to be an official slogan6, there was increasingly fierce competition between groups for resources and paternity rights over promising projects. The impact of these developments on international cooperation was sad and dramatic. In their relish to staunch a potential exodus of researchers, Cuban authorities mistakenly opted to obstruct participation in scientific meetings and joint projects-important components of the success during the early development of Cuba's biotechnology. Simultaneously, the number of productive visits by US scientists, who had played important roles in the rapid growth of the country's biotechnology, drastically reduced after 1996, mainly as a consequence of both the internal situation in the country, as well as the hardened US policy toward Cuba. The economic crisis and strategic myopia also adversely aff ected journal subscriptions, resulting in the discontinuation of many collections; much more significantly, however, access to the Internet has continued to be hindered by technical communication problems and especially by the government policy of restricting access to only "selected" centers and computers. As a result, ordinary scientists and graduate students throughout Latin America and the Caribbean now have more computing power and modern biotechnology tools at their fingertips than heads of some divisions at Cuba's most prestigious biotechnology institutions.To make matters worse, the approach for establishing strategic alliances in marketing and distribution with recognized biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies has been naive and unrealistic. In the past few years, the only international projects to have been realized are between the CIM and a Canadian venture capital company for producing "anticancer vaccines," an agreement between The Finlay Institute and the former SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals (King of Prussia, PA) for the production of a meningitis B vaccine, and the sale to Iran12, 13 of the production technology f or three of the CIGB's most significant accomplishments: a recombinant hepatitis B vaccine, IFN-IIb, and streptokinase. It is this last item that is profoundly disturbing to many of us who gave so much time and effort to the development of an economically viable but essentially altruistic biotechnology in our country. The strengthening of Cuban-Iranian cooperation began with Cuban aid shortly after the Iranian earthquake of 1990 (ref. 3). It has culminated in Iran buying outright the prized fruits of the CIGB, namely recombinant protein production technologies in yeast and Escherichia coli, as well as the large-scale purification protocols for both soluble and insoluble proteins synthesized in or excreted by them. There is no one who truly believes that Iran is interested in these technologies for the purpose of protecting all the children in the Middle East from hepatitis, or treating their people with cheap streptokinase when they suffer sudden cardiac arrest. The social and economic crisis in the country has of course become reflected in the values of the younger generations. The need for US dollars to acquire most goods in the market, and the deteriorating situation in the biotechnology sector, make work in the research centers less attractive than in sectors like tourism. Although the state previously favored scientists in biotechnology programs, paying "higher" wages and offering certain fringe benefits, these have become trivial under the present circumstances, and as there is no longer even the incentive of intellectual independence and the possibility of self-realization, many students no longer want to work in the biomedical centers. Worried about the socioeconomic crisis in the co untry, the Cuban Communist Party in coordination with the government in 1998 initiated a political crusade against scientists occupying prominent positions who defended ideas that diverged from the hard line dictated by the Party. The result was the firing or demotion of many senior scientists (myself included) and the imposition of political, rather than scientific, issues in the scientific centers. As a direct result of these policies, many scientists have been forced to abandon the centers or to leave Cuba and continue their careers in exile. The response of Cuban officials has been to reinforce political

No one complains publicly or to outsiders about these problems because there is no freedom to criticize any aspect of Cuba's social, economic, and political establishments. The situation persists, restricting the potential of constraints further in the centers, engendering a reiterative degeneration that is mirrored by deteriorating public health services and educational standards14. The government and the internal media attempt to give a more positive view of the situation15, but with little success.

our youth and all but extinguishing the once-bright hope of real scientific development in our country.

SQ solves Status quo solves – US biotech industry thriving now Paragon 12 - Paragon Report provides Market Research focused on equities that offer growth opportunities, value, and strong potential return. We strive to provide the most up-to-date market activities. (Paragon Report, “Biotech Industry Thriving in 2012 -- Number of FDA Approvals Growing”, 6/14/12, http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/biotech-industry-thriving-in-2012-number-of-fda-approvals-growingnasdaq-isis-1669377.htm, HW)

The Biotechnology Industry has shown investors some impressive gains this year. The SPDR S&P Biotech ETF (XBI) is up over 22 percent year-to-date. As large pharmaceuticals face major patent expirations in 2012 they have looked to biotech companies to provide new streams of revenue. A flurry of mergers & acquisitions activity and a growing number of FDA approvals have been contributing factors to the industry's recent boom. The Paragon Report examines investing opportunities in the Biotech Industry and provides equity research on Isis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: ISIS) and Apricus Biosciences Inc. (NASDAQ: APRI)¶ "In 2011, the U.S. FDA approved 30 new drugs, compared to 21 in 2010. We

see an improving trend for FDA first cycle approvals and a rise in the rate of new drug approvals for rare diseases. We think these trends are helping to boost investor sentiment toward the agency, after years of criticism stemming from its inconsistency in making and communicating its decisions," Steven Silver, S&P Capital IQ Analyst, said in a recent note.¶ Isis is exploiting its leadership position in antisense technology to discover and develop novel drugs for its product pipeline and for its partners. Isis' broad pipeline consists of 25 drugs to treat a wide variety of diseases with an emphasis on cardiovascular, metabolic, severe and rare diseases, and cancer. Isis' partner, Genzyme, plans to commercialize Isis' lead product, KYNAMRO, following regulatory approval, which is expected in 2012.¶ Apricus Bio is a San Diego-based revenue-generating pharmaceutical company, with commercial products and a broad pipeline across numerous therapeutic classes. Apricus Bio's current NexACT pipeline includes Vitaros, approved in Canada for the treatment of erectile dysfunction, as well as compounds in development from pre-clinical through pre-registration currently focused on Sexual Dysfunction, Oncology, Dermatology, Autoimmune, Pain, Anti-Infectives, Diabetes and Consumer Healthcare.

Squo Solves: US-Cuba scientists already cooperating Rass ’04 (Reynold Rass, reporter for Political Affairs, “Cuba and US to Cooperate on Anti-cancer Drug Research”, Political Affairs, 8-20-2004, http://www.politicalaffairs.net/cuba-and-us-to-cooperate-on-anti-cancerdrug-research/) ON July 15, and for the first time in 40 years, a

cooperation agreement was signed by Cuban and U.S. companies for the transfer of biotechnological technology directed at developing vaccines against cancer. The agreement was signed between the CancerVax Corporation and the Center for Molecular Immunology at the International Conference Center in Havana.

President Fidel Castro Ruz attended the signing, as did other leaders of state and government;

Dr. David Hale and

Hazel Aker, executive director and vice president and attorney for the CancerVax Corporation, respectively, as well as the directors of Cuba’s most important scientific centers and health institutes. During the event, a video message was shown to participants, sent from Dr. Donald Morton, U.S. professor and outstanding cancer specialist and medical director and chief surgeon at the John Wayne Cancer Institute in Los Angeles, California.The message, read by Dr. Morton himself, congratulates all those involved in this significant event for their dedication, cooperation, commitment and labor to make the day possible. He commented that the agreement signed is very important to him for many reasons: 'I am a cancer surgeon and a survivor of this disease who has spent the last 40 years doing research on the use of the immune system and controlling cancer. I have dedicated my career to leading research on promising technologies, such as therapeutic cancer vaccines and the challenge to try and intimidate it. Morton further comments that unfortunately, the incidence of this disease around the world is continuing t o grow. The World Health Organization estimates that in the year 2000, more than 10 million persons throughout the world were diagnosed with cancer, and that number will grow to 15 million by the year 2020. He notes that by that time, cancer will have bec ome the most frequent cause of death in the world, because it will have exceeded cardiovascular disease, and he adds that in his opinion, the technologies represented in the signed agreement are potentially useful for the treatment and control of cancer. 'We believe that the candidates for products that you have developed in Cuba represent new approaches. A unique, unprecedented discovery that of the development of vaccines against cancer designed to stimulate the immune system,' Morton says. 'Thank you all for your continuous support for cancer research and each one of you for your

dissatisfaction is a scientist’s natural state of being, and it is known that what remains to be done is much more than what we have done so far. Lage personal involvement,' he concluded. Speaking on behalf of Cuban scientists, Dr. Agustín Lage Dávila, director of the Center for Molecular Immunology, said that

said that it was necessary to recognize that an important point had been reached that had made the signing of the agreement possible. He recounted the history of how scientific work

had begun in Cuba to search for anti-cancer vaccines, with the purpose of halting the growth of malignant tumors. That project received a boost from Fidel Castro’s decision to develop a Center for Molecular Immunology, even in the context of the tremendous economic difficulties that the country was experiencing during the 1990s,

he noted. CancerVax, a company that was already known in Cuba for its work on

melanoma vaccines, came into contact with the Center for Molecular Immunology in 2001, and its attention was caught by the first clinical results that our country had at that time for a vaccine for the treatment of advanced lung cancer, Lage explained. He recalled how Dr. Donald Morton visited the country, and that from then on, a process of contact began that took more than three years of negotiations, culminating in the signing of the current agreement. For technical reasons, a complex negotiations process is already underway involving three different cancer vaccines, all under the protection of six patents from the Center for Molecular Immunology and the Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology Center, with different manufacturing processes, Lage noted. 'This negotiation has additional complications, and anyone could recite a long list of reasons why this agreement could have been impossible, he added. There is not tradition of technology transfer, particularly in biotechnology, from Southern to Northern countries, generally speaking, and particularly in the case of Cuba and the United States, Lage affirmed. It is no secret that there is a 40-plus year void of a total absence of economic cooperation, a situation for which we have never blamed the U.S. people, far less the scientists of that country,' he said. Within that complex context, CancerVax decided to set about reaching an agreement, together with Cuba, for the transfer of technology with the goal of producing anti-cancer vaccines, which has been achieved, Lage explained. 'The reasons that made it possible include, among other elements, t he enthusiasm and perseverance of Professor Donald Morton and Dr. David Hale, attorney Hazel Aker and her team, and the ethics of medical scientists who put the interests of the sick before any other consideration.' He further mentioned the determination of the Cuban authorities and of the Center for Molecular Immunology, in being faithful to the idea that both Cuban and U.S. patients deserved all their efforts to overcome the obstacles and abnormal conditions surrounding these negotiations to make the project possible and open a new road forward.

From now on, a joint scientific team

from both institutions are to plan and lead new clinical trials, including the United States and Europe, he explained, adding that conditions will be created to produce vaccines by CancerVax and Cuban scientific centers, as they work to make the productive processes in both countries equivalent and to obtain the vaccines’ registration in order to begin distribution.

Bioterror Turn Advances in biotech are dangerous – they could be wielded by terrorists and cause uncurable diseases Gilsdorf 5 - M.D.¶ Professor of Epidemiology¶ Professor Pediatrics and Communicable Diseases at the University of Michigan (Janet, “New Considerations in Infectious Disease Outbreaks: The Threat of Genetically Modified Microbes”, 4/15/2005, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4463254, HW)

Recent advances in biotechnology have resulted in the wide- ¶ spread use of genetically altered microbes to develop new med- ¶ ical therapies, preventive strategies, and diagnostic tools-for ¶ example, they may be used in techniques to create vaccines, ¶ purify proteins, construct cloning vectors, study pathogenesis, ¶ and understand complex interactions of immune and biologic

Although genetic modification of microbes has been ¶ productively employed in legitimate scientific pursuits, the ¶ same tools for modification may also be used to develop mi- ¶ crobes with characteristics that increase their threat as infectious ¶ agents, such as enhanced resistance to antibiotics, heightened ¶ pathogenicity, increased ability to evade vaccine-induced adap- ¶ tive immunity, failure to be detected by standard clinical and ¶ laboratory diagnostic tools, and altered transmission properties. ¶ Thus, as security experts have recognized for some time, bio- ¶ technology has a "dual use" capability: it may be applied in ¶ many beneficial ways or it may be employed to develop mi- ¶ crobes capable of great harm [1, 2]. ¶ Current assessments of the threat that bioengineered microbes ¶ may be used by terrorists have been informed by revelations ¶ of the huge biological weapons program of the former Soviet ¶ Union, known as "Biopreparat," which ¶ responses.

employed >25,000 So- ¶ viet scientists at 18 or more facilities for research, development, ¶ production, and mobilization [3]. According to Dr. Vladimir ¶ Pasechnik [3], who defected from the former Soviet Union in ¶ 1989, microbiologists at the State Research Center for Applied ¶ Microbiology in Obolensk, a premier Biopreparat facility, de-

¶

veloped in 1983 their first genetically altered microbe

for use ¶ as a weapon-a hypervirulent strain of Francisella tularensis, ¶ the causative agent of tularemia. Dr. Ken Alibek, formerly the ¶ First Deputy Director of Biopreparat, who defected to the ¶ United States in 1991, has described research efforts by Soviet ¶ scientists to insert the genes of Venezuelan equine encephalitis ¶ virus, 3-endorphin, and Ebola virus into variola (the virus that ¶ causes smallpox) and to develop antigenically altered Bacillus ¶ anthracis (the causative agent of anthrax) strains that can resist ¶ anthrax vaccines and antibiotics [4].Examination

of the biomedical literature reveals that many ¶ pathogens of possible interest to bioterrorists have been ge- ¶ netically altered in the course of scientific inquiry. To illustrate ¶ some examples, table 1 lists genes inserted into vaccinia (a virus ¶ very closely related to variola) to create various recombinant ¶ strains, table 2 lists genes modifying immune response that are ¶ carried by recombinant microbes, and table 3 lists genes mod- ¶ ifying physiologic response that are carried by recombinant ¶ microbes, all constructed at the State Research Center for Vi- ¶ rology and Biotechnology in the former Soviet Union.

These ¶ examples, far from inclusive, serve as a cautionary tale the wide variability of possible genetic modifications that may ¶ be made to microbes. ¶ Genes inserted into vaccinia to create various recom- ¶ binant strains developed at the State Research Center for Virology ¶ and Biotechnology (Vector). ¶ A wide variability of possible genetic modifications that may ¶ be made to microbes. ¶ In addition, many thousands of recombinant microbes are ¶ generated every year worldwide as a result of legitimate micro- ¶ biological investigations. Antibiotic-resistance genes are com- ¶ monly inserted into bacteria as a means to select for the recom- ¶ binant genes under study. Recombinant techniques, including ¶ those developed for the insertion of viral genes into vaccinia, ¶ have been used extensively in the development of new bacterial ¶ and viral vaccines [49, 50]. These

microbes, as well as many other ¶ genetically altered microorganisms, present a potential threat if ¶ they become the source of an unnatural-either accidental or ¶ intentional-infectious disease outbreak.

Cuban biotech has the potential to fuel biological terrorism Zilinskas 11 - Director, Biological Weapons Nonproliferation Program at Middlebury College (Raymond, ABSTRACT OF: “Cuba, Terrorism, and Biotechnology”, 7/15/2011, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/0471686786.ebd0151.pub2/abstract, HW)

The Cuban government has in the past been known to directly support terrorist groups and, as well, nations that are or were supporters of terrorists. In addition, it has taken steps over its existence to acquire a powerful

biotechnology infrastructure. Is it possible that Cuban biotechnology has been misused for the purpose of acquiring biological weapons? There certainly have been allegations made by high U.S. government officials to this effect. This entry addresses the relationships between Cuba, terrorism, and biotechnology. It has two sections. The first section considers Cuba's history of terrorist support and associations with nations that have been named by the United States as supporting terrorists, such as Iran, Libya, and Syria. Second, Cuba's powerful biotechnological capability is reviewed, as well as its potential for biological weapons acquisition.

Cuban biotech centers are being used for bioterror Blázquez ’01 (Agustín Blázquez, producer and director of the documentaries Covering Cuba, Covering Cuba 2: The Next Generation and the upcoming Covering Cuba 3: Elián, and co-author of the book Covering and Discovering with Carlos Wotzkow, Blazquez was stricken by the inaccuracies and omissions on the subject of Cuba in the U.S. Media, and by the freedom to take action, leaving him feeling compelled, by 1968 to began writing articles on the subject. Eventually numbering over 300 to date, the articles were distributed at first by U.S. Mail and word of mouth, later by fax, then email and appearance on numerous websites. Some were published by the Houston Chronicle, The Washington Post, The Washington Times, Washington Inquirer, etc. in the U.S. and others abroad; “Cuba, Castro, and Bioterrorism”; Hacienda Publishing, originally published in The Medical Sentinel, Association of American Physicians and Surgeons; 2001; http://www.haciendapub.com/medicalsentinel/cubacastro-and-bioterrorism)

There are many academic studies, articles and books in public records exposing Castro's long term involvement with bacteriological and chemical weapons. The information has been presented in public forums. The U.S. media has been invited but they systematically choose to be absent. Perhaps so that by being absent they can claim, "but I didn't know." This information will also clash with the heavily orchestrated campaign to present Castro as nonthreatening in order to normalize relations with Cuba. This collaboration of the U.S. media with the Castro regime is reprehensible. I first learned pertinent details about Cuban dictator Fidel Castro and his bacteriological warfare after attending a discussion on Capitol Hill on October 28, 1997. As usual, the U.S. media did not show up. I also read the October 1997 paper titled "Castro: A Threat to the Security of the United States" by Dr. Manuel Cereijo, a professor at Florida International University who has written over 500 articles published in national and international journals. The paper details Cuba's work in the fields of bacteriological and chemical warfare "since the mid-eighties." And the "several centers and institutes that do research and development," and

there are special groups, working on projects to develop chemical, biological and bacteriological warfare." It listed the names of these centers and institutes: "the Biotechnology Center, the Immunology Center, the Genetic Engineering Center, the Tropical Medicine Institute, the Findlay Institute, the Biocen, the Academy of Sciences, the Oceanographic Institute, the Biological Preparations Center, the Center for the Breeding of Laboratory Animals, the National Center for Animal and Plant Health, the Neuroscience Center and La Fabriquita or 'Little Factory.' These centers are spread around Havana." Dr. Cereijo's paper specifies their addresses and says, "Many Cuban engineers and scientists have been trained by former East Germany, the Soviet Union, North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Vietnam and China." Over the years, Castro's Cuba has developed very ingenious ways to deliver their deadly materials to the U.S. that "

As Dr. Cereijo says, "To conduct a bacteriological attack, a country or a terrorist group does not need to have any sophisticated means of delivery, such as a missile. A container, the size of a 5 pound of sugar bag, can bring bacteriological material capable of causing

over 50,000 casualties in an urban area depending on the flow of air and atmospheric conditions." In a previous article "Castro and International Terrorism," I mentioned the evidence pointing to Castro's involvement with the introduction of West Nile virus into the U.S. via migratory birds. In addition to people affected and some deaths caused by the virus in the U.S., it is affecting endangered animal species. An Associated Press dispatch in The Washington Times dated September 18, 2001, on page A7, says, "Many zoos across the country have agreed to begin tracking the West Nile virus, which is blamed for the deaths of at least three birds at the Philadelphia Zoo in the past month." Among the dead birds was "a rare Humboldt penguin." The same virus "is suspected in the death of a second Humboldt penguin." According to the AP dispatch, "The only other zoo believed to have lost birds to West Nile is the Bronx Zoo in New York, where more than 20 birds died from the virus when it was first detected in 1999." NewsMax reported on September 26, 2001 that "Wisconsin health officials Wednesday said tests have confirmed the presence of the West Nile virus in seven more dead crows found in Milwaukee County." Would it take the death of Sesame Street's Big Bird for the U.S. media to begin sh owing an interest in Castro's bacteriological program? Scientifically cooperating with Castro's Cuba in the study of migratory birds --- birds apparently are being used as carriers of lethal virus against the U.S. --- were the Smithsonian Institution, the Department of Ornithology of the American Museum of Natural History in New York and The Audubon Society, among others enumerated in my previous article. So much for scientific exchanges with the enemy. Also listed in Dr. Cereijo's paper, are other ingenious ways researched in Cuba to deliver deadly biological agents including the developing "from marine technology, with the assistance of Japan, which never knew what the final product was, a paralyzing toxin, which is now ready to use. "In 1992, the Institute of Oceanographic Studies, conducted an experiment with the Academy of Sciences (both politically controlled by Castro as all organizations in Cuba are), to find which places on the Cuban coast were the best to let bottles and containers reach the United States coast line fastest and most effectively." The regime's official motivation (for public and international consumption) was "a study of marine streams." The scheme was, as Dr. Cereijo's reveals, "to put notes inside the bottles, asking for replies. They found where in Cuba was best to release containers with bacteriological material. The north coast of Havana province was found to be the best, as well as the region around the town of Sagua La Grande. This has been documented by several finders of bottles as well as by engineers from Cuba who worked on the project." The U.S. media should inform the American people of these matters. The people in the southern and southeastern coastal areas of the U.S. should be on notice not to pick up or open any floating objects. Children are very curious, so parents should instruct their children of the danger of picking up and opening what they find at the beach. Information and precaution is the only way to prevent a major catastrophe caused by bacteriological material sent that way. In 1997, a confidential report was smuggled from Cuba. A July 20, 1998, Insight Magazine article appeared in The Washington Times titled "Fidel Castro's Deadly Secret --- Five BioChem Warfare Labs" by Martin Arostegui. "The credibility of the smuggled documents is enhanced by a recent classified Pentagon analysis," said Arostegui. Among other shocking information I learned from this confidential report was that the bacteriological and chemical warfare capabilities of Castro are now known by the U.S. government. And that there are about 12 centers producing bacteriological agents strategically located around Havana. The newest and most notorious, La Fabriquita ("Little Factory"), was built by the Military Enterprise of Strategic Works (EMPI). It has a 10,000-RPM centrifuge and other laboratory equipment bought through COMICONDOR, an Italian company in Milan that also supplies technology to Libya for Muammar Qaddafi's biological-weapons experiments. This factory in Havana was "inaugurated in 1993 on Armed Forces Day on December 2, 1993," and has been i n operation for eight years. In order to enter La Fabriquita you need "top-secret credentials --- you must pass through a station of the Cuban Armed Forces (FAR), odd for a place supposedly producing cattle feed, which is its disguise. It is called 'Animal-Feed Plant.' This does not correspond to details known to U.S. authorities." The report gives a lot of specific information about La Fabriquita, which is located just across the street from "Cuba's premier medical center --- the Luis Diaz Soto General Hospital, formerly known as the Naval Hospital. That is where Fidel and Raúl Castro are believed to have their regular health exams and emergency care." At that hospital's School of Medicine, the report says "are three pools of cadavers that may be used for additional tests, using human tissue." Oddly, that "Animal-Feed Plant" located in Havana "is well protected by rapid action defense units. The hospital area is inside the FAR's north coastal fringe defense zone." In relation to its Italian 10,000-RPM centrifuge equipment, Dr. Cereijo says, "These are of a high capacity and they are shielded against lethal agents. Also Cuba is involved in the so-called 'binary weapons' where two chemicals are used (harmless, otherwise) to form a toxic agent when a weapon is exploded. They can be disguised as common agricultural chemicals, which make them more difficult to detect. This new weapon is part of the ultra-lethal Novichok class. "They have also the capability to develop A-232, made from agricultural and industrial chemicals that are not lethal until mixed. These new agents are as toxic as VX, a persistent nerve agent, and as resistant to treatment as Soman. Also, they are more difficult to detect and easier to manufacture than VX. In fact, A-232, or A-234, can be made using common industrial solvent and an organic phosphate compound, disguised as a common pesticide." Pastors for Peace is a supposedly "religious" and "humanitarian" New York-based organization. But records and sources say that they are apparently a fanatical and prone-to-violence pro-Castro front organization advancing Castro's agenda and misinformation. They are an important part of his support network inside the U.S. conducting fundraising to advance their radical agenda. Now we find that last July 13, 2001, The Los Angeles Times reported that the pastors, after returning from Cuba, were trying to cross the border with Mexico smuggling 30 pounds of "rat poison" (Biorat) made in Cuba. The head of Pastors for Peace is Rev. Lucius Walker, a close friend of Fidel Castro who is constantly traveling to Cuba. His group specializes in creating border-crossing incidents with the U.S. border authorities. On October 23, 1996, he delivered a pro-Castro speech for the celebration of the 75th anniversary of the Communist Party USA. According to The Los Angeles Times' report, "he [Rev. Walker] openly challenged U.S. officials to block the shipment of Biorat, asserting that the

move would 'show the true colors' of President Bush's Cuba policy." According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, "Biorat is not admissible into the United States," because "it poses a public health risk worldwide." The report cites "A 1996 article in the British medical journal Lancet asserting that the product could easily cause food-borne disease in people." Through his agents like Pastors for Peace and other subterfuges, Castro continues to export toxins into the U.S. that can cause harm to the American people while proclaiming friendship for them. Dr. Cereijo says, "The Cubans also have carried out studies on the propagation of microorganisms by means of fumigation aircraft or micro-jets." On September 24 and 25, 2001, it was reported on U.S. television news that members of the suspected ring of terrorists that executed the September 11 attack against the American people, were inquiring about crop-dusting airplanes in Florida. "The same system could become the basis for the application of bacteriological weapons," pointed out Dr. Cereijo's 1999-updated version of his paper. "La

The United States, as recognized by government officials, is not prepared for a biochemical attack, or germ warfare. Intelligence sources in the United States do not question if there will be an attack, but when will it be. Saddam Hussein and Castro are friendly allies. Castro has sent medical teams and scientists to Iraq. These activities are very suspicious." Fabriquita could be engaged in producing an anthrax toxin like the one reported being developed by the Russians, according to the defense publication Jane's. Russia's new variant of the anthrax toxin is totally resistant to antibiotics and could cause a catastrophe." "

The blunder of John F. Kennedy by betraying the April 1961 invasion of Bay of Pigs to get rid of Castro, brought on the October 1962 Missile Crisis that put the world at the brink of nuclear war. And this situation led to the Kennedy-Khrushchev deal for which the U.S. became Castro's protector by agreeing to prevent any foreign invasion of Cuba. However, Castro and the former Soviet Union violated their part of the Kennedy-Khrushchev deal by exporting revolutions to Latin America and Africa. And Castro not only destroyed the once prosperous and advanced Cuba, bringing misery to his people, but also extended his hands supporting terrorism throughout the American continent and abroad.

To date Castro continues training, arming and offering sanctuary to international terrorists and placing his agents and spies in the U.S. --- note the September 21, 2001, detention of the spy Ana Belen Montes in the Defense Intelligence Agency. The July 28, 1997 Forbes Magazine reported that Castro is worth "$1.4 billion." In a 1997 report titled "The Comandante's Reserves" compiled from information given by high-ranking government defectors, especially Jesus M. Fernandez, some of his money has been traced to 1959. A large part of it was stolen from the Cuban people and more from his profits from drug trafficking. Most of the money resides in Swiss bank accounts from which it is used to pay for international subversion, the purchasing of arms, his terrorist activities, agents and spies. History one day will reveal how nefarious Castro has been in our hemisphere.

Castro --- obviously threatening the U.S. --- said on January 28, 1997, "This lamb cannot ever be devoured, not with planes, nor with smart bombs, because this lamb has more intelligence than you and in its blood there is and always will be poison for you!" Don't miss the key word "poison."

Cuba is dangerous Blázquez ’01 (Agustín Blázquez, producer and director of the documentaries Covering Cuba, Covering Cuba 2: The Next Generation and the upcoming Covering Cuba 3: Elián, and co-author of the book Covering and Discovering with Carlos Wotzkow, Blazquez was stricken by the inaccuracies and omissions on the subject of Cuba in the U.S. Media, and by the freedom to take action, leaving him feeling compelled, by 1968 to began writing articles on the subject. Eventually numbering over 300 to date, the articles were distributed at first by U.S. Mail and word of mouth, later by fax, then email and appearance on numerous websites. Some were published by the Houston Chronicle, The Washington Post, The Washington Times, Washington Inquirer, etc. in the U.S. and others abroad; “Cuba, Castro, and Bioterrorism”; Hacienda Publishing, originally published in The Medical Sentinel, Association of American Physicians and Surgeons; 2001; http://www.haciendapub.com/medicalsentinel/cuba-castro-and-bioterrorism)

Now, after years of appeasement, the nonsense about engagement, people-to-people cultural, scientific and sport exchanges, the pervasive campaign to lift the U.S. embargo and tourist visits to Cuba, we clearly see that Castro has used this time to develop weapons of mass destruction in our backyard to be used against us. All the while the U.S. media keeps misinforming us. The blackmail potential that this represents renders the U.S. and its people in grave danger and in an almost impotent situation. The U.S. must not lower its guard in relation to Cuba. We must not put all of our eggs in one basket. It could be fatal.

Impact Defense

Prolif No impact to proliferation Mueller ’10 (John Mueller ,political scientist in the field of international relations “Calming our nuclear jitters” Issues in Science and Technology (7/12/13) http://www.issues.org/26.2/mueller.html) The fearsome destructive power of nuclear weapons provokes understandable dread, but in crafting public policy we must move beyond this initial reaction to soberly assess the risks and consider appropriate ac tions. Out of awe over and anxiety about nuclear weapons, the world’s super-powers accumulated enormous arsenals of them for nearly 50 years. But then, in the wake of the Cold War, fears that the bombs would be used vanished almost entirely. At the same time, concerns that terrorists and rogue nations could acquire nuclear weapons have sparked a new surge of fear and speculation. In the past, excessive fear about nuclear weapons led to many policies that turned out to be wasteful and unnecessary. We should take the time to assess these new risks to avoid an overreaction that will take resources and attention away from other problems. Indeed, a more thoughtful analysis will reveal that the new perceived danger is far less likely than it might at first appear. Albert Einstein memorably proclaimed that nuclear weapons “have changed everything except our way of thinking.” But the weapons actually seem to have changed little except our way of thinking, as well as our ways of declaiming, gesticulating, deploying military forces, and spending lots of money. To begin with, the bomb’s impact on substantive historical developments has turned out to be minimal. Nuclear weapons are, of course, routinely given credit for preventing or deterring a major war during the Cold War era. However, it is increasingly clear that the Soviet Union never had the slightest interest in engaging in any kind of conflict that would remotely resemble World War II, whether nuclear or not. Its agenda emphasized revolution, class rebellion, and civil war, conflict areas in which nuclear weapons are irrelevant. Thus, there was no threat of direct military aggression to deter. Moreover, the possessors of nuclear weapons have never been able to find much military reason to use them, even in principle, in actual armed conflicts. Although they may have failed to alter substantive history, nuclear weapons have inspired legions of strategists to spend whole careers agonizing over what one analyst has called “nuclear metaphysics,” arguing, for example, over how many MIRVs (multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles) could dance on the head of an ICBM (intercontinental ballistic missile). The result was a colossal expenditure of funds. Most important for current policy is the fact that contrary to decades of hand-wringing about the inherent appeal of nuclear weapons, most countries have actually found them to be a substantial and even ridiculous misdirection of funds, effort, and scientific talent. This is a major if much-underappreciated reason why nuclear proliferation has been so much slower than predicted over the decades. In addition, the proliferation that has taken place has been substantially inconsequential. When the quintessential rogue state, Communist China, obtained nuclear weapons in 1964, Central Intelligence Agency Director John McCone sternly proclaimed that nuclear war was “almost inevitable.” But far from engaging in the nuclear blackmail expected at the time by almost everyone, China built its weapons quietly and has never made a real nuclear threat. Despite this experience, proliferation anxiety continues to flourish. For more than a decade, U.S. policymakers obsessed about the possibility that Saddam Hussein’s pathetic and technologically dysfunctional regime in Iraq could in time obtain nuclear weapons, even though it took the far more advanced Pakistan 28 years. To prevent this imagined and highly unlikely calamity, damaging and destructive economic sanctions were imposed and then a war was waged, and each venture has probably resulted in more deaths than were suffered at Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. (At Hiroshima and Nagasaki, about

67,000 people died immediately and 36,000 more died over the next four months. Most estimates of the Iraq war have put total deaths there at about the Hiroshima-Nagasaki levels, or higher.) Today, alarm is focused on the even more pathetic regime in North Korea, which has now tested a couple of atomic devices that seem to have been fizzles. There is even more hysteria about Iran, which has repeatedly insisted it has no intention of developing weapons. If that regime changes its mind or is lying, experience suggests it is likely to find that, except for stoking the national ego for a while, the bombs are substantially valueless and a very considerable waste of money and effort.

Proliferation impacts are overhyped Farley ’11 Robert Farley, assistant professor at the Patterson School of Diplomacy and International Commerce at the University of Kentucky, “Over the Horizon: Iran and the Nuclear Paradox,” World Politics Review, 11/16/2011, http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/10679/over-the-horizoniran-and-the-nuclear-paradox But states and policymakers habitually overestimate the impact of nuclear weapons . This happens among both proliferators and anti-proliferators. Would-be proliferators seem to expect that possessing a nuclear weapon will confer “a seat at the table” as well as solve a host of minor and major foreign policy problems. Existing nuclear powers fear that new entrants will act unpredictably, destabilize regions and throw existing diplomatic arrangements into flux. These predictions almost invariably turn out wrong; nuclear weapons consistently fail to undo the existing power relationships of the international system. The North Korean example is instructive. In spite of the dire warnings about the dangers of a North Korean nuclear weapon, the region has weathered Pyongyang’s nuclear proliferation in altogether sound fashion. Though some might argue that nukes have “enabled” North Korea to engage in a variety of bad behaviors, that was already the case prior to its nuclear test. The crucial deterrent to U.S. or South Korean action continues to be North Korea’s conventional capabilities, as well as the incalculable costs of governing North Korea after a war. Moreover, despite

the usual dire predictions of nonproliferation professionals, the North Korean nuclear program has yet to inspire Tokyo or Seoul to follow suit . The DPRK’s program represents a tremendous waste of resources and human capital for a poor state, and it may prove a problem if North Korea endures a messy collapse. Thus far, however, the effects of the arsenal have been minimal. Israel represents another case in which the benefits of nuclear weapons remain unclear. Although Israel adopted a policy of ambiguity about its nuclear program, most in the region understood that Israel

possessed nuclear weapons by the late-1960s. These weapons did not deter Syria or Egypt from launching a large-scale conventional assault in 1973, however. Nor did they help the Israeli Defense Force compel acquiescence in Lebanon in 1982 or 2006. Nuclear weapons have not resolved the Palestinian question, and when it came to removing the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq, Israel relied not on its nuclear arsenal but on the United States to do so -through conventional means -- in 2003. Israeli

nukes have thus far failed to intimidate the Iranians into freezing their nuclear program. Moreover, Israel has pursued a defense policy designed around the goal of maintaining superiority at every level of military escalation, from asymmetrical anti-terror efforts to high-intensity conventional combat. Thus, it is unclear whether the nuclear program has even saved Israel any money. The problem with nukes is that there are strong material and normative pressures against their use, not least because states that use nukes risk incurring nuclear retaliation. Part of the appeal of nuclear weapons is their bluntness, but for foreign policy objectives requiring a scalpel rather than a sledgehammer, they are useless. As a result, states with

nuclear neighbors quickly find that they can engage in all manner of harassment and escalation without risking nuclear retaliation. The weapons themselves are often more expensive than the foreign policy objectives that they would be used to attain. Moreover, normative pressures do matter. Even “outlaw” nations recognize that the world views the use of nuclear -- not to mention chemical or biological -- weapons differently than other expressions of force. And almost without exception, even outlaw nations require the goodwill of at least some segments of the international community. Given all this, it is not at all surprising that many countries eschew nuclear programs, even when they could easily attain nuclear status. Setting aside the legal problems, nuclear

programs tend to be expensive, and they provide relatively little in terms of foreign policy return on investment. Brazil, for example, does not need nuclear weapons to exercise influence in Latin America or deter its rivals. Turkey, like Germany, Japan and South Korea, decided a long time ago that the nuclear “problem” could be solved most efficiently through alignment with an existing nuclear power. Why

do policymakers, analysts and journalists so consistently overrate the importance of nuclear weapons? The answer is that everyone has a strong incentive to lie about their importance. The Iranians will lie to the world about the extent of their program and to their people about the fruits of going nuclear. The various U.S.

client states in the region will lie to Washington about how terrified they are of a nuclear Iran, warning of the need for “strategic re-evaluation,” while also using the Iranian menace as an excuse for brutality against their own populations.

Nonproliferation advocates will lie about the terrors of unrestrained proliferation because they do not want anyone to shift focus to the manageability of a post-nuclear Iran. The United States will lie to everyone in order to reassure its clients and maintain the cohesion of the anti-Iran block. None of these lies are particularly dishonorable; they represent the normal course of diplomacy. But they are lies nevertheless, and serious analysts of foreign policy and international relations need to be wary of them. Nonproliferation is a good idea, if only because states should not waste tremendous resources on weapons of limited utility. Nuclear weapons also represent a genuine risk of accidents, especially for states that have not yet developed appropriately robust security precautions. Instability and collapse in nuclear states has been harrowing in the past and will undoubtedly be harrowing in the future. All of these threats should be taken seriously by policymakers. Unfortunately, as

long as deception remains the rule in the practice of nuclear diplomacy, exaggerated alarmism will substitute for a realistic appraisal of the policy landscape.

Prolif’s slow and stable—60 years of peace prove DeGarmo ’11 Denise DeGarmo, professor of international relations at Southern Illinois UniversityEdwardsville, “Nuclear Proliferation Leads to Peace,” PolicyMic, 2011, http://www.policymic.com/articles/1463/nuclear-proliferation-leads-to-peace/10741 Unfortunately, while the fear of proliferation is pervasive, it is unfounded and lacks an understanding of the evidence. Nuclear proliferation has been slow. From 1945 to 1970, only six countries acquired nuclear weapons: United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France, China, and Israel. Since the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty came into effect in 1970, only three countries have joined the nuclear club: India, Pakistan, and North Korea. In total, only .05% of the world’s states have nuclear weapons in their possession. Supporters of non-proliferation seem to overlook the fact that there are states currently capable of making nuclear weapons and have chosen not to construct them, which illustrates the seriousness with which states consider their entrance into the nuclear club. Included on this list are such actors as: Japan, Argentina, Brazil, Egypt, Iran, South Korea, Taiwan, and South Africa. The attraction of nuclear weapons is multifold. Nuclear weapons enhance the international status of states that possess them and help insecure states feel more secure. States also seek nuclear capabilities for offensive purposes. It is important to point out that while nuclear weapons have spread very slowly, conventional weapons have proliferated exponentially across the globe. The

wars of the 21st century are being fought in the peripheral regions of the globe that are undergoing conventional weapons proliferation. What the pundits of non-proliferation forget to mention are the many lessons that are learned from the nuclear world. Nuclear weapons provide stability just as they did during the Cold War era. The fear of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) loomed heavily on the minds of nuclear powers through out the Cold War and continues to be an important consideration for nuclear states today. States do not strike first unless they are assured of a military victory, and the probability of a military victory is diminished by fear that their actions would prompt a swift retaliation by other states. In other words, states with nuclear weapons are deterred by another state’s second-strike capabilities. During the Cold War, the United States and Soviet Union could not destroy enough of the other’s massive arsenal of nuclear weapons to make a retaliatory strike bearable. Even the prospect of a small number of nuclear weapons being placed in Cuba by the Soviets had a great deterrent effect on the United States. Nothing can be done with nuclear weapons other than to use them for deterrent purposes. If

deterrence works reliably, as it has done over the past 60 plus years, then there is less to be feared from nuclear proliferation than there is from convention warfare.

Disease Immune systems solve the impact Lang Research assistant professor at UNC ‘13(“Use cells suicide alarm to fight bioterrorism” Leslie Lang Research assistant professor in Genetics of complex diseases, genetics of chronic inflammation, cardiovascular disease, asthma at UNC Additional research contributors are from Seattle Biomedical Research Institute and the University of California, Berkeley. The National Institutes of Health, Burroughs Wellcome Fund, Cancer Research Institute, and the National Science Foundation supported the research. Futurity 1/25/2013 http://www.futurity.org/health-medicine/use-cells-suicide-alarm-to-fight-bioterrorism/7/12/13)

The alarm system that helps immune system cells destroy invading bacteria points to a potentially new way to protect people from biological weapons, researchers report. Cells in the immune system called macrophages normally engulf and kill intruding bacteria, holding them inside a membranebound bag called a vacuole, where they kill and digest them. Some bacteria thwart this effort by ripping the bag open and then escaping into the macrophage’s nutrient-rich cytosol compartment, where they divide and could eventually go on to invade other cells. Research

from the University of North Carolina School of Medicine shows that macrophages have a suicide alarm system—a signaling pathway to detect this escape into the cytosol. The pathway activates an enzyme, called caspase-11, which triggers a program in the macrophage to destroy itself. “It’s almost like a thief sneaking into the house not knowing an alarm will go off to knock down the walls and expose him to capture by the police,” says study senior and corresponding author Edward Miao, assistant professor of microbiology and immunology. “In the macrophage, this cell death, called pyroptosis, expels the bacterium from the cell, exposing it to other immune defense mechanisms.” Miao says the new findings, reported in the journal Science, show that having this detection pathway protects mice from lethal infection with the type of vacuole-escaping Burkholderia species: B. thailandensis and B. pseudomallei. Both are close relatives. But they differ in lethality. B. pseudomallei is potentially a biological weapon. Used in a spray, it could potentially infect people via aerosol route, causing sickness and death. Moreover, it also could fall into a latent phase, “essentially turning into a ‘sleeper’ inside the lungs and hiding there for decades,” Miao explains. In contrast, B. thailandensis, which shares many properties with its species counterpart, is not normally able to cause any disease or infection These environmental bacteria are ubiquitous throughout South East Asia, and were it not for the caspase-11 pathway defense system, that part of the world could be uninhabitable, Miao points out. This grim possibility clearly emerged in the study. Mice that lack the caspase-11 detection pathway succumb to infection not only by B. pseudomallei, but also to the normally benign B. thailandensis. “Thus caspase-11 is critical for surviving exposure to ubiquitous environmental pathogens,” the authors conclude. Miao points to research elsewhere showing that the pathway’s abnormal activation in people with septic shock, overwhelming bacterial infection of the blood, is associated with death. “We

discovered what the pathway is supposed to do, which may help find ways to tone it down in people with that critical condition.” As to bioterrorism, the researcher says it may be possible to use certain drugs already on the market that safely induce the caspase-11 pathway. “Since this pathway requires pre-stimulation with interferon cytokines, it is conceivable that pre-treating people with interferon drugs could ameliorate a bioterror incident. “This could be quite important in the case of Burkholderia, since these bacteria are naturally resistant to numerous antibiotics. “But first we have to find out if they would work in animal models, and consider the logistics of interferon stockpiling, which are currently cost prohibitive.” Additional research contributors are from Seattle Biomedical Research Institute and the University of California, Berkeley. The National Institutes of Health, Burroughs Wellcome Fund, Cancer Research Institute, and the National Science Foundation supported the research.

Burnout prevents the spread of disease Morse, Director of the Center for Public Health Preparedness at the Mailmen School 04 (Stephen, (hD May 2004, “Emerging and Reemerging Infectious Diseases: A Global Problem,” Actionbioscience.org http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/morse.html 7/12/13) Morse: A pandemic is a very big epidemic. It requires a number of things. There are many infections that get introduced from time to time in the human population and, like Ebola, burn themselves out because they kill too quickly or they don’t have a way to get from person to person. They are a terrible tragedy, but also, in a sense, it is a lucky thing that they don’t have an efficient means of transmission. In some cases, we may inadvertently create pathways to allow transmission of infections that may be poorly transmissible, for example, spreading HIV through needle sharing, the blood

supply, and, of course, initially through the commercial sex trade. The disease is not easily transmitted, but we provided, without realizing it, means for it to spread. It is now pandemic in spite of its relatively inefficient transmission. We also get complacent and do not take steps to prevent its spread.

Satellites monitor environmental factors – that prevents spread Walter-Range and John, Research analysts for the Space Foundation 10 (Micah and Mariel, research analyst for the Space Foundation, September 1, 2010, “Disease and Pandemic Early Warning,” Space Foundation, http://www.spacefoundation.org/sites/default/files/downloads/Solutions_from_Space_Disease_and_Pandemic_E arly_Warning_0.pdf, 7/12/13)

Remote sensing satellites cannot directly detect disease outbreaks but they are able to detect a wide range of environmental factors, such as ground water, vegetation, or flooding. 1 Before a model can be developed, an association must be found between environmental factors and the ecology of the disease agent or host. This is usually possible for vector-borne diseases, in which a third party, or vector, is necessary to transmit the disease. Malaria, which is spread by mosquitoes, provides a good example. Mosquitoes breed in water, so they are often more prevalent when there is a greater amount of surface water. Increased amounts of surface water or rainfall, which can be detected by remote sensing satellites, represent a possible predictor for an outbreak of malaria in regions where the disease is known to exist.

models are more effective when they integrate other data sources that help to identify multiple links between environmental factors and a disease. In addition, some models incorporate the biological process of susceptibility, exposure, infection, and recovery. This requires an understanding of what causes people to be 2 These

particularly vulnerable to a particular disease, the ways in which people come into contact with the disease, the process by which the infection

It is also important for these models to include information about the region being studied, often referred to as geospatial information. For example, predictions of areas at risk of outbreak should take into affects the body, and the process of recovery. 3

account the population density throughout the region. If an area likely to have many mosquitoes is also near a village, there is a higher risk of a malaria outbreak than would be the case for a very sparsely populated area. Once

these associations have been identified, historical data is used to demonstrate that there is a correlation between the environmental factors and disease outbreaks. In addition to the satellite imagery and population data, it is necessary to gather epidemiological data, including information about when and where outbreaks have occurred in the past, in order to validate the connection. This data can be difficult to acquire, particularly for rural areas or in developing countries. Because of the wide range of environmental factors that could affect the spread of disease in different areas, it is necessary to have data representing as much of the area of interest as possible. This first step, which includes identifying and validating links between diseases and environmental factors, is usually carried out by researchers either in academia or government. 5

Burnout prevents spread The Guardian, 03 (Dave Birch – staff writer, September 24, 2003, “Second sight,” http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2003/sep/25/comment.comment, 7/12/13) The parallel with the natural world is illustrative. Take the case of everyone's favourite evil virus, Ebola. This is so virulent that it kills up to 90% of infected hosts within one to two weeks. There is no known cure. So how come the entire population hasn't dropped dead from haemorrhaging, shock or renal failure? The "organism" is just too deadly: it kills too quickly and has too short an incubation period, so the pool of infected people doesn't grow. In fact, it shrinks rather rapidly. Having terrible consequences doesn't make a virus successful. If a parasite kills its hosts too quickly, then it destroys its own ecosystem: a lesson from nature here, surely. A clever virus would leave PCs largely unaffected through its incubation period. But what if a worm, virus or trojan horse was created by people who were really clever? What kind of things would this Àberworm do? It is fun, if not irresponsible, to speculate.

Multiple measures prevent spread of disease McIntyre Time staff writer ‘09 (Douglas A. April 27, 2009, “Swine Flu Unlikely to Affect the Economy,” Time http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1894052,00.html, 7/12/13) Since that pandemic more than 40 years ago, there have been no major events involving the global spread of lethal flu infections. There have been cases of dangerous avian flu outbreaks in Asia for a decade which has caused the deaths of a small number of people. Since these flu infections have not spread globally warnings and concerns about pandemics have not been much seen in the media. At the start of this weekend however the media has been very involved in transmitting the latest information from all the public health organizations and specialists in disease tracking. "We are very, very concerned,"

World Health Organization spokesman Thomas Abraham said. "We have what appears to be a novel virus and it has spread from human to human ... It's all hands on deck at the moment." Two critical

factors should prevent the current outbreak from spreading much first is the sophisticated monitoring systems set up by the CDC in the United States, similar authorities in other countries, and the WHO on a global basis. The SARS outbreak in 2002 ended up killing less than 800 people, in part because of a near shutdown of world travel and minute-by-minute tracking of the progress of the disease around the world. Secondly, there are several theories about why flu viruses do not spread with the rapidity and scale that they once did. One of the probable reasons is is that flu vaccines diminish the spread of the disease in general by cutting down on the spread of specific strains. This even extends to the vaccinations of animals that are the primary carriers of the infectious viruses. In addition, the CDC said that two major flu drugs, Tamiflu and Relenza, appear likely to diminish the severity of symptoms for the new strain, if taken in the first 48-hours of this Swine flu further. The

infection. That may be one of the reasons that public health officials, epidemiologists, and infectious disease specialists have indicated that people should not be overly concerned. One expert told NPR, "We've

seen swine influenza in humans over the past several years, and in most cases, it's come from direct pig contact. This seems to be different, " said Dr. Arnold Monto, from the University of Michigan. "I think we need to be careful and not apprehensive, but certainly paying attention to new developments as they proceed." The odds that tens of thousands of people will die from the flu are low. Advances in medicine and public health policy have made a big difference in the ability to monitor emerging serious illnesses. The fact that the new disease seems not to be terribly virulent outside of Mexico is another factor that supports the opinion that this will not be a major epidemic. However, in the minds of some analysts, the world can still look forward to trillions of dollars in financial losses and an economic depression.

Diseases evolve to be less dangerous – no impact Achenbach, 03 (Joel, Washington Post staff writer, November 2003, “Our Friend, the Plague,” National Geographic, http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0311/resources_who.html, Hensel) Whenever a new disease appears somewhere on our planet, experts invariably pop up on TV with grave summations of the problem, usually along the lines of, "We're in a war against the microbes"—pause for dramatic effect —"and the microbes are winning." War, however, is a ridiculously overused metaphor and probably should be bombed back to the Stone Age. Paul Ewald, a biologist at the University of Louisville, advocates a different approach to lethal microbes. Forget trying to obliterate them, he says, and focus instead on how they co-evolve with humans. Make them mutate in the right direction. Get the powers of evolution on our side. Disease organisms can, in fact, become less virulent over time. When it was first recognized in Europe around 1495, syphilis killed its human hosts within months. The quick progression of the disease—from infection to death—limited the ability of syphilis to spread. So a new form evolved, one that gave carriers years to infect others. For the same reason, the common cold has become less dangerous. Milder strains of the virus—spread by people out and about, touching things, and shaking hands—have an evolutionary advantage over more debilitating strains. You can't spread a cold very easily if you're incapable of rolling out of bed.

Terrorism No threat from nuclear terrorism Mueller political scientist ‘10 (John Mueller ,political scientist in the field of international relations “Calming our nuclear jitters” Issues in Science and Technology (7/12/13) http://www.issues.org/26.2/mueller.html) In the early 1970s, nuclear physicist Theodore Taylor proclaimed the atomic terrorist problem to be “immediate,” explaining at length “how comparatively easy it would be to steal nuclear material and step by step make it into a bomb.” At the time he thought it was already too late to “prevent the making of a few bombs, here and there, now and then,” or “in another ten or fifteen years, it will be too late.” Three decades after Taylor, we

continue to wait for terrorists to carry out their “easy” task. In contrast to these predictions, terrorist groups seem to have exhibited only limited desire and even less progress in going atomic. This may be because, after brief exploration of the possible routes, they, unlike generations of alarmists, have discovered that the tremendous effort required is scarcely likely to be successful. The most plausible route for terrorists, according to most experts, would be to manufacture an atomic device themselves from purloined fissile material (plutonium or, more likely, highly enriched uranium). This task, however, remains a daunting one, requiring that a considerable series of difficult hurdles be conquered and in sequence. Outright armed theft of fissile material is exceedingly unlikely not only because of the resistance of guards, but because chase would be immediate. A more promising approach would be to corrupt insiders to smuggle out the required substances. However, this requires the terrorists to pay off a host of greedy confederates, including brokers and money-transmitters, any one of whom could turn on them or, either out of guile or incompetence, furnish them with stuff that is useless. Insiders might also consider the possibility that once the heist was accomplished, the terrorists would, as analyst Brian Jenkins none too delicately puts it, “have every incentive to cover their trail, beginning with eliminating their confederates.” If

terrorists were somehow successful at obtaining a sufficient mass of relevant material, they would then probably have to transport it a long distance over unfamiliar terrain and probably while being pursued by security forces. Crossing international borders would be facilitated by following established smuggling routes, but these are not as chaotic as they appear and are often under the watch of suspicious and careful criminal regulators. If

border personnel became suspicious of the commodity being smuggled, some of them might find it in their interest to disrupt passage, perhaps to collect the bounteous reward money that would probably be offered by alarmed governments once the uranium theft had been discovered. Once outside the country with their precious booty, terrorists would need to set up a large and well-equipped machine shop to manufacture a bomb and then to populate it with a very select team of highly skilled scientists, technicians, machinists, and administrators. The group would have to be assembled and retained for the monumental task while no consequential suspicions were generated among friends, family, and police about their curious and sudden absence from normal pursuits back home. Members of the bomb-building team would also have to be utterly devoted to the cause, of course, and they would have to be willing to put their lives and certainly their careers at high risk, because after their bomb was discovered or exploded they would probably become the targets of an intense worldwide dragnet operation. Some observers have insisted that it would be easy for terrorists to assemble a crude bomb if they could get enough fissile material. But Christoph Wirz and Emmanuel Egger, two senior physicists in charge of nuclear issues at Switzerland‘s Spiez Laboratory, bluntly conclude that the task “could hardly be accomplished by a subnational group.” They point out that

precise blueprints are required, not just sketches and general ideas, and that even with a good blueprint the terrorist group would most certainly be forced to redesign. They also stress that the work is difficult, dangerous, and extremely exacting, and that the technical requirements in several fields verge on the unfeasible. Stephen Younger, former director of nuclear weapons research at Los Alamos Laboratories, has made a similar argument, pointing out that uranium is “exceptionally difficult to machine” whereas “plutonium is one of the most complex metals ever discovered, a material whose basic properties are sensitive to exactly how it is processed.“ Stressing the “daunting problems associated with material purity, machining, and a host of other issues,” Younger concludes, “to

think that a terrorist group, working in isolation with an unreliable supply of electricity and little access to tools and supplies” could fabricate a bomb “is farfetched at best.” Under the best circumstances, the

process of making a bomb could take months or even a year or more, which would, of course, have to be carried out in utter secrecy. In addition, people in the area, including criminals, may observe with increasing curiosity and puzzlement the constant coming and going of technicians unlikely to be locals. If

the effort to build a bomb was successful, the finished product, weighing a ton or more, would then have to be transported to and smuggled into the relevant target country where it would have to be received by collaborators who are at once totally dedicated and technically proficient at handling, maintaining, detonating, and perhaps assembling the weapon after it arrives. The financial costs of this extensive and extended operation could easily become monumental. There would be expensive equipment to buy, smuggle, and set up and people to pay or pay off. Some operatives might work for free out of utter dedication to the cause, but the vast conspiracy also requires the subversion of a considerable array of criminals and opportunists, each of whom has every incentive to push the price for cooperation as high as

Any criminals competent and capable enough to be effective allies are also likely to be both smart enough to see boundless opportunities for extortion and psychologically equipped by their profession to be willing to exploit them. Those who warn about the likelihood of a terrorist bomb contend that a terrorist group could, if with great possible.

difficulty, overcome each obstacle and that doing so in each case is “not impossible.” But although it may not be impossible to surmount each individual step, the

likelihood that a group could surmount a series of them quickly becomes vanishingly

small. Table 1 attempts to catalogue the barriers that must be overcome under the scenario considered most likely to be successful. In contemplating the task before them, would-be atomic terrorists would effectively be required to go though an exercise that looks much like this. If and when they do, they will undoubtedly conclude that their prospects are daunting and accordingly uninspiring or even terminally dispiriting. It is possible to calculate the chances for success. Adopting probability estimates that purposely and heavily bias the case in the terrorists’ favor—for example, assuming the terrorists have a 50% chance of overcoming each of the 20 obstacles—the chances that a concerted effort would be successful comes out to be less than one in a million. If one assumes, somewhat more realistically, that their chances at each barrier are one in three, the cumulative odds that they will be able to pull off the deed drop to one in well over three billion. Other routes would-be terrorists might take to acquire a bomb are even more problematic. They

are unlikely to be given or sold a bomb by a generous like-minded nuclear state for delivery abroad because the risk would be high, even for a country led by extremists, that the bomb (and its source) would be discovered even before delivery or that it would be exploded in a manner and on a target the donor would not approve, including on the donor itself. Another concern would be that the terrorist group might be infiltrated by foreign intelligence. The terrorist group might also seek to steal or illicitly purchase a “loose nuke“ somewhere. However, it seems probable that none exist. All governments have an intense interest in controlling any weapons on their territory because of fears that they might become the primary target. Moreover, as technology has developed, finished bombs have been out-fitted with devices that trigger a non-nuclear explosion that destroys the bomb if it is tampered with. And there are other security techniques: Bombs can be kept disassembled with the component parts stored in separate high-security vaults, and a process can be set up in which two people and multiple codes are required not only to use the bomb but to store, maintain, and deploy it. As Younger points out, “only

a few people in the world have the knowledge to cause an unauthorized detonation of a nuclear weapon.” There could be dangers in the chaos that would emerge if a nuclear state were to utterly collapse; Pakistan is frequently cited in this context and sometimes North Korea as well. However, even under such conditions, nuclear weapons would probably remain under heavy guard by people who know that a purloined bomb might be used in their own territory. They would still have locks and, in the case of Pakistan, the weapons would be disassembled.

No nuclear terror—deterrence and prevention solves Mearsheimer ’10 Professor of political science at the University of Chicago (John J. “Imperial by Design,” The National Interest, 12/16/2010, http://nationalinterest.org/print/article/imperial-by-design-4576 7/12/13)

This assessment of America’s terrorism problem was flawed on every count. It was threat inflation of the highest order. It made no sense to declare war against groups that were not trying to harm the United States. They were not our enemies; and going after all terrorist organizations would greatly complicate the daunting task of eliminating those groups that did have us in their crosshairs. In addition, there was no alliance between the so-called rogue states and al-Qaeda. In fact, Iran and Syria cooperated with Washington after 9/11 to help quash Osama bin Laden and his cohorts. Although the Bush administration and the neoconservatives repeatedly asserted that there was a genuine connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, they never produced evidence to back up their claim for the simple reason that it did not exist. The fact is that states have strong incentives to distrust terrorist groups, in part because they might turn on them someday, but

also because countries cannot control what terrorist organizations do, and they may do something

that gets their patrons into serious trouble. This is why there is hardly any chance that a rogue state will give a nuclear weapon to terrorists. That regime’s leaders could never be sure that they would not be blamed and punished for a terrorist group’s actions. Nor could they be certain that the United States or Israel would not incinerate them if either country merely suspected that they had provided terrorists with the ability to carry out a WMD attack. A nuclear handoff, therefore, is not a serious threat. When you get down to it, there is only a remote possibility that terrorists will get hold of an atomic bomb. The most likely way it would happen is if there were political chaos in a nuclear-armed state, and terrorists or their friends were able to take advantage of the ensuing confusion to snatch a loose nuclear weapon. But even then, there are additional obstacles to overcome: some countries keep their weapons disassembled, detonating one is not easy and it would be difficult to transport the device without being detected. Moreover, other countries would have powerful incentives to work with Washington to find the weapon before it could be used. The obvious implication is that we should work with other states to improve nuclear security, so as to make this slim possibility even more unlikely. Finally, the ability of terrorists to strike the American homeland has been blown out of all proportion. In the nine years since 9/11, government officials and terrorist experts have issued countless warnings that another major attack on American soil is probable—even imminent. But this is simply not the case.3 The only attempts we have seen are a few failed solo attacks by individuals with links to al-Qaeda like the “shoe bomber,” who attempted to blow up an American Airlines flight from Paris to Miami in December 2001, and the “underwear bomber,” who tried to blow up a Northwest Airlines flight from Amsterdam to Detroit in December 2009. So, we do have a terrorism problem, but it is hardly an existential threat. In fact, it is a minor threat. Perhaps the scope of the challenge is best captured by Ohio State political scientist John Mueller’s telling comment that “ the number of

Americans killed by international terrorism since the late 1960s . . . is about the same as the number killed over the same period by lightning, or by accident-causing deer, or by severe allergic reactions to peanuts.”

Nuclear attack is suicide—terrorists prefer smaller strikes Umana ’ Global Security Researcher & Analyst ‘11 Felipe “Loose Nukes: Real Threat?” Foreign Policy in Focus, 8/17/2011, http://www.fpif.org/articles/loose_nukes_real_threat?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+FPIF+%28Forei gn+Policy+In+Focus+%28All+News%29%29 7/12/13)

threat of military, political, and economic repercussions from foreign actors provides another viable deterrent. For example, the existence of a nuclear weapon or the confirmed knowledge that a belligerent non-state actor has developed a The

feasible nuclear weapon can goad major world governments to join forces and unleash a rapid and strong military operation on the region

Atomic weapons in the hands of terrorist organizations are likely to remain immobile (seeing as the proper resources to move and handle it carefully are likely absent or of low quality), so an allied military procedure from the world’s most powerful militaries could then aim to neutralize an entire organization. The complete annihilation of a group’s membership and hideouts is an extremely unattractive measure from the perspective of any terrorist organization. The country that hosts these organizations, deliberately or inadvertently, would face severe opprobrium if it did not deal with radicals within its own borders. Diplomatic and economic sanctions could similarly be used to dissuade these states from potentially aiding the belligerent non-state actors, while also restricting corruption tactics from diverting financial flows to radical groups. Even more importantly, sanctions could serve as punishment or discouragement against states seeking nuclear capabilities for an offensive atomic program. Iran, for instance, has faced a long history of economic sanctions, partly because of its nuclear program. where these non-state actors.

High chance of detection, logistic problems and just unlikely Mannes 11 [Aaron, former Director of Research @ Middle East Media Research Institute, “Schelling on nuclear terrorism,” http://terrorwonk.blogspot.com/2011/09/schelling-on-nuclear-terrorism.html, AD: 10-16-11]JN A Nobel on Nukes Those thoughts were in the back of my mind when I attended a lecture by Nobel Laureate in Economics and University of Maryland Professor Thomas Schelling. Uppermost in my mind however, was the topic of his talk - what happened to nuclear terrorism. Back in

1982 Schelling wrote an article stating that sooner rather then later a non-state armed group would acquire a nuclear weapon. This became conventional wisdom, gathering steam particularly after 9/11 when we had an all too frightening demonstration of how capable and creative terrorist groups can be. Schelling, as a towering intellectual figure, has the presence of mind to admit that it hasn't happened and wonder why.

Much of the focus on nuclear terrorism is in stealing fissile material and then constructing a weapon. This is not as easy as it seems. He compared it to stealing a Picasso - all respectable figures in the art community would be on the lookout for it so, as valuable as it is in theory, it is very difficult to sell it. Moving fissile material out of a country, say an FSU state, to a terrorist haven in Pakistan or Yemen requires traveling long distances across many borders and languages. These barriers present multiple opportunities for the nuclear terrorists to be detected. It is an added factor that the people one is likely to interact with are extremely nasty (criminals, murderers etc.) Schelling went on to speculate, suppose they can get the stuff, a terrorist group would need a highly skilled team to build the device including metallurgists and engineers. There are a limited number of loyal terrorists with needed skills and hiring people would be difficult. People with the requisite skills usually can earn money legitimately, might turn them in after they are approached, and probably wouldn’t want to join the project since they might just be murdered after it was complete. Schelling’s analysis, tracks with my own analysis that counter-terror is the application of Murphy’s Law, which emphasizes the logistics of terrorism – always good to be on the same page as a Nobel Laureate! (Thedifficulties Aum Shinrikyo faced in developed chemical and biological weapons provides a telling example of the logistics of WMD terror.) I would add, that trucking in

nuclear material across borders might bring the group under additional intelligence Schelling then asks what would a group do with a nuclear weapon, simply blowing up a city would be a waste – it makes more sense for the group to seek influence. Presumably any organization sophisticated enough to build a weapon is also capable of strategic thought. I am not as certain of this, some terrorist groups are very strategic in their thinking but others are eschatological. For that matter, for some strategy and eschatology are tightly linked! Further, humiliation and revenge are key motives for many terrorists so that simply inflicting pain and destruction may be its own end. Schelling also discussed the difficulties in proving the possession of a weapon. Detonating

one is the best proof, but a

terrorist group might only possess one. Another option is showing to experts (perhaps kidnapping them.) This is possible but difficult. Schelling dismisses the possibility of an insider handing a complete nuke to a group, since it would be impossible to be certain the device was a nuclear bomb that would work without dismantling it – which would render it inoperable. Finally, Schelling argued that a group that did possess a bomb would be wise to secrete it in an American city – tell the government it was in one of several cities and threaten to detonate it. This would create an enormous panic. But ultimately, such a terrorist group would, Schelling argues, seek to acquire influence and a seat at the table. Schelling doesn’t mention that transporting and secreting a nuke also has logistical challenges. It would probably be easier then acquiring the materials, but there would still be numerous opportunities for things to go wrong. For a related comparison, see my analysis one why a Mumbai style attack in the US would be difficult to undertake. This summary is pretty dry, Schelling is very funny and – having been deeply engaged in these issues for decades – has some illuminating anecdotes about these issues. Finally, unaddressed was the question of a nuclear state being taken over by terrorists or a state with nuclear weapons supporting terrorism. These are different issues. Schelling examines the nightmare scenario of an unaccountable terrorist group acquiring nukes and finds it unlikely. There

are many potential nuclear dangers in the world, but this one in particular, while it cannot be dismissed, does not need to be the focus of enormous government resources.

One in three and a half billion chance of a successful attack Schneidmiller ‘9 Chris Schneidmiller, “Experts Debate Threat of Nuclear, Biological Terrorism,” Global Security Newswire, 1/13/2009, http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/experts-debate-threat-of-nuclear-biological-terrorism/

There is an "almost vanishingly small" likelihood that terrorists would ever be able to acquire and detonate a nuclear weapon, one expert said here yesterday (see GSN, Dec. 2, 2008). In even the most likely scenario of nuclear terrorism, there are 20 barriers between extremists and a successful nuclear strike on a major city, said John Mueller, a political science professor at Ohio State University. The process itself is seemingly straightforward but WASHINGTON --

exceedingly difficult -- buy or steal highly enriched uranium, manufacture a weapon, take the bomb to the target site and blow it up. Meanwhile, variables strewn across the path to an attack would increase the complexity of the effort, Mueller argued. Terrorists

would have to bribe officials in a state nuclear program to acquire the material, while avoiding a sting by authorities or a scam by the sellers. The material itself could also turn out to be bad. "Once the purloined material is purloined, [police are] going to be chasing after you. They are also going to put on a high reward, extremely high reward, on getting the weapon back or getting the fissile material back," Mueller said during a panel discussion at a two-day Cato Institute conference on counterterrorism issues facing the incoming Obama administration.

Smuggling the material out of a country would mean relying on criminals who "are very good at extortion" and might have to be killed to avoid a double-cross, Mueller said. The terrorists would then have to find scientists and engineers willing to give up their normal lives to manufacture a bomb, which would require an expensive and sophisticated machine shop. Finally, further technological expertise would be needed to sneak the weapon across national borders to its destination point and conduct a successful detonation, Mueller said. Every obstacle is "difficult but not impossible" to overcome, Mueller said, putting the chance of success at no less than one in three for each. The likelihood of successfully passing through each obstacle, in sequence, would be roughly one in 3 1/2 billion, he said, but for argument's sake dropped it to 3 1/2 million. "It's a total gamble. This is a very expensive and difficult thing to do," said Mueller, who addresses the issue at greater length in an upcoming book, Atomic Obsession. "So unlike buying a ticket to the lottery ... you're basically putting everything, including your life, at stake for a gamble that's maybe one in 3 1/2 million or 3 1/2 billion." Other scenarios are even less probable, Mueller said. A nuclear-armed state is "exceedingly unlikely" to hand a weapon to a terrorist group, he argued: "States just simply won't give it to somebody they can't control." Terrorists are also not likely to be able to steal a whole weapon, Mueller asserted, dismissing the idea of "loose nukes." Even Pakistan, which today is perhaps the nation of greatest concern regarding nuclear security, keeps its bombs in two segments that are stored at different locations, he said (see GSN, Jan. 12).

Failed States Failed states aren’t a security risk Patrick ’ Senior fellow and Director of International Institutes at CFR ‘11 Stewart M. Patrick, Senior Fellow and Director at the Program on International Institutes and Global Governance at CFR, 4/15/2011 “Why Failed States Shouldn't Be Our Biggest National Security Fear,” Council on Foreign Relations, 4/15/2011, http://www.cfr.org/international-peace-and-security/why-failed-states-shouldntour-biggest-national-security-fear/p24689 (7/12/2013) while failed states may be worthy of America's attention on humanitarian and development grounds, most of them are irrelevant to U.S. national security. The risks they pose are mainly to their own inhabitants. Sweeping claims to the contrary are not only inaccurate but distracting and unhelpful, providing little guidance to policymakers seeking to prioritize scarce attention and resources. In 2008, I collaborated with Brookings Institution senior fellow Susan E. Rice, now President Obama's permanent representative to the United Nations, on an index of state weakness in developing countries. The study ranked all 141 developing nations on 20 indicators of state strength, such as the government's ability to provide basic services. More recently, I've examined whether these rankings reveal anything about each nation's role in major global threats: transnational terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, international crime and infectious disease. The findings are startlingly clear. Only a handful of the world's failed states pose security concerns to the United States. Far greater dangers emerge from stronger developing countries that may suffer from corruption and lack of government accountability but come nowhere near qualifying as failed states. In truth,

Failed states don’t cause terrorism or crime Traub member of the Council on Foreign Relations ’11 (James Traub, contributing writer for the New York Times Magazine and author of, most recently, The Freedom Agenda, “Think Again: Failed States,” Foreign Policy, July/August 2011, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/06/20/think_again_failed_states 7/12/13) But the truth is that some state failure poses a real danger to the United States and the West, and some does not. Consider

the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where some 5 million or more people have died in the wars that have convulsed the country since the mid-1990s -- the single most horrific consequence of state failure in modern times. What has been the consequence to Americans? The cost of coltan, a material mined in Congo and used in cell phones, has been extremely volatile. It's hard to think of anything else. Even the role of failed states in global terrorism may have been overstated. To start, terrorism is only a problem in failed states with significant Muslim populations -- admittedly, 13 of the top 20 in this year's Failed States Index. But the correlation between failure and global menace is weaker than we think. Islamist militants in unequivocally failed Muslim states such as Somalia, or profoundly weak ones such as Chad, have thus far mostly posed a threat to their own societies. They are surely less of a danger to the West than Pakistan or Yemen, both at least somewhat functional countries where state ideology and state institutions abet terrorists. In his new book, Weak Links, scholar Stewart Patrick concludes that "a

middle-ranking group of weak -- but not yet failing -- states (e.g., Pakistan, Kenya) may offer more long-term advantages to terrorists than either anarchic zones or strong states." (See "The Brutal Truth.") Terrorists need infrastructure, too. The 9/11 attacks, after all, were directed from Afghanistan, but were financed and coordinated in Europe and more stable parts of the Muslim world, and were carried out mostly by citizens of Saudi Arabia. Al Qaeda is a largely middle-class organization. A similar pattern plays out in the world of transnational crime. Take the three-cornered drug market that links cocaine growers in Latin America, traffickers in West Africa, and users in Europe. The narcotraffickers have found the failed states of West Africa, with their unpatrolled ports and corrupt and undermanned security forces, to be perfect transshipment points for their product. Drugs are dumped out of propeller planes or unloaded from ships just off the coast of Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, or Sierra

Leone, and then broken into smaller parcels to be shipped north. But the

criminal gangs operate not out of these Hobbesian spaces but from Ghana and Senegal -- countries with reliable banking systems, excellent air connections, pleasant hotels, and innumerable opportunities for money laundering. The relationship is analogous to that between Afghanistan, whose wild spaces offer al Qaeda a theater of operations, and Pakistan, whose freewheeling urban centers provide jihadists with a home base.

AT: Conflict escalates No escalation from failed states Stewart Patrick, “The Brutal Truth,” Foreign Policy, July/August 2011, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/06/20/the_brutal_truth?page=full The brutal truth is that the vast majority of weak, failing, and failed states pose risks primarily to their own inhabitants. When governments cannot discharge basic functions, their citizens pay the heaviest price. Countries in the top ranks of the FSI face a much higher risk of internal conflict, civil violence, and humanitarian catastrophe (both natural and man-made). They are settings for the worst human rights abuses, the overwhelming source of the world's refugees, and the places where most U.N. peacekeepers must go. Home to humanity's "bottom billion," they suffer low or negative economic growth, and their populations are more likely to be poor and malnourished; experience pervasive insecurity; endure gender discrimination; lack access to education, basic health care, and modern technology; and die young or suffer chronic illness. Think of Nigeria (No. 14 on the list), a country that spends only $10 per capita on health care annually and has an average life expectancy of just 46 years, or Zimbabwe (6), whose venal authoritarian leader, Robert Mugabe, has driven a once-promising country into repressive horror. Beyond

those living in such countries, the heaviest brunt of state failure is borne by neighboring states; violent conflict, refugee flows, arms trafficking, and disease are rarely contained within national borders. A case in point has been the devastation wrought throughout Africa's Great Lakes region in the decade and a half since the Rwandan genocide, with warring militias, arms flows, and epidemics crisscrossing notional national frontiers. As the Great Lakes show, the risk of regional contagion is compounded when weak and vulnerable states are adjacent to other countries with similar characteristics and few defenses against spillovers. And even when they are not exporting violence, fragile states impose dramatic economic costs on their neighbors. According to Oxford University economist Paul Collier and his colleague Lisa Chauvet, the total cost of a single country falling into the "fragile state" category, for itself and its neighbors, may reach $85 billion. This is a gargantuan sum, equivalent to 70 percent of worldwide official development assistance from international donors in 2009. But

such troubles -- bad as they are -- do not automatically endanger the wider world, much as it may be a convenient sales pitch to argue otherwise. The world, it turns out, is not quite as interdependent as advertised. What happens in the poorest, most marginalized, and most dysfunctional places in the developing world only rarely comes back to bite those living in the wealthy world. What happens in failed states often stays in failed states.

Economy No relationship between economic decline and war Drezner Professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law ’11 (Daniel August, 12, 2011 (“Please come down of the ledge dear readers” Foreign Policy http://drezner.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/08/12/please_come_down_off_the_ledge_dear_readers 7/12/13) So, when we last left off this debate, things were looking grim. My concern in the last post was that the persistence of hard times would cause governments to take actions that would lead to a collapse of the open global economy, a spike in general riots and disturbances, and eerie echoes of the Great Depression. Let's assume that the global economy persists in sputtering for a while, because that's what happens after major financial shocks. Why won't these other bad things happen? Why isn't it 1931? Let's start with the obvious -- it's not gonna be 1931 because there's some passing familiarity with how 1931 played out. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve has devoted much of his academic career to studying the Great Depression. I'm gonna go out on a limb therefore and assert that if the world plunges into a another severe downturn, it's not gonna be because central bank heads replay the same set of mistakes. The legacy of the Great Depression has also affected public attitudes and institutions that provide much stronger cement for the current system. In terms of [public] attitudes, compare the results of this mid-2007 poll with this mid-2010 poll about which economic system is best. I'll just reproduce the key charts below: The headline of the 2010 results is that there's eroding U.S. support for the global economy, but a few other things stand out. U.S. support has declined, but it's declined from a very high level. In contrast, support for free markets has increased in other major powers, such as Germany and China. On the whole, despite the worst global economic crisis since the Great Depression, public attitudes have not changed all that much. While there might be populist demands to "do something," that something is not a return to autarky or anything so [drastic]. Another big difference is that multilateral economic institutions are much more robust now than they were in 1931. On trade matters, even if the Doha round is dead, the rest of the World Trade Organization's corpus of trade-liberalizing measures are still working quite well. Even beyond the WTO, the complaint about trade is not the deficit of free-trade agreements but the surfeit of them. The IMF's resources have been strengthened as a result of the 2008 financial crisis. The Basle Committee on Banking Supervision has already promulgated a plan to strengthen capital requirements for banks. True, it's a slow, weak-assed plan, but it would be an improvement over the status quo. As for the G-20, I've been pretty skeptical about that group's abilities to collectively address serious macroeconomic problems. That is setting the bar rather high, however. One could argue that the G-20's most useful function is reassurance. Even if there are disagreements, communication can prevent them from growing into anything worse. Finally, a note about the possibility of riots and other general social unrest. The working paper cited in my previous post noted the links between austerity measures and increases in disturbances. However, that paper contains the following important paragraph on page 19: [I]n countries with better institutions, the responsiveness of unrest to budget cuts is generally lower. Where constraints on the executive are minimal, the coefficient on expenditure changes is strongly negative -- more spending buys a lot of social peace. In countries with Polity-2 scores above zero, the coefficient is about half in size, and less significant. As we limit the sample to ever more democratic countries, the size of the coefficient declines. For full democracies with a complete range of civil rights, the coefficient is still negative, but no longer significant. This is good news!! The world has

a hell of a lot more democratic governments now than it did in 1931. What happened in London, in other words, might prove to be the exception more than the rule. So yes, the recent economic news might seem grim. Unless political institutions and public attitudes buckle, however, we're unlikely to repeat the mistakes of the 1930's. And, based on the data we've got, that's not going to happen.

Economic Decline doesn’t lead to war Barnett 9—senior managing director of Enterra Solutions LLC (Thomas, The New Rules: Security Remains Stable Amid Financial Crisis, 25 August 2009, http://www.aprodex.com/the-new-rules--securityremains-stable-amid-financial-crisis-398-bl.aspx) When the global financial crisis struck roughly a year ago, the blogosphere was ablaze with all sorts of scary predictions of, and commentary regarding, ensuing conflict and wars -- a rerun of the Great Depression leading to world war, as it were. Now, as global economic news brightens and recovery -surprisingly led by China and emerging markets -- is the talk of the day, it's interesting to look back over the past year and realize how globalization's first truly worldwide recession has had virtually no impact whatsoever on the international security landscape. None of the more than three-dozen ongoing conflicts listed by GlobalSecurity.org can be clearly attributed to the global recession. Indeed, the last new entry (civil conflict between Hamas and Fatah in the Palestine) predates the economic crisis by a year, and three quarters of the chronic struggles began in the last century. Ditto for the 15 low-intensity conflicts listed by Wikipedia (where the latest entry is the Mexican "drug war" begun in 2006). Certainly, the -Russia-Georgia conflict last August was specifically timed, but by most accounts the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics was the most important external trigger (followed by the U.S. presidential campaign) for that sudden spike in an almost two-decade long struggle between Georgia and its two breakaway regions. Looking over the various databases, then, we see a most familiar picture: the usual mix of civil conflicts, insurgencies, and liberation-themed terrorist movements. Besides the recent Russia-Georgia dust-up, the only two potential state-on-state wars (North v. South Korea, Israel v. Iran) are both tied to one side acquiring a nuclear weapon capacity -- a process wholly unrelated to global economic trends. And with the United States effectively tied down by its two ongoing major interventions (Iraq and Afghanistan-bleeding-into-Pakistan), our involvement elsewhere around the planet has been quite modest, both leading up to and following the onset of the economic crisis: e.g., the usual counter-drug efforts in Latin America, the usual military exercises with allies across Asia, mixing it up with pirates off Somalia's coast). Everywhere else we find serious instability we pretty much let it burn, occasionally pressing the Chinese -- unsuccessfully -- to do something. Our new Africa Command, for example, hasn't led us to anything beyond advising and training local forces. So, to sum up: •No significant uptick in mass violence or unrest (remember the smattering of urban riots last year in places like Greece, Moldova and Latvia?); •The usual frequency maintained in civil conflicts (in all the usual places); •Not a single state-on-state war directly caused (and no great-power-on-great-power crises even triggered); •No great improvement or disruption in great-power cooperation regarding the emergence of new nuclear powers (despite all that diplomacy); •A modest scaling back of international policing efforts by the system's acknowledged Leviathan power (inevitable given the strain); and •No serious efforts by any rising great power to challenge that Leviathan or supplant its role. (The worst things we can cite are Moscow's occasional deployments of strategic assets to the Western hemisphere and its weak efforts to outbid the United States on basing rights in Kyrgyzstan; but the best include China and India stepping up their aid and investments in Afghanistan and Iraq.) Sure, we've finally seen global defense spending surpass the previous world record set in the late 1980s, but even that's likely to wane given the stress on public budgets created by all this unprecedented "stimulus" spending. If anything, the friendly cooperation on such stimulus packaging was the most notable great-power dynamic caused by the crisis. Can we say that the world has suffered a distinct shift to political

radicalism as a result of the economic crisis? Indeed, no. The world's major economies remain governed by center-left or center-right political factions that remain decidedly friendly to both markets and trade. In the short run, there were attempts across the board to insulate economies from immediate damage (in effect, as much protectionism as allowed under current trade rules), but there was no great slide into "trade wars." Instead, the World Trade Organization is functioning as it was designed to function, and regional efforts toward free-trade agreements have not slowed. Can we say Islamic radicalism was inflamed by the economic crisis? If it was, that shift was clearly overwhelmed by the Islamic world's growing disenchantment with the brutality displayed by violent extremist groups such as al-Qaida. And looking forward, austere economic times are just as likely to breed connecting evangelicalism as disconnecting fundamentalism. At the end of the day, the economic crisis did not prove to be sufficiently frightening to provoke major economies into establishing global regulatory schemes, even as it has sparked a spirited -- and much needed, as I argued last week -- discussion of the continuing viability of the U.S. dollar as the world's primary reserve currency. Naturally, plenty of experts and pundits have attached great significance to this debate, seeing in it the beginning of "economic warfare" and the like between "fading" America and "rising" China. And yet, in a world of globally integrated production chains and interconnected financial markets, such "diverging interests" hardly constitute signposts for wars up ahead. Frankly, I don't welcome a world in which America's fiscal profligacy goes undisciplined, so bring it on -- please! Add it all up and it's fair to say that this global financial crisis has proven the great resilience of America's post-World War II international liberal trade order.

93 crises prove no war from economic decline Miller ‘00 (Morris, Economist, Adjunct Professor in the Faculty of Administration – University of Ottawa, Former Executive Director and Senior Economist – World Bank, “Poverty as a Cause of Wars?”, Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, Winter, p. 273)

The question may be reformulated. Do wars spring from a popular reaction to a sudden economic crisis that exacerbates poverty and growing disparities in wealth and incomes? Perhaps one could argue, as some scholars do, that it is some dramatic event or sequence of such events leading to the exacerbation of poverty that, in turn, leads to this deplorable denouement. This exogenous factor might act as a catalyst for a violent reaction on the part of the people or on the part of the political leadership who would then possibly be tempted to seek a diversion by finding or, if need be, fabricating an enemy and setting in train the process leading to war. According to a study undertaken by Minxin Pei and Ariel Adesnik of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, there would not appear to be any merit in this hypothesis. After studying ninety-three episodes of economic crisis in twenty-two countries in Latin America and Asia in the years since the Second World War they concluded that:19 Much of the conventional wisdom about the political impact of economic crises may be wrong ... The severity of economic crisis – as measured in terms of inflation and negative growth - bore no relationship to the collapse of regimes ... (or, in democratic states, rarely) to an outbreak of violence ... In the cases of dictatorships and semidemocracies, the ruling elites responded to crises by increasing repression (thereby using one form of violence to abort another).

Even if they win a conflict scenario it doesn’t escalate Fravel ’10 M. Taylor Fravel, associate professor of political science in the MIT Security Studies Program, “The Limits of Diversion: Rethinking Internal and External Conflict,” Security Studies 19:2, 2010, pp. 307-341 The lack of support for diversion raises a simple but important question: why is diversion less frequent than commonly believed, despite its plausible intuition? Although further research is required, several factors should be considered. First, the rally

effect that leaders enjoy from an international crisis is generally brief in duration and unlikely to change permanently a public's overall satisfaction with its leaders.128 George H. W. Bush, for example, lost his reelection bid after successful prosecution of the 1991 Gulf War. Winston Churchill fared no better after the Allied victory in World War II.129 Leaders have little reason to conclude that a short-term rally will address what are usually structural sources of domestic dissatisfaction. Second, a selection effect may prevent embattled leaders from choosing diversion. Diversionary action should produce the largest rally effect against the most powerful target because such action would reflect a leader's skills through coercing a superior opponent. At the same time, leaders should often be deterred from challenging stronger targets, as the imbalance of military forces increases the risk of defeat and thus the probability of losing office at home. Although the odds of victory increase when targeting weaker states, success should have a much more muted effect on domestic support, if any, because victory would have been expected.130 Third, weak or embattled leaders can choose from a wide range of policy options to strengthen their standing at home. Although scholars such as Gelpi and Oakes have noted that embattled leaders can choose repression or economic development in addition to diversionary action, the range of options is even greater and carries less risk than the failure of diversion. Weak leaders can also seek to deepen cooperation with other states if they believe it will strengthen their position at home. Other studies, for example, have demonstrated that political unrest facilitated dtente among the superpowers in the early 1970s, China's concessions in its many territorial disputes, support for international financial liberalization, and the formation of regional organizations such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and the Gulf Cooperation Council.131

No diversion—economic decline creates political focus on regaining growth Tira-Associate Professor in the Department if International Affairs at the University of Georgia ’10 (Jaroslav Tira, Associate Professor in the Department of International Affairs at the University of Georgia, “Territorial Diversion: Diversionary Theory of War and Territorial Conflict,” The Journal of Politics, vol. 72, issue 2, April 2010, pp. 413-425, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0022381609990879)

Empirical support for the economic growth rate is much weaker. The finding that poor economic performance is associated with a higher likelihood of territorial conflict initiation is significant only in Models 3–4.14 The weak results are not altogether surprising given the findings from prior literature. In accordance with the insignificant relationships of Models 1–2 and 5–6, Ostrom and Job (1986), for example, note that the likelihood that a U.S. President will use force is uncertain, as the bad economy might create incentives both to divert the public’s attention with a foreign adventure and to focus on solving the economic problem, thus reducing the inclination to act abroad. Similarly, Fordham (1998a, 1998b), DeRouen (1995), and Gowa (1998) find no relation between a poor economy and U.S. use of force. Furthermore, Leeds and Davis (1997) conclude that the conflict-initiating behavior of 18 industrialized democracies is unrelated to economic conditions as do Pickering and Kisangani (2005) and Russett and Oneal (2001) in global studies. In contrast and more in line with my findings of a significant relationship (in Models 3–4), Hess and Orphanides (1995), for example, argue that economic recessions are linked with forceful action by an incumbent U.S. president. Furthermore, Fordham’s (2002) revision of Gowa’s (1998) analysis shows some effect of a bad economy and DeRouen and Peake (2002) report that U.S. use of force diverts the public’s attention from a poor economy. Among cross-national studies, Oneal and Russett (1997) report that slow growth increases the incidence of militarized disputes, as does Russett (1990)—but only for the United States; slow growth does not affect the behavior of other countries. Kisangani and Pickering (2007) report some significant associations, but they are sensitive to model specification, while Tir and Jasinski (2008) find a clearer link between economic underperformance and increased attacks on domestic ethnic minorities. While none of these works has focused on territorial diversions, my own inconsistent findings for economic growth fit well with the mixed results reported in the literature.15 Hypothesis 1 thus receives strong support via the unpopularity variable but only weak support via the economic growth variable. These

results suggest that embattled leaders are much more likely to respond with territorial diversions to direct signs of their unpopularity (e.g., strikes, protests, riots) than to general background conditions such as economic malaise. Presumably, protesters can be distracted via territorial diversions while fixing the economy would take a more concerted and prolonged policy effort. Bad economic conditions seem to motivate only the most serious, fatal territorial confrontations. This implies that leaders may be reserving the most high-profile and risky diversions for the times when they are the most desperate, that is when their power is threatened both by signs of discontent with their rule and by more systemic problems plaguing the country (i.e., an underperforming economy).

Poverty Poverty doesn’t escalate to conflict-no impact Miller 2k Morris Miller, "Poverty as a cause of wars?" Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, Vol. 25 Issue 4, Winter 2000, proquest The question may be reformulated. Do wars spring from a popular reaction to a sudden economic crisis that exacerbates poverty and growing disparities in wealth and incomes? Perhaps one could argue, as some scholars do, that it is some dramatic event or sequence of such events leading to the exacerbation of poverty that, in turn, leads to this deplorable denouement. This exogenous factor might act as a catalyst for a violent reaction on the part of the people or on the part of the political leadership who would then possibly be tempted to seek a diversion by finding or, if need be, fabricating an enemy and setting in train the process leading to war. According to a study undertaken by Minxin Pei and Ariel Adesnik of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, there would not appear to be any merit in this hypothesis.

After studying ninety-three episodes of economic crisis in twenty-two countries in Latin America and Asia in the years since the Second World War they concluded that:19 Much of the conventional wisdom about the political impact of economic crises may be wrong ... The severity of economic crisis - as measured in terms of inflation and negative growth - bore no relationship to the collapse of regimes ... (or, in democratic states, rarely) to an outbreak of violence ... In the cases of dictatorships and semidemocracies, the ruling elites responded to crises by increasing repression (thereby using one form of violence to abort another).

Alt Cause Employment, family factors, and education Isabel V. Sawhill, senior fellow in Economic Studies at Brookings, and Ron Haskins, senior fellow in Economic Studies at Brookings, "Ending Poverty in America: Using Carrots and Sticks," The American Prospect, 1 May 2007, http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2007/05poverty_haskins.aspx Three trends tell us a lot about the causes of poverty and show us why a growing economy has not been more effective in reducing it. First, as the left chart shows, growth of wages at the bottom of the distribution (the 10th percentile) declined during the 1980s and

High Employment. Stagnant or falling wages at the bottom of the distribution make reducing poverty difficult. By contrast, tight labor markets, as signaled by low unemployment rates, the first half of the '90s, rising again only after 1996.

contribute to both rising wages and falling poverty rates. Consider the record: Wages rose and poverty fell during the 1960s, when unemployment averaged 4.8 percent and fell as low as 3.5 percent. But as wages fell or were stagnant during the '70s and '80s, when unemployment skyrocketed to average 6.2 percent and 7.3 percent, respectively, poverty rose or was stagnant. Only when tight labor markets returned after the mid-'90s--when unemployment fell to an average of 4.8 percent between 1995 and 2000--did wages once again rise and poverty fall. Mere economic growth will not necessarily lead to reduced poverty rates. Apparently, tight labor markets accompanied by rising

Family Factors. A second factor putting substantial upward pressure on poverty was poverty rate for mother-headed families is usually four or five times the rate for married-couple families. So, other things being equal, any rise in the share of children living in female-headed families will wages are required to effectively fight poverty. changes in family composition. The

increase poverty. Beginning in the 1960s, Americans perfected every known method of casting children into single-parent families. Marriage rates fell, divorce rates increased until the 1980s, and non-marital birth rates exploded until a third of all babies (and nearly 70 percent of black babies) were born outside marriage. As a result, between 1970 and 2004, the percentage of children living in a female-headed family increased from 12 percent to 28 percent. It's hard to fight poverty when more and more children are in families of the type that are most likely to be

Education. Poor educational achievement is a third reason poverty has been stagnant. Education has always been important in accounting for economic success, but most analysts agree that recent decades--because of globalization, technological change, and trade--have seen increased payoff to education. One of the most important changes in the American economy for those interested in fighting poverty is the decline of highpoor.

paying jobs suited to workers with a high-school education or less. Workers without a high-school diploma are twice as likely to be poor as those with one, and three times as likely to be poor as workers with some college education. The Educational Testing Service estimates that nearly one-third of students drop out of school before graduating. Moreover, despite waves of educational reform, the reading and math achievement of students from poor and low-income families has been virtually flat for three decades.

Capitalism Clark Senior fellow at the Vincentian Center for Church and Society ‘04 Charles M. A. Clark, senior fellow at the Vincentian Center for Church and Society, "Ending Poverty in America," 2004, http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&ved=0CAcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usbig.net%2Fpapers%2F080-ClarkEndingPoverty.doc&ei=zbtFS4rTHJLWM-296P4C&usg=AFQjCNGLbnHQUROUF0qX12c89nyDmONxcg&sig2=FrdijonwLzv96QzvLZ8uBw The second cause of poverty relates to the structure of the economy and society. Structural theories of poverty suggest that the

“rules of the game” of the economy and society are so established that certain types of individuals are destined to be losers in the economic game, and that the overall economy is designed to produce poverty. Thus either the economy produces a level of poverty and the rules determine who will be the losers, or the rules determine winners and losers and the level of poverty is merely the aggregate number of losers (wth no predetermined level of losers). Examples of structural poverty are

Slavery certainly created structural poverty its impact lasted long after the Civil War ended and the slaves were freed. The caste system in India is another example that is fairly obvious. Karl Mark sometinmes easier to see by looking at the past or by looking at other societies. in the United States in the 19th century (and in everyother slave economy) and

suggested that the institution of private property in the form of the means of production created structural poverty.

Illness and injury Clark Senior fellow at the Vincentian Center for Church and Society ‘04 Charles M. A. Clark, senior fellow at the Vincentian Center for Church and Society, "Ending Poverty in America," 2004, http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&ved=0CAcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usbig.net%2Fpapers%2F080-ClarkEndingPoverty.doc&ei=zbtFS4rTHJLWM-296P4C&usg=AFQjCNGLbnHQUROUF0qX12c89nyDmONxcg&sig2=FrdijonwLzv96QzvLZ8uBw

A fourth cause of poverty is sudden catastrophes, such as an illness or injury, the loss of a job or other disaster which deprives someone from their previous claim to an adequate share of the social product (such claims usually come from market participation). As private insurance markets never provide adequate security for these events, some sort of social protection is needed. We should remember that most American families are one serious illness away from poverty and that this is a significant contributor of families enter poverty or not exiting from poverty.

Heg Even if the US declines, liberal international norms will survive - solves the impact Ikenberry Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton ‘11 (G. John May/June issue of Foreign Affairs 2011, PhD, Albert G. Milbank Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University in the Department of Politics and the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, “The Future of the Liberal World Order,” http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/67730/g-john-ikenberry/the-future-of-the-liberalworld-order?page=show 7/12/13) For all these reasons, many observers have concluded that world

politics is experiencing not just a changing of the guard but also a transition in the ideas and principles that underlie the global order. The journalist Gideon Rachman, for example, says that a cluster of liberal internationalist ideas -- such as faith in democratization, confidence in free markets, and the acceptability of U.S. military power -- are all being called into question. According to this worldview, the future of international order will be shaped above all by China, which will use its growing power and wealth to push world politics in an illiberal direction. Pointing out that China and other non-Western states have weathered the recent financial crisis better than their Western counterparts, pessimists argue that an authoritarian capitalist alternative to Western neoliberal ideas has already emerged. According to the scholar Stefan Halper, emerging-market states

"are learning to combine market economics with traditional autocratic or semiautocratic politics in a process that signals an intellectual rejection of the Western economic model." Today's international order is not really American or Western--even if it initially appeared that way. But this panicked narrative misses a deeper reality: although the United States' position in the global system is changing, the liberal international order is alive and well. The struggle over international order today is not about fundamental principles. China and other emerging great powers do not want to contest the basic rules and principles of the liberal international order; they wish to gain more authority and leadership within it. Indeed, today's

power transition represents not the defeat of the liberal order but its ultimate ascendance. Brazil, China, and India have all become more prosperous and capable by operating inside the existing international order -- benefiting from its rules, practices, and institutions, including the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the newly organized G-20. Their economic success and growing influence are tied to the liberal internationalist organization of world politics, and they have deep interests in preserving that system. In the meantime, alternatives to an open and rule-based order have yet to crystallize. Even though the last decade has brought remarkable upheavals in the global system -- the emergence of new powers, bitter disputes among Western allies over the United States' unipolar ambitions, and a global financial crisis and recession -- the liberal international order has no competitors. On the contrary, the rise of non-Western powers and the growth of economic and security interdependence are creating new constituencies for it. To be sure, as wealth and power become less concentrated in the United States' hands, the country will be less able to shape world politics. But the underlying foundations of the liberal international order will survive and thrive. Indeed, now may be the best time for the United States and its democratic partners to update the liberal order for a new era, ensuring that it continues to provide the benefits of security and prosperity that it has provided since the middle of the twentieth century.

Multipolar global institutions prevent extinction Feffer, ‘9. John, Contributing Member/Researcher at Foreign Policy in Focus, “World Beat,” FPIF, Feb 17. Vol. 4 No. 7. Lexis. The neoconservative movement thrilled to what it called the "unipolar moment." After the Berlin Wall collapsed and the Soviet Union followed suit, the United States was the last superpower standing. America faced a choice. It could use the unprecedented opportunity to help build a new international system out of the rubble of the Cold War. Or it could try to maintain that unipolar moment as long as possible. The neocons preferred the king-of-the-hill approach. The Clinton

administration flirted with multilateralism. It came into office promising to support a range of international treaties and institutions. It of-fered to play well with others. But this more robust multilateral approach ran up against the three gorgons of the immediate post-Cold War period: Somalia, Bosnia, and Rwanda. Whatever the Clinton administration's commitment to multi-lateralism had been, these gorgons turned it to stone. The administration fell back on what it called "Ã la carte multilateralism." That is, the United States would pursue multilateralism when it could, but act unilaterally when it must.History is on the verge of repeating itself. After eight years of neoconservatives trying desperately to extend the unipolar moment, a new group is in the White House promising to change America's relationship with the world. Yet, plenty of gorgons beckon: Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea. Will Obama's multilat-eral resolve turn to stone or will his administration truly remap U.S. global relations? "The new president is off to a good start," writes Foreign Policy In Focus (FPIF) contributor Ehsan Ahrari in The Making of a New Global Strategy. "He al-ready spoke to the Islamic world, stating that America will deal with it re-spectfully and on the basis of pragmatism; he invited Iran to unclench its fist and initiate an era of negotiations on the basis of mutual respect; and he ap-pointed George Mitchell and Richard Holbrooke as special envoys for the Middle East and South Asia, respectively. He sent Vice President Joe Biden to talk to the Europeans and to the Russians." The vice president was indeed in Europe the other week, but he spoke out of both sides of his mouth on the issue of multi-lateralism. He promised our European allies a "new era of cooperation." But he also warned that the United States would "work in a partnership whenever we can, and alone only when we must," which sounded an awful lot like the Clinton administration's eventual default position. But times have changed, argues FPIF contributor Hannes Artens. "These aren't the golden 1990s, when U.S. power was at its zenith. In this first decade of the 21st century, the capitalist West is facing defeat in Afghanistan and is on the verge of 'the worst recession in a hundred years,' as British minister Ed Balls put it in perhaps only slight exaggeration," he writes in Multilateralism in Mu-nich. "This combination will force the Obama administration to stop cherry-picking issues on which it wants to cooperate and forging ahead on those issues it believes it can still handle alone. Necessity will dictate a more pragmatic multilateralism, in which all sides humbly accept what is realistically possi-ble." Are we thus witnessing the final end of the unipolar moment? China is coming up fast. The European Union's expansion has been accompanied by relatively few growing pains. Several powerful countries in the South (particularly India, Bra-zil, and South Africa) are quietly acquiring more geopolitical heft. Global problems like climate change and financial collapse require global solutions, so we either evolve multilateral responses or we do a dinosaur dive into extinction. Over here, meanwhile, the Pentagon is still maintaining the world's largest military force - but we have failed to defeat al-Qaeda, we are quagmired in Afghanistan, and all of our nuclear weapons have done little to prevent North Korea from entering the nuclear club. The global recession is hammering the U.S. economy, and we might finally see the end of the dollar's reign as global currency. With the bank bailout, the stimulus package, the bill for two wars plus the Pentagon's already gargantuan budget, the red ink is mounting. Debt has been the gravedigger of many an empire. I can hear the adding machine totting up the numbers.

Only a shift away from hegemony solves extinction Geeraerts 11 (Gustaaf, professor of international relations at Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belguim, honorary professor at the University of Kent at Canterbury, an editorial board member of global society: Journal of Interdisciplinary International Relations, also a member of the Board of Lecurers of the Centre for Advanced Research in Internatioanl Affairs in the Netherlands (CARIAN), “China, the EU, and the New Multipolarity,” European Review. Cambridge, February, 2011, Proquest)

China and Europe are both regional powers with broad global interests. As a consequence of increased international engagement and increasing economic interests abroad, Europe and China are geopolitically more proximate than ever before. There is an important joint interest to promote stability and sustainable development in those regions that we share in our extended

neighbourhoods. This is particularly the case of the Middle East, Africa, and South-Central Asia. We have to avoid that these regions develop into a belt of insecurity that endangers our development. There is a strong need to work together to enhance security, to guarantee that our policies benefit lasting stability and development, to invest in the safety of our energy supplies, to limit the impact of environmental hazards, to support effective governance, tackle non-traditional security threats, and enhance maritime security. It is legitimate that growing interests bring the need to exert influence, but this should be cooperative and aim at sharing the costs of maintaining security. We are moving steadily towards a new multipolar world order. In this order the major powers will have to balance between meeting increasing international expectations and persistent strong internal needs. The emerging multilayered and culturally diversified multipolarity will make global governance much more complex and is by no means a guarantee for multilateralism. To be effective, multilateral organizations need to reflect the emerging new international order, but effective multilateralism also implies that all parties are committed to over- coming diverging expectations and trying to reach a pragmatic consensus on how to make foreign policies complementary and mutually supportive. Europe and China could be in the vanguard here as well. As the unipolar moment fades, Europe and China have shown themselves anxious not to slide into another era of great power rivalry. Such a contest would severely weaken the two player’s chances for sustainable internal development. In spite of all the friction and misunderstanding, both sides need each other if they are to develop an alternative for harsh international anarchy. Successful bilateral cooperation will be key in promoting global peaceful development. It will also give them the scope to strengthen their internal unity, which will be key in boosting positive power vis-a`-vis others. If Beijing and Brussels are serious about changing the nature of great power politics, a strategic axis between China and Europe built on mutual benefit and understanding will be indispensable

No impact to decline – the US isn’t credible Mastanduno 9, Michael, Professor of Government at Dartmouth, World Politics 61, No. 1, System Maker and Privilege Taker: U.S. Power and the International Political Economy During the cold war the United States dictated the terms of adjustment. It derived the necessary leverage because it provided for the security of its economic partners and because there were no viable alter natives to an economic order centered on the United States. After the cold war the outcome of adjustment struggles is less certain because the United States is no longer in a position to dictate the terms. The United States, notwithstanding its preponderant power, no longer enjoys the same type of security leverage it once possessed, and the very success of the U.S.-centered world economy has afforded America’s supporters a greater range of international and domestic economic options. The claim that the United States is unipolar is a statement about its cumulative economic, military, and other capabilities.1 But preponderant capabilities across the board do not guarantee effective influence in any given arena. U.S. dominance in the international security arena no longer translates into effective leverage in the international economic arena. And although the United States remains a dominant international economic player in absolute terms, after the cold war it has found itself more vulnerable and constrained than it was during the golden economic era after World War II. It faces rising economic challengers with their own agendas and with greater discretion in international economic policy than America’s cold war allies had enjoyed. The United States may continue to act its own way, but it can no longer count on getting its own way.

Warming No extinction from warming Nongovernmetnal International Panel on Climate Change ‘11.(Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change. Surviving the unprecedented climate change of the IPCC. 8 March 2011. http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2011/mar/8mar2011a5.html 7/12/2013) In a paper published in Systematics and Biodiversity, Willis et al. (2010) consider the IPCC (2007) "predicted climatic changes for the next century" -- i.e., their contentions that "global temperatures will increase by 2-4°C and possibly beyond, sea levels will rise (~1 m ± 0.5 m), and atmospheric CO2will increase by up to 1000 ppm" -- noting that it is "widely suggested that the

magnitude and rate of these

changes will result in many plants and animals going extinct," citing studies that suggest that "within the next century, over 35% of some biota will have gone extinct (Thomas et al., 2004; Solomon et al., 2007) and there will be extensive die-back of the tropical rainforest due to climate change (e.g. Huntingford et al., 2008)." On the other hand, they indicate that some biologists and climatologists have pointed out that "many

of the predicted increases in climate have happened before, in terms of both magnitude and rate of change (e.g. Royer, 2008; Zachos et al., 2008), and yet biotic communities have remained remarkably resilient (Mayle and Power, 2008) and in some cases thrived (Svenning and Condit, 2008)." But they report that those who mention these things are often "placed in the 'climate-change denier' category," although the purpose for pointing out these facts is simply to present "a sound scientific basis for understanding biotic responses to the magnitudes and rates of climate change predicted for the future through using the vast data resource that we can exploit in fossil records." Going on to do just that, Willis et al. focus on "intervals

in time in the fossil record when atmospheric CO2 concentrations increased up to 1200 ppm, temperatures in mid- to high-latitudes increased by greater than 4°C within 60 years, and sea levels rose by up to 3 m higher than present," describing studies of past biotic responses that indicate "the scale and impact of the magnitude and rate of such climate changes on biodiversity." And what emerges from those studies, as they describe it, "is evidence for rapid community turnover, migrations, development of novel ecosystems and thresholds from one stable ecosystem state to another." And, most importantly in this regard, they report "there is very little evidence for broad-scale extinctions due to a warming world." In concluding, the Norwegian, Swedish and UK researchers say that "based on such evidence we urge some caution in assuming broad-scale extinctions of species will occur due solely to climate changes of the magnitude and rate predicted for the next century," reiterating that "the fossil record indicates remarkable biotic resilience to wide amplitude fluctuations in climate."

No threat-humans can adapt Moore ’08 Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, Stanford, (Thomas Gale 7/9/12 “Global warming; the good, the bad and the ugly and the efficient” EMBO reports http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3317379/?tool=pmcentrez(7/12/13) Even if the pessimists are correct and future climate change reduces food production, wicked storms lash much of the planet, summers are plagued by terrible heat waves, and floods and droughts inundate large areas of the world and reduce the availability of clean water, human beings will be better able to handle such terrible conditions than they are now because technology will advance and people will become richer over the next century. Evidence of an increasing rate of technological advancement comes from patents; the number of patents issued for inventions has continued to rise at an increasing rate since 1790 (Fig 2). Although patented inventions are only a crude measure of technological growth, they do indicate that technology will continue to change the world in which we live. Consider the world 200 years ago when the fastest means of communication was by horseback, or just 100 years ago when telephones were only slowly spreading and radio, much less TV or the internet,

were almost undreamed of. Thus progress will allow our descendants to deal with almost any difficulties that climate change brings.

Evolution checks the impact to warming NIPCC 11 (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, “2011 Interim Report from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change,” http://nipccreport.org/reports/2011/2011report.html 7/12/13)

plant and animal species have for avoiding extinction during climate change is the ability to evolve in ways that enable them to deal with the change. Several studies have demonstrated the abilities of numerous plants and animals to do just that. Working in the Swiss Alps, Stocklin et One of the most powerful means

al. (2009) studied the consequences of the highly structured alpine landscape for evolutionary processes in four different plants (Epilobium fleischeri, Geum reptans, Campanula thyrsoides, and Poa alpina), testing for whether genetic diversity within their populations was related to altitude and land use, while seeking to determine whether genetic differentiation among populations was related more to different land use or to geographic distances. In pursuit of these goals, the three Swiss scientists determined that within population genetic diversity of the four species was high and mostly not related to altitude and population size, while genetic differentiation among populations was pronounced and strongly increased with distance, implying ―considerable genetic drift among populations of alpine plants.‖ Based on these findings and the observations of others, Stocklin et al. write, ―phenotypic plasticity is particularly pronounced in alpine plants,‖ and ―because of the high heterogeneity of the alpine landscape,

the pronounced capacity of a single genotype to exhibit variable phenotypes is a clear advantage for the persistence and survival of alpine plants.‖ Hence they conclude, ―the evolutionary potential to respond to global change is mostly intact in alpine plants, even at high altitude.‖ This result makes it much easier to understand why—even in the face of significant twentieth-century global warming—no species of plants have been observed to have been ―pushed off the planet in alpine regions. This has been shown to be the case in several pertinent studies, including Walther et al. (2005), Kullman (2007), Holzinger et al. (2008), Randin et al. (2009), and Erschbamer et al. (2009).

3 periods of rapid warming show no extinctions NIPCC 11 (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, “2011 Interim Report from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change,” http://nipccreport.org/reports/2011/2011report.html) The first period they examined was

the Eocene Climatic Optimum (53–51 million years ago), when the atmosphere‘s CO2 concentration exceeded 1,200 ppm and tropical temperatures were 5–10°C warmer than modern values. Yet far from causing extinctions of the tropical flora (where the data are best), the four researchers report ―all the evidence from low-latitude records indicates that, at least in the plant fossil record, this was one of the most biodiverse intervals of time in the Neotropics.‖ They also note ―ancestors of many of our modern tropical and temperate plants evolved ...when global temperatures and CO2 were much higher than present ... indicating that they have much wider ecological tolerances than are predicted based on present-day climates alone.‖ The second period they examined included two rapid-change climatic events in the Holocene—one at 14,700 years ago and one at 11,600 years ago—when temperatures increased in the mid- to high-latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere by up to 10°C over periods of less than 60 years. There is evidence from many sites for rapid plant responses to rapid warming during these events. The researchers note ―at no site yet studied, anywhere in the world, is there evidence in the fossil record for large-scale climate-driven extinction during these intervals of rapid warming.‖ On the other hand, they report extinctions did occur due to the cold temperatures of the glacial epoch, when subtropical species in southern Europe were driven out of their comfort zone. The Willis et al. study also makes use of recent historical data, as in the case of the 3°C rise in temperature at Yosemite Park over the past 100 years. In comparing surveys of mammal fauna conducted near the beginning and end of this period, they detected some changes but no local extinctions. Thus they determined that for all of the periods they studied, with either very warm temperatures or very rapid warming, there were no detectable species extinctions. In a study that may help explain how some researchers could have gotten things so wrong in predicting massive extinctions of both plants and animals in response to projected future warming, Nogues-Bravo (2009) explains the

climate envelope models (CEMs)—often employed to predict species responses to global warming (and whether or not a species will be able to survive projected temperature increases)—―are sensitive to theoretical assumptions, to model classes and to projections in non-analogous climates, among other issues.‖ To determine how appropriate these models are for determining whether a particular species will be driven to extinction by hypothesized planetary warming, Nogues-Bravo reviewed the scientific literature pertaining to the subject and

several flaws. Nogues-Bravo writes, ―the studies reviewed: (1) rarely test the theoretical assumptions behind niche modeling such as the stability of species climatic niches through time and the equilibrium of species with climate; (2) they only use one model class (72% of the studies) and one palaeoclimatic reconstruction (62.5%) to calibrate their models; (3) they do not check for the occurrence of non-analogous climates (97%); and (4) they do not use independent data to validate the models (72%).‖ Nogues-Bravo writes, ―ignoring the theoretical assumptions behind niche modeling and using inadequate methods for hindcasting can produce ―a cascade of errors and naïve ecological and evolutionary inferences. Hence, he concludes, ―there are a wide variety of challenges that CEMs must overcome in order to improve the reliability of their predictions through time. Until these challenges are met, contentions of impending species extinctions must be considered little more than guesswork (see also Chapman, 2010). found

Warming impacts have no empirical basis Bast President of the Heartland Institute ‘12 (Joseph L. Bast “Global Warming: Not a Crisis,” http://heartland.org/ideas/global-warming-not-crisis 7/12/2013)

Alarmists claim global warming will cause massive flooding, more violent weather, famines, and other catastrophic consequences. If these claims are true, then we should have seen evidence of this trend during the twentieth century. Idso and Singer (2009) provide extensive evidence that no such trends have been observed. Even von Storch (2011) admits there is no consensus on these matters. The preponderance of scientific data suggest sea levels are unlikely to rise by more than several inches, weather may actually become more mild, and since most warming occurs at night and during the winter season, it has little adverse effect (and some positive effect) on plants and wildlife. Hurricanes are likely to diminish, not increase, in frequency or severity (Spencer, 2008; Singer and Avery, 2008).

Biodiversity Population growth makes bio-d loss inevitable Science Daily 7/28/11 (“Ongoing Global Biodiversity Loss Unstoppable With Protected Areas Alone” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110728123059.htm,) Continued reliance on a strategy of setting aside land and marine territories as "protected areas" is insufficient to stem global biodiversity loss, according to a comprehensive assessment published July 28 in the journal Marine Ecology Progress Series. Despite impressively rapid growth of protected land and marine areas worldwide -- today totalling over 100,000 in number and covering 17 million square kilometers of land and 2 million square kilometers of oceans -- biodiversity

is in steep decline. Expected scenarios of human population growth and consumption levels indicate that cumulative human demands will impose an unsustainable toll on Earth's ecological resources and services accelerating the rate at which biodiversity is being loss. Current and future human requirements will also exacerbate the challenge of effectively implementing protected areas while suggesting that effective biodiversity conservation requires new approaches that address underlying causes of biodiversity loss -- including the growth of both human population and resource consumption. Says lead author Camilo Mora of University of Hawaii at Manoa: "Biodiversity is humanity's life-support system, delivering everything from food, to clean water and air, to recreation and tourism, to novel chemicals that drive our advanced civilization. Yet there is an increasingly well-documented global trend in biodiversity loss, triggered by a host of human activities." "Ongoing biodiversity loss and its consequences for humanity's welfare are of great concern and have prompted strong calls for expanding the use of protected areas as a remedy," says fellow author Peter F. Sale, Assistant Director of the United Nations University's Canadian-based Institute for Water, Environment and Health. "While many protected areas have helped preserve some species at local scales, promotion of this strategy as a global solution to biodiversity loss, and the advocacy of protection for specific proportions of habitats, have occurred without adequate assessment of their potential effectiveness in achieving the goal." Drs. Mora and Sale warn that long-term failure of the protected areas strategy could erode public and political support for biodiversity conservation and that the disproportionate allocation of available resources and human capital into this strategy precludes the development of more effective approaches. The authors based their study on existing literature and global data on human threats and biodiversity loss. "The global network of protected areas is a major achievement, and the pace at which it has been achieved is impressive," says Dr. Sale. "Protected areas are very useful conservation tools, but unfortunately, the steep continuing rate of biodiversity loss signals the need to reassess our heavy reliance on this strategy." The study says continuing heavy reliance on the protected areas strategy has five key technical and practical limitations: Concludes Dr. Mora: "Given the considerable effort and widespread support for the creation of protected areas over the past 30 years, we were surprised to find so much evidence for their failure to effectively address the global problem of biodiversity loss. Clearly, the biodiversity loss problem has been underestimated and the ability of protected areas to solve this problem overestimated." The

authors underline the correlations between growing world population, natural resources consumption and biodiversity loss to suggest that biodiversity loss is unlikely to be stemmed without directly addressing the ecological footprint of humanity. Based upon previous research, the study shows that under current conditions of human comsumption and conservative scenarios of human population growth, the cummulative use of natural resources of humanity will amount to the productivity of up to 27 Earths by 2050 . "Protected areas are a valuable tool in the fight to preserve biodiversity. We need them to be well managed, and we need more of them, but they alone cannot solve our biodiversity problems," adds Dr. Mora. "We need to recognize this limitation promptly and to allocate more time and effort to the complicated issue of human overpopulation and consumption." "Our study shows that the international community is faced with a choice between two paths," Dr. Sale says. "One option is to continue a narrow focus on creating more protected areas with little evidence that they curtail biodiversity loss. That path will fail. The other path requires that we get serious about addressing the growth in size and consumption rate of our global population.”

Extinction claims overstated – species will rebound

Economist, 9 - The Economist online offers authoritative insight and opinion on international news, politics, business, finance, science and technology (“Second life: Biologists debate the scale of extinction in the world’s tropical forests,” The Economist, http://www.economist.com/node/12926042, January 15, 2009)

the global extinction crisis may have been overstated. The world is unlikely to lose 100 species a day, or half of all species in the lifetime of people now alive, as some have claimed. The bad news, though, is that the lucky survivors are tiny tropical insects that few people care about. The species A RARE piece of good news from the world of conservation:

new view of the prospects for biodiversity emerged from a symposium held this week at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, DC, but the controversy over how bad things really are has been brewing since 2006. That was when Joseph Wright of the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Panama and Helene Muller-Landau of the University of Minnesota first suggested that the damage might not be as grim as some feared. They reasoned that because population growth is slowing in many tropical countries, and people are moving to cities, the pressure to cut down primary rainforest is falling and agriculturally marginal land is being abandoned, allowing trees to grow. This regrown “secondary” forest is crucial to the pair's analysis. Within a few decades of land being abandoned, half of the original biomass has returned. Depending on what else is nearby, these new forests may then be colonised by animals and additional plants, and thus support many of the species found in the original forest. Dr Wright and Dr Muller-Landau therefore reckon that in 2030 reasonably unbroken tropical forest will still cover more than a third of its natural range, and after that date its area—at least in Latin America and Asia—could increase. Much of this woodland will be that are being lost rapidly are the large vertebrates that conservationists were worried about in the first place. This

secondary forest, but even so they suggest that in Africa only 16-35% of tropical-forest species will become extinct by 2030, in Asia, 21-24% and, in Latin America, fewer still.

Once forest cover does start increasing, the rate of extinction should dwindle.

Squo solves Loki 4/13/12 - media executive with 15 years experience in the private and non-profit sectors, Reynard is the co-founder of MomenTech (Reynard, “A Venture Capital Solution to for Biodiversity Loss” http://www.justmeans.com/A-Venture-Capital-Solution-for-Biodiversity-Loss/53352.html,) Governments seem to be unable to stem the tide. Could market-based conservation initiatives help? That's what a new biodiversity-focused fund supporting small sustainable businesses in Latin America hopes to do. The Multilateral Investment

Fund (MIF), a member of the Inter-American Development Bank Group (IDB), the European Investment Bank (EIB), the Dutch Development Bank (FMO) and the Nature Conservancy, has launched the next stage of EcoEnterprises Fund II, a venture capital fund that aims to support biodiversity, preserve critical ecosystems and support local poor by directing capital to community-based sustainable businesses. The MIF is one of the biggest investors in microfinance and venture capital funds for small businesses in Latin America and the Caribbean. The fund "will provide expansion capital to small sustainable businesses, so they may generate livelihoods for rural communities and preserve ecosystems for future generations," according to an IDB press release.[4] The first EcoEnterprises fund, a joint-project of the MIF and the Nature Conservancy launched in 2000, invested $6.3 million in 23 Latin American and Carribbean sustainable companies that cover a wide array of eco-friendly products, including organic shrimp, organic spices, FSC-certified furniture, pesticide-free biodynamic flowers and acai palm berry smoothies. Together, these firms have created over 3,500 jobs, benefited almost 300 communities and conservation groups, generated more than $280 million in sales, leveraged $138 million in additional capital and—much to the delight of conservationists and environmentalists— conserved of the area of Massachusetts).[5]

over 860,000 hectares of land (around 3,320 square miles, or about a third

No correlation with ecosystem stability Calgary Herald, August 30, 1997 Ecologists have long maintained that diversity is one of nature's greatest strengths, but new research suggests that diversity alone does not guarantee strong ecosystems. In findings that could intensify the debate over endangered species and habitat conservation, three new

studies suggest a greater abundance of plant and animal varieties doesn't always translate to better ecological health. At least equally important, the research found, are the types of species and how they function together. "Having a long list of Latin names isn't always better than a shorter list of Latin names," said Stanford University biologist Peter Vitousek, co-author of one of the studies published in the journal Science. Separate

experiments in California, Minnesota and Sweden, found that diversity often had little bearing on the performance of ecosystems -- at least as measured by the growth and health of native plants. In fact, the communities with the greatest biological richness were often the poorest when it came to productivity and the cycling of nutrients. One study compared plant life on 50 remote islands in northern Sweden that are prone to frequent wildfires from lightning strikes. Scientist David Wardle of Landcare Research in Lincoln, New Zealand, and colleagues at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, found that islands dominated by a few species of plants recovered more quickly than nearby islands with greater biological diversity. Similar findings were reported by University of Minnesota researchers who

studied savannah grasses, and by Stanford's Vitousek and colleague David Hooper, who concluded that functional characteristics of plant species were more important than the number of varieties in determining how ecosystems performed.

British plant ecologist J.P. Grime, in a commentary summarizing the research, said there is as yet no "convincing evidence that species diversity and ecosystem function are consistently and causally related." "It could be argued," he added, "that the tide is turning against the notion of high biodiversity as a controller of ecosystem function and insurance against ecological collapse."

It’s natural Marc Morano, correspondent and co-producer of American Investigator's "Amazon Rainforest: ClearCutting the Myths,", and Kent Washburn, co-producer, "Shaky science behind save-rainforest effort," WorldNetDaily, 2000, accessed 11/30/09 http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/ag-forst/2000July/015413.html Stott agrees that the focus on species loss is misguided from a scientific point of view. "The earth has gone through many periods of major extinctions, some much bigger, let me emphasize, than even being contemplated today and 99.9999 percent (of all species) and I wouldn't know the repeating decimal have gone extinct. Extinction is a natural process," he asserts.

Redundancies check Chris Maser, internationally recognized expert in forest ecology and governmental consultant, 1992, Global Imperative: Harmonizing Culture and Nature, p. 40 Redundancy means that more than one species can perform similar functions. It’s a type of ecological insurance policy, which strengthens the ability of the system to retain the integrity of its basic relationships. The insurance of redundancy means that the loss of a species or two is not likely to result in such severe functional disruptions of the ecosystem so as to cause its collapse because other species can make up for the functional loss.

Extinct species are replaced Thomas Palmer, The Atlantic, January, 1992, p. 83 Students of evolution have shown that species death, or extinction,

is going on all the time, and that it is an essential feature of life history. Species are adapted to their environments; as environments change, some species find themselves in the position of islanders whose islands are washing away, and they go under. Similarly, new islands (or environments) are appearing all the time, and they almost invariably produce new species.

In mass extinctions, new species rapidly fill in the vacuum Michael L. McKinney, 1998, Biodiversity Dynamics : Niche Preemption and Saturation in Diversity Equilibria, Biodiversity Dynamics: Turnover of Populations, Taxa, and Communities, Chapter 1, Michael L. McKinney and James A. Drake, eds. http://www.earthscape.org/r3/mckinney/mckinney01.html A key prediction of the niche preemption model is that, as incumbent occupants of niches are not dislodged by competition, then extinction of the incumbents by disturbances provides the main opportunity for replacement. As Roy (1996) discusses (and shows evidence for),

speciation-rate disparities tend to drive changes in diversity composition during both background and mass extinctions. Mass extinctions provide widespread opportunities to occupy many ecological niches and so accelerate incumbent replacement (Patzkowsky 1995; Roy 1996).

Bioterrorism No Risk of bioterrorism -Barriers overwhelm Ouagrham-Gormley 12 Sonia Ben Ouagrham-Gormley is Assistant Professor in the Biodefense Program at George Mason University, “Barriers to Bioweapons: Intangible Obstacles to Proliferation,” International Security, Volume 36, Number 4, Spring 2012, pp. 80-114, pdf, This article challenges the conventional wisdom by showing that the success of a bioweapons

program also depends on “intangible factors,” such as work organization, program management, structural organization, and social environment, that affect the acquisition and efacient use of scientiac knowledge. In-depth studies of past weapons programs, including the former Soviet and U.S. bioweapons programs described in this article, reveal that intangible factors can either advance or degrade a program’s progress. In addition, the impact of these factors is felt more strongly within clandestine programs, because their covertness imposes additional restrictions on the use and transfer of knowledge, which more often than not frustrates progress. Therefore, focusing only on tangible determinants of proliferation can lead to government policies that respond inadequately to the threat. To more accurately identify the nature and evaluate the pace and scope of future proliferation threats, and consequently develop more efacient nonproliferation and counterproliferation policies, scholars and policymakers must include the intangible dimension of proliferation in their assessments. They must also understand the factors that determine the mechanisms and the conditions under which scientiac data and knowledge can be efaciently exploited. In 2008 the World at Risk, an inouential report written by a bipartisan commis- sion chartered by Congress to assess U.S. efforts in preventing weapons of mass destruction (WMD) proliferation and terrorism, predicted that a bioterrorism event would likely take place by 2013.4 Without downplaying the nu- clear threat, the report concluded that a bioweapons attack was more likely than a nuclear event given the availability of material, equipment, and know- how required to produce bioweapons. Since 2001 a number of scientiac feats seem to illustrate the growing ease with which potentially harmful biomaterial can be produced. These include the inadvertent creation of a lethal mousepox virus by Australian scientists in 2001;5 the synthesis of the poliovirus in 2002 by a team of scientists at the State University of New York at Stonybrook;6 the construction in 2003 of a bacteriophage (phiX) using synthetic oligonucleotides by the Venter Institute, located in Rockville, Maryland; and the synthesis of the arst self-replicating cell called Mycoplasma mycoides JCVI-syn1.0 in May 2010.7 Further pushing the scientiac envelop, work begun in 2003 by the synthetic bi- ology scientiac community to produce standardized short pieces of DNA may promise a future in which biological agents can be assembled much like Lego pieces for various purposes; in addition, synthetic DNA sequences are now commercially available, and the cost and time required to produce biomaterial have decreased sharply in recent years. Finally, with the automation of various processes, new technologies have the potential to simplify scientiac work and reduce the need for skilled personnel.8 Another

challenge in using others’ scientiac data is that tacit knowledge does not transfer easily. It requires proximity to the original source(s) and an extended masterapprentice relationship.19 Scientiac and technical knowledge is also highly local: it is developed within a speciac infrastructure, using a speciac knowledge base, and at a speciac location. Some studies have shown that the use of data and technology in a new environment frequently requires adaption to the new site.20 Successful adaptation often requires the involvement of the original scientiac author(s) to guide the adjustment. For instance, some of the problems encountered during the production of the Soviet anthrax weapon were solved only after the authors of the weapon in Russia traveled to Kazakhstan to assist their colleagues. These individuals trained their colleagues, transferring their tacit knowledge in the process, and helped adjust the technical protocols to the Kazakh infrastructure, which was substantially different from that of the Russian facility. Even with the presence of these original authors, ave years were needed to complete the process of successful transfer and use of bioweapons technology.21 A further complication is that tacit knowledge can decay over time and may disappear if not used or transferred. Studies have shown that trying to re-create lost knowledge can

if not impossible.22 Finally, knowledge and technology development, particularly in complex technological projects, is rarely the work of one expert. Instead it requires the cumulative and cooperative work of teams be difacult,

of individuals with speciac skills. This is particularly true in weapons programs, which pose a variety of problems spanning many disciplines. For example, biological weapons development can involve mechanical and electrical engineering, chemistry, statistics, aerobiology, and microbiology, demanding large interdisciplinary teams of scientists, engineers, and technicians. A successful weapon, therefore, is not the product of an individual scientist working alone, but that of the collective work of those involved in the research, design, and testing of the weapon.23 In this context, the efacient use of written technical data would require access to or re-creation of the collective explicit and tacit knowledge of those involved in its development, making the reproducibility of an experiment or object particularly challenging. External

factors can also interfere with the use and transfer of knowledge. In the biological sciences, the properties of reagents and other materials used in scientiac experiments may differ from one location to another and may vary seasonally. An experiment conducted successfully in one location may not be reproducible in another because of the varying properties of the material used, even when the same individual conducts the experiment.24 Other

external factors that cannot be easily identiaed or quantiaed can also interfere with an experiment, even when the task is performed by an experienced scientist or technician who has had previous successes in performing the task.25 For exam- ple, within the U.S. bioweapons program, the production and scaling up of bi- ological material were routinely subject to unexplained

failures whenever production was interrupted to service or decontaminate the equipment. On these occasions, plant technicians at Fort Detrick—the main facility of the U.S. bioweapons program—experienced, on average, three weeks of unsuitable production. The scientiac staff could not identify the causes of such routine failures and could only assume that either a contaminant had been introduced during the service or cleanup, or that the technicians changed the way they were doing things and unconsciously corrected the problem only after several weeks.26 The case of the Soviet bioweapons program demonstrates that covertness im- poses huge constraints on knowledge management and has important impli- cations for the evaluation of state and terrorist clandestine efforts to produce bioweapons. One may wonder, however, whether the lessons learned from the historical analysis of the U.S. and Soviet programs apply to current covert pro- grams.

New funding for bioterrorism bill Brino ‘13 (Anthony Brino Associate Editor of GovernmentHealthIT “House re-ups funding for bioterrorism, public health”http://www.govhealthit.com/news/house-reauthorizes-funding-public-health-bioterrorism-preparedness)

In late January, the

House passed a bill funding several public health preparedness and monitoring programs, including bioterrorism surveillance and the federal disaster medical system, getting support from the biotechnology and public health communities, in the wake of Hurricane Sandy. The Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Reauthorization Act (HR 307) passed by a vote of 395 to 29, in an act of bipartisanship, and continues funding through the next five years for the federal government’s biological, chemical and nuclear threat monitoring programs. Biotechnology Industry Organization, a tradegroup, said the program, created in 2004, has been “an opportunity to build more prepared and resilient communities that are better able to withstand natural disasters, bioterrorist attacks and outbreaks of infectious disease,” in a media relese. The original legislation, passed not long after the 2001 anthrax scare, directs the Health and Human Services’ Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response to coordinate the federal government’s monitoring of biological threats, particularly ones that might be part of terrorist attacks, and to stockpile emergency medicine and vaccines. The bill requires a slight revamp

of the program, directing the National Biodefense Science Board to identify a plan for a national biosurveillence system based on shared networks between HHS, state and local public health agencies and healthcare providers. The Board is also directed to identify and streamline any duplicative surveillance programs. Although the monitoring programs evolved mostly from concerns overs potential terrorist attacks, the need for disaster coordination in public health was heightened in the wake of Hurricane Sandy and as climate change inundates some coastlines with harsher storms. Biotechnology Industry Organization said the

programs have “represented a major step in developing the role of America’s public health and medical systems in preparing for, and responding to, major emergencies, whether natural or manmade.” The bill, sponsored by Michigan Republican Mike Rogers and Gene Green, a Democrat from Texas, would also sustain a number of other public health programs. It reauthorizes the national disaster medical system and the Public Health Emergency Preparedness Cooperative grant program for state and local health departments, with $641 million a year through 2017. HR 307 bill also directs HHS to make recommendations on coordinating pediatric medical care during emergencies

No bioterror Schneidmiller ‘9 Chris Schneidmiller, “Experts Debate Threat of Nuclear, Biological Terrorism,” Global Security Newswire, 1/13/2009, Experts Debate Threat of Nuclear, Biological Terrorism Panel moderator Benjamin Friedman, a research fellow at the Cato Institute, said academic and governmental discussions of acts of nuclear or biological terrorism have tended to focus on "worst-case assumptions about terrorists' ability to use these weapons to kill us." There is need for consideration for what is probable rather than simply what is possible, he said. Friedman took issue with the finding late last year of an experts' report that an act of WMD terrorism would "more likely than not" occur in the next half decade unless the international community takes greater action. "I would say that the

report, if you read it, actually offers no analysis to justify that claim, which seems to have been made to change policy by generating alarm in headlines." One panel speaker offered a partial rebuttal to Mueller's presentation. Jim Walsh, principal research scientist for the Security Studies Program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said he agreed that nations would almost certainly not give a nuclear weapon to a nonstate group, that most terrorist organizations have no interest in seeking out the bomb, and that it would be difficult to build a weapon or use one that has been stolen. However, he disputed Mueller's assertion that nations can be trusted to secure their atomic weapons and materials. "I don't think the historical record shows that at all," Walsh

said. Black-market networks such as the organization once operated by former top Pakistani nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan remain a problem and should not be assumed to be easily defeated by international intelligence services, Walsh said (see GSN, Jan. 13). It is also reasonable to worry about extremists gaining access to nuclear blueprints or poorly secured stocks of highly enriched uranium, he said. "I worry about al-Qaeda 4.0, kids in Europe who go to good schools 20 years from now. Or types of terrorists we don't even imagine," Walsh said. Greater consideration must be given to exactly how much risk is tolerable and what actions must be taken to reduce the threat, he added. "For all the alarmism, we haven't done that much about the problem," Walsh said. "We've done a lot in the name of nuclear terrorism, the attack on Iraq, these other things, but we have moved ever so modestly to lock down nuclear materials." Biological Terrorism Another two analysts offered a similar debate on the potential for terrorists to carry out an attack using infectious disease material. Milton Leitenberg, a senior research scholar at the Center for International and Security Studies at the University of Maryland, played down the threat in comparison to other health risks. Bioterrorism has

killed five U.S. citizens in the 21st century -- the victims of the 2001 anthrax attacks, he said. Meanwhile, at least 400,000 deaths are linked each year to obesity in this country. The United States has authorized $57 billion in spending since the anthrax mailings for biological prevention and defense activities, Leitenberg said. Much of the money would have been better used to prepare for pandemic flu, he argued. "Mistaken threat assessments make mistaken policy and make mistaken allocation of financial resources," Leitenberg said. The

number of states with offensive biological weapons programs appears to have stabilized at six beginning in the mid-1970s, despite subsequent intelligence estimates that once indicated an increasing number of efforts, Leitenberg said. Caveats in present analyses of those states make it near-impossible to determine the extent to which their activities remain offensive in nature, he added. There has been minimal proliferation of biological expertise or technology to nations of concern in recent decades, Leitenberg said. He identified roughly 12 Russian scientists who ended up in Iran and shipments of technology and pathogen strains to Iraq from France, Germany, the former Soviet Union and the United States between 1980 and 1990. No

evidence exists of state assistance to nonstate groups in this sector. Two prominent extremist organizations, al-Qaeda and Aum Shinrikyo in Japan, failed to produce pathogenic disease strains that could be used in an attack, according to Leitenberg. Terrorists would have to acquire the correct disease strain, handle it safely, correctly reproduce and store the material and then disperse it properly, Leitenberg said. He dismissed their ability to do so. "What we've found so far is that those people have been totally abysmally ignorant of how to read the technical, professional literature," Leitenberg said. "What's on the jihadi Web sites comes from American poisoners' handbooks sold here at gun shows. Which can't make anything and what it would make is just garbage."

Tech and operational difficulties overwhelm Mueller ‘6 John Mueller, professor of political science at Ohio State University, Overblown, 2006, p. 24 Not only has the science about chemical and biological weapons been quite sophisticated for more than a century, but that science has become massively more developed over that period. Moreover, governments (not just small terrorist groups) have spent a great deal of money over decades in an effort to make the weapons more effective. Yet, although there have been great improvements in the lethality, effectiveness, and deployment of conventional and nuclear weapons during that time, the difficulties of controlling and dispersing chemical and biological substances seem to have persisted. Perhaps dedicated terrorists will, in time, figure it out. However, the experience in the 1990s of the Japanese cult Aum Shinrikyo suggests there are great difficulties. The group had some 300 scientists in its employ and an estimated budget of $1 billion, and it reportedly tried at least nine times over five years to set off biological weapons by spraying pathogens from trucks and wafting them from rooftops, hoping fancifully to ignite an apocalyptic war. These efforts failed to create a single fatality; in fact, nobody even noticed that the attacks had taken place. It was at that point that the group abandoned its biological efforts in frustration and instead turned to the infamous sarin chemical attack.29 As two analysts stress, there

have been so few biological (and chemical) terrorist attacks because they would require overcoming several major technical hurdles. Among them: gaining access to specialized ingredients, acquiring equipment and know-how to produce and disperse the agents, and creating an organization that can resist infiltration or early detection by law enforcement.30 In the meantime, the science with respect to detecting and ably responding to such attacks is likely to grow. Although acknowledging that things could change in the future, the Gilmore Commission has concluded, “As

easy as some argue that it may be for terrorists to culture anthrax spores or brew up a concoction of deadly nerve gas, the effective dissemination or dispersal of these

viruses and poisons still presents serious technological hurdles that greatly inhibit their effective use .” 31

Unreliability of bioweapons prevents use and precludes impact (easily backfire or have no effect; high risk to attackers; affected by weather/win; limited lifespan; no means delivery; hard to contaminate water/food) Laqueur ’99 Walter Laqueur, Cochairman, International Research Council, The Center for Strategic and International Studies, The New Terrorism, 1999, pg. 69 The attractions of biological weapons are obvious: easy access, low cost, toxicity, and the panic they can cause. But there are drawbacks of various kinds that explain why almost no successful attacks have occurred. While explosive or nuclear devices or even chemical agents, however horrific, affect a definite space, biological

agents are unpredictable: they can easily get out of control, backfire, or have no effect at all. They constitute a high risk to the attackers, although the same, of course, is true of chemical weapons. This consideration may not dissuade people willing to sacrifice their own lives, but the possibility that the attacker may kill himself before being able to launch an attack may make him hesitate to carry it out. Biological agents, with some notable exceptions, are affected by changes in heat or cold, and, like chemical agents, by changes in the direction of the wind. They have a limited life span, and their means of delivery are usually complicated. The process of contaminating water reservoirs or foodstuffs involves serious technical problems. Even if an agent survives the various purification systems in water reservoirs, boiling the water would destroy most germs. Dispersing the agent as a vapor or via an aerosol system within a closed space-for instance, through the air conditioning system of a big building or in a subway-would ear to offer better chances of success, but it is by no mens foolproof.

Weapon delivery’s near impossible Newhouse ‘2 John Newhouse, Senior Fellow at the Center for Defense Information, Former senior policy advisor on European Affairs to secretary of State, Former director of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, “The threats America faces,” World Policy Journal, Summer 2002, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6669/is_2_19/ai_n28936779/?tag=content;col1 Temperature, sunlight, wind, and moisture can all prevent effective delivery of chemical weapons. Biological pathogens are living organisms and thus more fragile than chemical agents. Chlorine in the water supply can kill them. Munitions can as easily vaporize an agent as dispense one. If released from a bomb or warhead, explosive effects would destroy all but 1-2 percent of the agent. 31

**DISADVANTAGES**

Politicization DA Scientific Diplomacy is just a new name for political objectives. This means: a. No solvency – The major goal of scientific diplomacy is policy, not science. AND b. turn – focus on political needs under the disguise of science neglects population needs. MacDonald 10 (Rhona MacDonald, Freelance editor, Scientific diplomacy: new idea but the same old political agenda, July 1 2010, http://blogs.plos.org/speakingofmedicine/2010/07/01/scientific-diplomacy-new-idea-butthe-same-old-political-agenda/, 7-12-13, DAG)

We have all heard of political diplomacy and thanks to a recent series in PLoS Medicine, now know more about health diplomacy . But have we even heard of the new kid on the diplomatic block– science diplomacy? According to an opinion piece by Naiyyum Choudhury published on the science and development network (http://www.scidev.net/) the idea of science diplomacy is fast gaining ground as an effective tool for building ties between developed and developing countries and forging closer working relationships. Seemingly “Science diplomacy can open the door for collaborative action to mitigate the effects of poverty and lead to greater global stability.” Perhaps it can. But the key point to be aware of is that diplomatic efforts are driven by national self-interests in order to fulfil political objectives. So under the cloak of scientific diplomacy, many countries, particularly the USA, are looking to build on scientific relationships to reduce negative perceptions and achieve broader political objectives.¶ Given the enthusiasm with which the diplomacy agendas seem to have been embraced, this situation may be inevitable. But does that make it morally acceptable? Like health research and innovation, scientific innovation should meet public needs not political agendas. Otherwise, the needs of those populations will continue to be neglected.¶ Diplomacy. of whatever kind, may oil the wheels of the world to make things run more smoothly. But sometimes, the road to progress in improving global health and alleviating global poverty has to be bumpy in order to tackle the key issues, such as social injustice, head on.

Politicizing science means scientific evidence will be determined by government officials not qualified scinetists. Laframboise 13 (Donna Laframboise, Canadian feminist, journalist, writer, and photographer. She holds a degree in women's studies, The IPCC: Politicizing Science Since 1988, June 13 2013, http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2013/06/13/the-ipcc-politicizing-science-since-1988/, 7-12-13, DAG) From September 23 to 26, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will host a meeting in Stockholm, Sweden.¶ The purpose of that meeting should raise eyebrows. There, in the historic Brewery Conference Centre, with its “breathtaking views” and “large terraces and balconies” all pretense that the IPCC is a scientific organization will vanish.¶ Representatives of national governments – diplomats, politicians, and environmental bureaucrats – will gather to do something extraordinary. They will take a document authored by scientists and spend four days rewriting it.¶ That document is supposed to be a summary of the contents of Part 1 of the forthcoming IPCC assessment (the previous assessment was released in 2007). Authored by the IPCC’s Working Group 1, this is the portion of the report that concentrates on hard science. This is the place in which the IPCC is supposed to answer the question: What does the most reliable climate research tell us is happening?¶ Writing such a

summary is a difficult task. It involves boiling down 14 chapters of dense textual information, graphs, and charts into a few dozen pages.¶ My book-length exposé of the IPCC, The Delinquent Teenager, reveals that there are sound reasons to question the judgment of some of the scientists who helped write that underlying text. Rather than being rigorously neutral, dispassionate professionals, certain IPCC personnel have close links to activist organizations. Others have been described by their own colleagues as “not competent” and “clearly not qualified.”¶ But even if every last individual who worked on the science section was of the highest integrity, and even if every last one of them was among the world’s best and brightest, it might not matter. Because the purpose of the Stockholm meeting is to both sanitize and politicize.¶ According to those who’ve attended similar meetings, “every sentence” will be projected onto a screen “in front of representatives of more than 100 governments” who will then argue about it. Eventually, these political animals will collectively negotiate wording that everyone can live with. Then they will move on to the next sentence.¶ Yes, you read that right. The exact phrasing of what is supposed to be a summary of scientific evidence will be determined not by scientists but via political negotiations.¶ The IPCC has long claimed to be a transparent organization, but the Stockholm negotiations will be held behind closed doors. I observed some time ago that, if those proceedings were televised, the reality of the situation would become screamingly obvious.¶ The IPCC is not, in fact, about science. If it were a scientific body, scientists would summarize those 14 chapters and that would be the end of the matter.¶ Instead, governments from around the world will send people to Stockholm to ensure that “the science” is expressed in a manner that’s acceptable to them. Scientists don’t have the last word at the IPCC – their political masters do.¶ First, the scientists who participate in the IPCC are selected by national governments. Afterward, those national governments have the last word regarding what the report they write actually says¶

For science diplomacy to work there has to be guaranteed no politicization. Since the aff cant guarantee this even a 1% risk of politicization means you vote neg. Dehgan and Colglaizer 12 (Alex Dehgan, E. William Colglazier, Alex Dehgan is the science and technology adviser to the administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development and E. William Colglazier is the science and technology adviser to the U.S. secretary of state, Development Science and Science Diplomacy, July 12 2012, http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/perspective/2012/development-science-and-science-diplomacy, 7-12-13, DAG)

The strongest opportunities for science diplomacy occur when certain conditions are met. Specifically, scientific engagement efforts must be more than a public diplomacy function. They must also be based on sound science—jointly conducted and absent from politicization. The engagement must meet real needs within a country or region, and the benefits should be bidirectional. These characteristics are also true of our best technical development efforts. Investments in science and technology for development not only provide one of the strongest means of achieving U.S. diplomatic goals, but they also ultimately strengthen and stabilize countries, achieving benefits for diplomacy, development, and defense.

Politicization of science destroys the effectiveness of science. Sütçü 12 (Güliz Sütçü, Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey, Science in Foreign Policy Implementation: The US Approach Toward the Middle East, December 2012, http://www.davidpublishing.com/davidpublishing/Upfile/2/26/2013/2013022675979913.pdf, 7-12-13, DAG)

However, despite the fact that the core of science diplomacy is the integration of S&T with policymaking, ¶ drawing apparent lines between science and politics is crucial as well. In other words, since the politicization of ¶ science would hamper its possible impact on the establishment of cooperative relationships (Flink & Schreiterer, ¶ 2010, p. 676), clarifying the limits of science for the use of foreign policy goals is essential. The policy makers’ ¶ awareness of the distinction between these two related yet different fields of science diplomacy, which are ¶ foreign policy and S&T, facilitates the interaction between the scientific community and the policy makers. Not ¶ neglecting the main orientation of these two fields of science diplomacy while integrating them with each other ¶ in the conduct of science diplomacy allows for sold policy formation by the policy makers and appropriate ¶ delivery of policy objectives by the scientific community (The Royal Society, 2010, p. vi).

Nanotech DA

1NC Cuba is in the process of developing nanotech but lack of infrastructure, international cooperation and experts slow the process – the plan results in accelerated nanotech by 2020

Peláez 12 *Orfilio, Digital Granma Internacional, October 18, 2012, “Nanotechnology in Cuba,” http://www.granma.cu/ingles/cuba-i/18-octubre-nanotechtology.html] WD NANOTECHNOLOGY, the driving force behind what many researchers see as the most important industrial development of the last 200 years, was initially developed by different branches of the military industry within a small group of highly industrialized countries, led by the United States, which had the resources to invest and the desire to maintain its position of global power. This effort, which is little discussed and currently subsumed within strategic national initiatives, had as its main objectives the miniaturization of nuclear weapons; improved armor; new camouflage techniques and more effective, lighter bullet-proof vests to protect soldiers; and medications to control bleeding and treat injuries, in order to maintain the full fighting capacity of troops in the most difficult situations. The term nanotechnology was coined in 1974 by Japanese scientist Norio Tamiguchi, using a new measurement system in which 1nm represents one millionth of a millimeter. Starting with the idea of creating new materials or changing the properties of existing ones by manipulating molecular structures at the nanometric level, the field progressively expanded into the aerospace, automobile, materials, electronics, communications, energy, health, food, environmental and cosmetics industries. Over the last few years, Cuba has entered this promising, diminutive scientific world. To learn more about its impact and prospects internationally and within the country, Granma spoke with Dr. Fidel Castro DíazBalart, scientific advisor to the Council of State. "Nanotechnology has eliminated barriers in a way which just a few years ago would have been considered science fiction and is today making concrete progress in the design of more efficient technology to treat water, miniaturize integrated circuits used in computers and information processing and in the development of optimal strategies to conserve energy," he said. "There are also promising results in the development of advanced diagnostic tools and new pharmaceuticals, capable of acting selectively at a specific site, making treatment more effective, with fewer side effects. Despite the results mentioned, the technology remains in the research and development stage, dominated by large U.S., European and Japanese companies." What factors have led Cuba to enter the field, despite the country’s complex economic situation and the high costs involved? The rate at which new knowledge and scientific innovations are emerging is so rapid that, if we do not now create the infrastructure needed to pursue selected goals and train experts to work in such a promising discipline, we run the risk of being irreversibly excluded from tomorrow’s world. To be competitive and achieve sustainable future development, based on our intellectual production, nanotechnology cannot be ignored, since all basic sciences converge in the field, combining increasingly advanced technologies, bio-information, bio-engineering and other branches of knowledge, which will transform industry and the provision of services in the coming decades. At the same time, Cuba has the advantage of having a broad base of scientists, engineers and highly qualified technicians in universities and research institutions, and in a network of world class institutions devoted to biotechnology and the pharmaceutical industry, all located in the West Havana Scientific Complex and operating on the basis of a closed cycle concept including research, production and sales. More than 70 new products have been developed within these institutions, including monoclonal antibodies, vaccines, medical equipment, diagnostic tools and medications, some of which are unique, such as Heberprot-P and Nimotuzumab, protected as industrial property, and have had a significant impact on the improvement of public health. Thus we have much of the way forward already in place, the prior knowledge needed and many

scientific accomplishments attained. It is understandable that nano-biotechnology and nano-medicine be the focal points of national efforts in this arena, given their social and economic impact, and the excellent public health system Cuba has developed. This does not mean we are turning our backs on the issues of energy, environmental studies and the related search for new materials. There are already centers such as the Molecular Immunology Center and the Immunoassay Center, which use this technology in their search for new drugs to treat cancer and to expand the number of illnesses which can be diagnosed with a blood sample using SUMA technology, respectively. How is the Cuban Center for Advanced Studies (CEAC) progressing? What training does the staff there receive? Have the opinions of entities in the Ministries of Higher Education and of Science, Technology and Environment, with experience in the use of nanotechnology, been considered? When CEAC was being conceptualized, opinions and recommendations were gathered from a group of leaders of institutions in the Scientific Complex, the University of Havana, the Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment, to mention a few examples. It has been a collective project as a result of the participation of related actors, without any improvisation, preconceived notions or exclusions whatsoever. International experience was also taken into consideration in the design of buildings, laboratories, the equipment to install and materials to use in the different areas, through collaboration and the support offered by foreign companies with prestige, experience and know-how in the field. By 2013, the first stage of the investment process should be complete, based on the concept that it will be a multidisciplinary entity, devoted to the development of essential nano-technological applications in health care and, in an initial fashion, in the areas of environment and energy. CEAC’s staff is composed primarily of young professionals who come from different universities, ranging from 25 to 30 years of age, many of whom are currently completing their studies with their own projects, which reflect the principle lines of investigation proposed as priorities for the center by diverse institutions. Dr. Fidel Castro Díaz-Balart reported that the fusion of the Scientific Complex and the pharmaceutical industry is underway, based on the Policy Development Guidelines approved at the 6th Party Congress and the updating of Cuba’s economic model. To be created is a Central Enterprise Management Group, based on hi-tech companies with greater productivity, lower costs and better qualified personnel, capable of producing quality medications, equipment and services for the health care system and export. Given the country’s previous work and the strategic vision of a plan to develop nanotechnology in Cuba, by 2020, the country should be positioned among the nations making a contribution to nanotechnology, principally in the area of nano-biotechnology, the eminent scientist concluded. Fast expansion of nanotech destroys the environment and mitigates its potential

Marantz 7 [Robin Marantz Henig, 9-22-2007, OnEarth, “Our silver-coated future: nanotechnology, fast becoming a three-trillion-dollar industry, is about to revolutionize our world. Unfortunately, hardly anyone is stopping to ask whether it's safe,” Lexis+ WD BUT BEFORE we hurtle off toward a nano-utopia, we need to step back and ask ourselves whether this is a direction in which we really want to go. When an industry grows this quickly, there may be neither the time nor the inclination to ask some tough questions about possible risks. First of all, there are the health and environmental hazards. Would nanotechnology bring unacceptable risks to workers making these materials or consumers who use the final products? Would it affect air orwater quality near where the nanomaterials are dispersed? Very little is known about nanotoxicology, which might be very different from the toxicology of the same materials at normal scale (see "Smaller Is Weirder," page 28). Then there are the social, even existential, consequences. If the hype about nanotechnology contains even a smattering of truth, the technique could shake up our most basic

assumptions about our place in the universe, turning us from its residents to the architects of its most fundamental elements. Might that act of hubris somehow subvert us as a species? As nanotechnology explodes, and as federal agencies wrangle over whose responsibility it is to deal with an essentially unregulated industry, it's all the more crucial to take stock of the emerging field as soon as possible. "This is not a technology we want to say no to out of hand," says Jennifer Sass, a senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). "I think this is a technology that is potentially transformative, but we want to use it in a way to take advantage of that while reducing the risk." Maynard sees this moment as a crossroads for nanotechnology. "What concerns me," he says, "is that if we're not smart about this we'll get something wrong, which would cause unnecessary damage to the environment or to people and would undermine the potential of all nanotechnology." Accelerated nanotech causes extinction and all-out war – mature versions will be unstable and defense shields will take more time to build

Bostrom 2 [Nick, PhD Faculty of Philosophy Oxford University, March 2002, Journal of Evolution and Technology, Volume 9, “Existential Risks,” http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html] WD In a mature form, molecular nanotechnology will enable the construction of bacterium-scale selfreplicating mechanical robots that can feed on dirt or other organic matter [22-25]. Such replicators could eat up the biosphere or destroy it by other means such as by poisoning it, burning it, or blocking out sunlight. A person of malicious intent in possession of this technology might cause the extinction of intelligent life on Earth by releasing such nanobots into the environment.[9] The technology to produce a destructive nanobot seems considerably easier to develop than the technology to create an effective defense against such an attack (a global nanotech immune system, an “active shield” *23+). It is therefore likely that there will be a period of vulnerability during which this technology must be prevented from coming into the wrong hands. Yet the technology could prove hard to regulate, since it doesn’t require rare radioactive isotopes or large, easily identifiable manufacturing plants, as does production of nuclear weapons [23]. Even if effective defenses against a limited nanotech attack are developed before dangerous replicators are designed and acquired by suicidal regimes or terrorists, there will still be the danger of an arms race between states possessing nanotechnology. It has been argued [26] that molecular manufacturing would lead to both arms race instability and crisis instability, to a higher degree than was the case with nuclear weapons. Arms race instability means that there would be dominant incentives for each competitor to escalate its armaments, leading to a runaway arms race. Crisis instability means that there would be dominant incentives for striking first. Two roughly balanced rivals acquiring nanotechnology would, on this view, begin a massive buildup of armaments and weapons development programs that would continue until a crisis occurs and war breaks out, potentially causing global terminal destruction. That the arms race could have been predicted is no guarantee that an international security system will be created ahead of time to prevent this disaster from happening. The nuclear arms race between the US and the USSR was predicted but occurred nevertheless.

2NC/1NR Immature and accelerated nanotech will cause global nanowars – this outweighs and turns all offense – only gradual development of nanotech can access its immense benefits

Treder and Phoenix 6 [Mike, co-founder of CRN, is now serving as Managing Director of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, Chris, co-founder and Director of Research, Center for Responsible Nanotechnology, has studied nanotechnology for more than 20 years. He obtained his BS in Symbolic Systems and MS in Computer Science from Stanford University in 1991. From 1991 to 1997, he worked as an embedded software engineer at Electronics for Imaging. In 1997, he left the software field to concentrate on dyslexia correction and research. Since 2000 he has focused on studying and writing about molecular manufacturing. Chris is a published author in nanotechnology and nanomedical research, and maintains close contacts with many leading researchers in the field, “Nanotechnology and Future WMD,” Dec., http://www.crnano.org/Paper-FutureWMD.htm] WD A New Weapons Race A nanofactory that could build high-performance products directly from blueprints in a few hours would have many applications. One obvious product family is weapons, including weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). Higher strength, power density, and functional density would improve a number of existing weapon designs. It would also enable new classes of weapons. For example, UAV’s in a wide range of sizes could perform surveillance, sabotage, or antipersonnel missions far beyond what is currently contemplated. It appears that “briefcase to orbit” systems will be possible. A small automated airplane (Helios) has been flown up to 96,000 feet. Even a small rocket should be able to attain orbit from that altitude, and a small aircraft should be able to lift it. Initial calculations suggest that the advantages of diamondoid construction would enable a human-portable system, built by a home-appliance scale nanofactory, to put a kilogram of payload into orbit. The advantages of inexpensive rapid prototyping of complete products should not be underestimated. The development cycle of field-programmable computer chips can be up to two orders of magnitude faster than that of factory-programmed computer chips; product development cycles might speed up similarly. For a number of reasons, a nanofactory-enabled arms race appears less stable than was the US-Soviet nuclear arms race. Rapid development of new types of weapons may outstrip the capacity of strategists to plan for stability. Temporary asymmetries caused by rapid development may tempt first strikes. The wide range of military and paramilitary options may create many pathways for gradual escalation to conflagration. Destruction caused by nanotech-based weapons could be more targeted and contained than nuclear explosions. Likewise, there may be less stigma attached to nano-built weapons. Nanofactory availability is likely to be far more rapid and widespread than nuclear proliferation. Uncertainty about the enemy’s capabilities, as well as increased ability to deploy surveillance, may be stabilizing factors, but on balance the outlook for stability seems poor. All-out war could be extremely destructive. With distributed, easily concealed nanofactories, it would not be easy to destroy an enemy’s ability to fight. It would be far easier to destroy things of sentimental value, such as civilian resources – and civilians themselves. Preliminary thought about the number of modes of attack, concealment, and space/time separation between launch and attack makes the task of defending civilians appear hopeless, even if the enemy is far weaker than oneself. A mentality that welcomed martyrdom would appear to be at a distinct advantage against a nation unwilling to commit genocide. Other Risks In addition to its perilous impacts on weapons and war, nanotechnology manufacturing also presents issues of concern about surveillance, terrorism, environmental problems, economic upheaval, and more. With supercomputers and sensors effectively free, worldwide surveillance networks could be created with semi-automated data processing. Unusual events could

be flagged for human attention, and objects and people could be tracked through space and time. This may be very tempting to governments as they try to avoid ownership and use of advanced weapons by individuals or small groups. But it would also enable massive governmental oppression. Should nanofactory-level technology become available to non-government entities, crime and terrorism may become significantly enabled. This could weaken or even destabilize governments and societies. If nanofactories can build solar energy collectors and feedstock pre-processors, it is not obvious what scarcity factor will prevent waste on a massive, even global scale. For example, profligate consumption of energy could lead to large fractions of the planet being covered in solar panels. Even things that are rare today, such as sonic booms from small aircraft, may become common enough to pose environmental problems. If small products were made in large quantity, they could form quantities of “nano-litter” that could be difficult to collect. The economic consequences of nanofactory technology are diverse and sizeable. If nanofactory products are as efficient and high-performance as expected, they may rapidly out-compete other forms of manufacturing. Nanofactory manufacture near time and place of use would affect transportation and storage industries. Manufacturing industries, of course, could be wiped out. New industries and lifestyles could create indirect economic effects. Rapid economic change could weaken or disrupt societies. A concern that has been raised about molecular manufacturing technology is that small, self-contained, self-replicating systems (so-called ‘grey goo’) might multiply in the wild and consume large fractions of the biosphere. Originally, it was feared that a laboratory accident could be enough to release such a device. However, current proposals for manufacturing systems do not include anything remotely like such a device, even during development phases. It is not yet known how much of a problem could arise from deliberate release of free-range self-replicators. They would probably be quite difficult to design, especially in a small package. They would have essentially no practical use, even as a weapon. However, it did not take long for the first computer virus to be created and released; hobbyists may be a source of concern once the technology becomes accessible to them. More analysis is needed to determine the eventual dangers posed by freerange self-replicators, with special attention paid to water-borne designs. However, the dangers of unstable arms races leading to devastating war and/or unbreakable oppression appear more pressing. Dealing With the Dangers There will be no simple solution to dealing with molecular manufacturing. Even a policy of massive suppression of it and all possible enabling technologies would not be immune to the possibility of internal instability on the part of the administrative group. It is also not clear that suppression is desirable. First, the benefits of a mature molecular manufacturing technology could be immense. The ability, for example, to perform planet-scale engineering projects in a matter of months may be necessary to mitigate climate change. Rapid prototyping of nanometer-scale products could accelerate medical research in several ways, as well as providing new kinds of treatment. Huge improvements in sustainable agriculture and efficient distribution systems can be anticipated for countries in the developing world. Replacement of inefficient infrastructure, along with inexpensive solar collectors, could greatly reduce our future ecological footprint (at least until new uses are found for the newly abundant resources). Inexpensive access to space could provide numerous benefits. More directly, widespread access to molecular manufacturing would enable widespread development of defenses against malicious uses. Although in a military context, it appears that offense will likely beat defense, it may be that widely deployed personal-scale defenses can mitigate personal-scale attacks. This possibility needs further analysis. Preventing malicious or irresponsible people from doing intolerably bad things is only one of the problems. Another source of problems is vicious cycles in social or political systems that may result from the stimulus of near-unlimited manufacturing. Perhaps the direst peril is the unstable arms race described above. Another possible vicious cycle is wealth concentration, caused by a large disparity between manufacturing cost and value to consumer, leading to increasing ability of businesses to purchase business-friendly policy. A third vicious cycle may arise from attempts to prevent ownership of desirable technology: a black market infrastructure may develop

and grow. Unfortunately, almost no resources have been spent on studying these issues. If extensive research and analysis will be necessary to implement wise policy, there may not be time to complete them once the changes start. Large, especially international, administrative bodies also take time to create. If molecular manufacturing is physically possible, then it will happen soon, and technical and policy studies are urgently needed in advance of that date. Conclusion Although the possibility of highperformance molecular manufacturing has not been conclusively proved, analysis to date indicates that it will not only work, but will be far more powerful than other technologies, including other nanotechnologies. The actual development schedule is uncertain, but may be expected within the next few decades. Once a general-purpose set of digital molecular fabrication operations is developed, and exponential manufacturing is achieved, further progress toward nanofactories and advanced products may be rapid. Molecular manufacturing is likely to be far more powerful and dangerous than other forms of nanotechnology. Some of the dangers appear comparable in scope to nuclear war. Because some of the dangers arise from systemic vicious cycles and others may result from ill-conceived attempts at policy, studies aimed at developing wise approaches to the problems need to be initiated before the issues arise. Specifically outweighs nuclear war

Bailey 8 *Ronald, science editor for Reason magazine, July 22, 2008, “The End of Humanity,” http://www.reason.com/news/show/127676.html] WD While nuclear war and nuclear terrorism would be catastrophic, the presenters acknowledged that neither constituted existential risks; that is, a risk that they could cause the extinction of humanity. But the next two risks, self-improving artificial intelligence and nanotechnology, would.

Hegemony DA

1NC Heg is sustainable in the status quo – accommodation precedes containment and nuclear peace promotes one power

Monteiro 11 [Nuno P., Yale professor of political science, April 25, 2011, “Balancing Act: Why Unipolarity May Be Durable,” http://irworkshop.sites.yale.edu/sites/default/files/Monteiro_IRW.pdf, p. 13-19, accessed 7/6/13] WD What is, then, wrong with the argument that unipolarity is indeed durable? Why are primacists not right? If the impact of the nuclear revolution on the structure of international politics reduces the salience of survival concerns for major powers, then unipolarity should necessarily last. 44 This should settle the debate on unipolar durability in favor of primacist views. Not so fast. Survival is indeed the first goal of states and, therefore, nuclear weapons, by guaranteeing state survival, eliminate the need for major powers to balance against a unipole. But states do not care only about survival. Economic growth is also important for states, for at least two reasons. First, states care about economic growth as an end in itself. 45 One of the primary raisons d’être of the state is, after all, the well-being of its citizens, defined largely in terms of material wealth. Second, and more importantly for the purposes of this paper, states care about economic growth also for security reasons. If a major power is prevented from continuing to grow economically, then its future security may be imperiled. Nothing ensures that nuclear weapons will continue to guarantee survival indefinitely. A major technological breakthrough, such as comprehensive missile defense, might erode the deterring effect of a survivable nuclear arsenal. Major powers therefore have strong incentives not to fall behind in economic terms. But this pursuit of wealth is subordinated to survival concerns. In other words, I expect major powers to pursue wealth only once the goal of state survival is fully ensured and in ways that do not undermine it. To borrow a concept from John Rawls, this means that survival has ‘lexical priority’ over all other state aims, including wealth creation. 46 What does this mean for balancing and, consequently, for the durability of a unipolar world? In the previous section, I introduced a revised logic of balancing focused exclusively on the goal of state survival. It is now time to expand it to account for the secondary goal of economic growth. This means that (2’) must be revised to include not only threats to state survival but also to their economic growth. In the expanded logic, then, states will (3’) balance against concentrated power to the extent that it threatens both these goals. Consequently, states will now balance until they minimize (4’’) both threats to their survival and to their economic growth. The expanded logic goes like this (with italics indicating change from the revised version above): 1) States care first and foremost about their own survival and only pursue other goals, such as wealth, to the extent they do not threaten survival; 2’’) An unmatched concentration of power in one state may threaten the survival of others as well as their pursuit of economic growth; 3’) To the extent that it does, other states will balance against concentrated power; 4’’) Threats to survival and to economic growth may be minimized short of amassing as much or more power than any other state; 5’) Balancing efforts will therefore not necessarily lead to shifts in the systemic balance-of-power; 6’) As a result, unmatched concentrations of power in one state may be longlasting. The result (6’) is the same. But the conditions of possibility for an unmatched concentration of power in one state to be long-lasting have changed. Now, the durability of unipolarity depends, beyond major powers’ guaranteed survival, on a second factor: the presence of international conditions that make the continuation of their economic growth possible. The absence of such conditions, by endangering the long-term ability of the state to maintain its deterrent capability, ultimately places the survival of the state at risk. Therefore, major powers have a strong incentive to balance against a unipole that is -- purposely or not -- containing their economic

growth. This extends the conditions of possibility of a durable unipolar world from the structural to the strategic level. In a nutshell, if a major power’s economic growth is constrained by the unipole’s strategy then that major power has incentives to continue to balance against the unipole beyond the point at which nuclear weapons ensure its immediate survival. In sum, a strategy of containment on the part of the unipole, by constraining the economic growth of major powers, will lead the latter to balance, converting their latent capabilities into military power. Containment, therefore, leads major powers to balance beyond the point at which their immediate survival is guaranteed, up to the point at which they effect a shift in the systemic balance of power, bringing about the end of unipolarity. A strategy of accommodation, on the contrary, allows major powers to continue their economic growth, thus guaranteeing that their immediate ability to secure their own survival will not be eroded over time. By doing so, accommodation takes away the incentives major powers might have to balance beyond the point at which their immediate survival is guaranteed. Consequently, a strategy of accommodation -- when implemented under conditions in which survival may be guaranteed even in the absence of a systemic balance of power -- makes unipolarity durable. V. EMPIRICAL IMPLICATIONS AND ILLUSTRATION This section extracts empirical implications from my theory and tests the argument against the evolving empirical record. My “qualified durability” argument yields two empirical implications for contemporary world politics. First, for as long as the United States pursues a strategy of economic accommodation, major powers, all of which today possess a survivable nuclear arsenal, should not pursue further balancing against the United States. Second, in case the United States shifts towards a strategy of containment, major powers should initiate a balancing effort, increasing the rate at which they convert their latent power into military capabilities and pooling those capabilities together through the formation of alliances, eventually shifting the systemic balance of power and putting an end to unipolarity. Government-controlled science programs fail – destroy soft and hard power

Coletta 9 [Science, Technology, and the Quest for International Influence, by Damon Coletta, September 2009. Professor at the United States Air Force Academy, Ph.D in political science from Duke, Master in public policy from Harvard, author of American Defense Policy, Revolution’s End: Informational Technology and Crisis Management, and Security Doctrine in a Multipolar Age, http://www.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA536133&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf] WD The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, though functionally tied to managing the nation‘s space program, is atypical for its independent status within the executive bureaucracy. Most other federal science sponsors are embedded in cabinet level departments; the Office of Science within the Department of Energy; the National Institutes of Health within the Department of Health and Human Services; the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce; and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency along with research offices of each of the services within the Department of Defense. Individual science specialists within the government departments control billions of dollars, slices comparable to the entire NSF budget.26 Although not even this much money protects agencies from occasional funding crises, the capacity to maintain a science establishment that is both decentralized and wellfunded across the board speaks to the deep pockets and the unparalleled borrowing power of the U.S. Government. The key vulnerability in this sprawling enterprise is the sheer number of competing priorities that make it hard for the government to keep its collective eye on the prize, in this case research leadership in areas that are not immediately exploitable for economic or military gain. As successful as the United States has been, performing basic science and applied research to be the

pacesetter for other countries during the Information Technology Revolution of the late-twentieth century, the U.S. tendency to convert science into public works projects may delay its rendezvous with the next world shattering technological breakthrough. Perhaps more urgently, a science establishment so thoroughly penetrated by the daily needs of U.S. government operations may not be imaginative or neutral enough to win worldwide respect for U.S. institutions and culture. Such a soft power failure could hollow out American hegemony well before U.S. technological superiority collapses. Hegemony collapse causes transition wars, economic collapse, global instability and destroys all international cooperation – only US heg can solve global conflict

Brzezinski 12 [Zbigniew, Former National Security Advisor, January/February 2012, Foreign Policy, “After America: How does the world look in an age of U.S. decline? Dangerously unstable.” http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/03/after_america, accessed 7/5/13] WD Not so long ago, a high-ranking Chinese official, who obviously had concluded that America's decline and China's rise were both inevitable, noted in a burst of candor to a senior U.S. official: "But, please, let America not decline too quickly." Although the inevitability of the Chinese leader's expectation is still far from certain, he was right to be cautious when looking forward to America's demise. For if America falters, the world is unlikely to be dominated by a single preeminent successor -- not even China. International uncertainty, increased tension among global competitors, and even outright chaos would be far more likely outcomes. While a sudden, massive crisis of the American system -- for instance, another financial crisis -- would produce a fast-moving chain reaction leading to global political and economic disorder, a steady drift by America into increasingly pervasive decay or endlessly widening warfare with Islam would be unlikely to produce, even by 2025, an effective global successor. No single power will be ready by then to exercise the role that the world, upon the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, expected the United States to play: the leader of a new, globally cooperative world order. More probable would be a protracted phase of rather inconclusive realignments of both global and regional power, with no grand winners and many more losers, in a setting of international uncertainty and even of potentially fatal risks to global well-being. Rather than a world where dreams of democracy flourish, a Hobbesian world of enhanced national security based on varying fusions of authoritarianism, nationalism, and religion could ensue. The leaders of the world's second-rank powers, among them India, Japan, Russia, and some European countries, are already assessing the potential impact of U.S. decline on their respective national interests. The Japanese, fearful of an assertive China dominating the Asian mainland, may be thinking of closer links with Europe. Leaders in India and Japan may be considering closer political and even military cooperation in case America falters and China rises. Russia, while perhaps engaging in wishful thinking (even schadenfreude) about America's uncertain prospects, will almost certainly have its eye on the independent states of the former Soviet Union. Europe, not yet cohesive, would likely be pulled in several directions: Germany and Italy toward Russia because of commercial interests, France and insecure Central Europe in favor of a politically tighter European Union, and Britain toward manipulating a balance within the EU while preserving its special relationship with a declining United States. Others may move more rapidly to carve out their own regional spheres: Turkey in the area of the old Ottoman Empire, Brazil in the Southern Hemisphere, and so forth. None of these countries, however, will have the requisite combination of economic, financial, technological, and military power even to consider inheriting America's leading role.

China, invariably mentioned as America's prospective successor, has an impressive imperial lineage and a strategic tradition of carefully calibrated patience, both of which have been critical to its overwhelmingly successful, several-thousand-year-long history. China thus prudently accepts the existing international system, even if it does not view the prevailing hierarchy as permanent. It recognizes that success depends not on the system's dramatic collapse but on its evolution toward a gradual redistribution of power. Moreover, the basic reality is that China is not yet ready to assume in full America's role in the world. Beijing's leaders themselves have repeatedly emphasized that on every important measure of development, wealth, and power, China will still be a modernizing and developing state several decades from now, significantly behind not only the United States but also Europe and Japan in the major per capita indices of modernity and national power. Accordingly, Chinese leaders have been restrained in laying any overt claims to global leadership. At some stage, however, a more assertive Chinese nationalism could arise and damage China's international interests. A swaggering, nationalistic Beijing would unintentionally mobilize a powerful regional coalition against itself. None of China's key neighbors -- India, Japan, and Russia -- is ready to acknowledge China's entitlement to America's place on the global totem pole. They might even seek support from a waning America to offset an overly assertive China. The resulting regional scramble could become intense, especially given the similar nationalistic tendencies among China's neighbors. A phase of acute international tension in Asia could ensue. Asia of the 21st century could then begin to resemble Europe of the 20th century -- violent and bloodthirsty. At the same time, the security of a number of weaker states located geographically next to major regional powers also depends on the international status quo reinforced by America's global preeminence -- and would be made significantly more vulnerable in proportion to America's decline. The states in that exposed position -- including Georgia, Taiwan, South Korea, Belarus, Ukraine, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Israel, and the greater Middle East -- are today's geopolitical equivalents of nature's most endangered species. Their fates are closely tied to the nature of the international environment left behind by a waning America, be it ordered and restrained or, much more likely, self-serving and expansionist. A faltering United States could also find its strategic partnership with Mexico in jeopardy. America's economic resilience and political stability have so far mitigated many of the challenges posed by such sensitive neighborhood issues as economic dependence, immigration, and the narcotics trade. A decline in American power, however, would likely undermine the health and good judgment of the U.S. economic and political systems. A waning United States would likely be more nationalistic, more defensive about its national identity, more paranoid about its homeland security, and less willing to sacrifice resources for the sake of others' development. The worsening of relations between a declining America and an internally troubled Mexico could even give rise to a particularly ominous phenomenon: the emergence, as a major issue in nationalistically aroused Mexican politics, of territorial claims justified by history and ignited by cross-border incidents. Another consequence of American decline could be a corrosion of the generally cooperative management of the global commons -- shared interests such as sea lanes, space, cyberspace, and the environment, whose protection is imperative to the long-term growth of the global economy and the continuation of basic geopolitical stability. In almost every case, the potential absence of a constructive and influential U.S. role would fatally undermine the essential communality of the global commons because the superiority and ubiquity of American power creates order where there would normally be conflict. None of this will necessarily come to pass. Nor is the concern that America's decline would generate global insecurity, endanger some vulnerable states, and produce a more troubled North American neighborhood an argument for U.S. global supremacy. In fact, the strategic complexities of the world in the 21st century make such supremacy unattainable. But those dreaming today of America's collapse

would probably come to regret it. And as the world after America would be increasingly complicated and chaotic, it is imperative that the United States pursue a new, timely strategic vision for its foreign policy -- or start bracing itself for a dangerous slide into global turmoil.

2NC/1NR Here’s another link – the aff’s mission-oriented approach to science kills sustainable hegemony

Coletta 9 [Science, Technology, and the Quest for International Influence, by Damon Coletta, September 2009. Professor at the United States Air Force Academy, Ph.D in political science from Duke, Master in public policy from Harvard, author of American Defense Policy, Revolution’s End: Informational Technology and Crisis Management, and Security Doctrine in a Multipolar Age, http://www.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA536133&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf] WD Based on how U.S. constitutional democracy is structured, we should observe a recurring tension between society‘s desire to benefit from professional expertise and its demand for accountability. In the U.S. case, scientific advice and scientific research sponsored by the state have been articulated across mission-oriented agencies serving an urgent governmental function—defense, commerce, health, agriculture. With few exceptions, even the National Science Foundation is not entirely immune, research sponsors and laboratories within the U.S. Government feel enormous pressure. Operational branches of the Executive agencies, massive in terms of budget and personnel compared to R&D, as well as Congressional representatives on key authorizing committees, push U.S. Science to be technologically relevant. In the language of the Defense Department‘s framework, there is a steep downhill slope running from 6.1 (basic research) to 6.2 (applied research). We have seen evidence of the tendency to slip away from pure science sponsorship in the budget hearings of Congressional committees on Science and Technology and Armed Services, as well as the 21 evolution of the nation‘s first post-World War II science agency—the Office of Naval Research—away from basic research. The question remains whether democratic pressure to harvest superior technology, to the point of neglecting what one chair of the Projection Forces Subcommittee, House Armed Services called the seed corn of innovation, levies costs on U.S. foreign policy serious enough to hamper the superpower‘s bid for sustainable hegemony. Turns the case – the government will misuse the science it develops – destroys our leadership and prevents cooperation

Coletta 9 [Science, Technology, and the Quest for International Influence, by Damon Coletta, September 2009. Professor at the United States Air Force Academy, Ph.D in political science from Duke, Master in public policy from Harvard, author of American Defense Policy, Revolution’s End: Informational Technology and Crisis Management, and Security Doctrine in a Multipolar Age, http://www.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA536133&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf] WD In today‘s order, U.S. hegemony is yet in doubt even though military and economic indicators confirm its status as the world‘s lone superpower. America possesses the material wherewithal to maintain its lead in the sciences, but it also desires to bear the standard for freedom and democracy. Unfortunately, patronage of basic science does not automatically flourish with liberal democracy. The free market and the mass public impose demands on science that tend to move research out of the basic and into applied realms. Absent the lead in basic discovery, no country can hope to pioneer humanity‘s quest to know Nature. There is a real danger U.S. state and society could permanently confuse sponsorship of technology with patronage of science, thereby delivering a self-inflicted blow to U.S. leadership among nations.

Politics

Links Conservatives hate science, plan guarantees a backlash. Shepperd, staff reporter in Mother Jones, 3/29/12 (Kate, Mother Jones, “It's Not Your Imagination: Republicans Really Don't Like Science” http://www.motherjones.com/bluemarble/2012/03/its-not-your-imagination-republicans-really-dont-science Date accessed: 7/13/13)KG The premise of the 2005 book The Republican War on Science (by Mother Jones contributor Chris Mooney) was that conservatives in the US hate science. They don't like evolution, they don't like global warming—none of that stuff. Now a sociologist set out to figure out if that thesis really is true, and concluded that the right in the US is indeed growing increasingly distrustful of science. The reason for this, according to Mooney and others, is that the "political neutrality of science began to unravel in the 1970s with the emergence of the new right"—a growing body of conservatives who were distrustful of science and the intellectual establishment, who were often religious and concerned about defending "traditional values" in the face of a modernizing world, and who favored limited government. This has prompted backlash against subjects for which there is broad scientific consensus, like global warming and evolution—backlash that has been apparent in survey data over the past three decades.

GOP has no confidence in science policy—plan will be opposed Hoeffel 3/29/12-writer for The Los Angeles Times (John, “Conservatives' trust in science has declined sharply”, The Los Angeles Times 2012, http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/29/nation/la-naconservatives-science-20120329, MB) ¶ As the Republican presidential race has shown, the conservatives who dominate the primaries are deeply skeptical of science — making Newt Gingrich, for one, regret he ever settled onto a couch with Nancy Pelosi to chat about global warming.¶ ¶ A study released Thursday in the American Sociological Review concludes that trust in science among conservatives and frequent churchgoers has declined precipitously since 1974, when a national survey first asked people how much confidence they had in the scientific community. At that time, conservatives had the highest level of trust in scientists.¶ ¶ Confidence in scientists has declined the most among the most educated conservatives, the peer-reviewed research paper found, concluding: "These results are quite profound because they imply that

conservative discontent with science was not attributable to the uneducated but to rising distrust among educated conservatives."¶ ¶ "That's a surprising finding," said the report's author, Gordon Gauchat, in an interview. He has a doctorate in sociology and is a postdoctoral fellow at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.¶ ¶ To highlight the dramatic impact conservative views of science have had on public opinion, Gauchat pointed to results from Gallup, which found in 2012 that just 30% of conservatives believed the Earth was warming as a result of greenhouse gases versus 50% two years earlier. In contrast, the poll showed almost no change in the opinion of liberals, with 74% believing in global warming in 2010 versus 72% in 2008.¶ ¶ Gauchat suggested that the most educated conservatives are most acquainted with views that question the credibility of scientists and their conclusions. "I think those people are most fluent with the conservative ideology," he said. "They have stronger ideological dispositions than people who are less educated."¶ ¶ Chris Mooney, who wrote "The

Republican

War on Science," which Gauchat cites, agreed. "If you think of the reasons behind this as nature versus nurture, all this would be nurture, that it was the product of the conservative movement," he said. "I think being educated is a proxy for people paying attention to politics, and when they do, they tune in to Fox News and blogs."¶ ¶ Gauchat also noted the conservative movement had expanded substantially in power and influence, particularly during the presidencies of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, creating an extensive apparatus of think tanks and media outlets. "There's a whole enterprise," he said.¶ ¶ Science

has also increasingly come

under fire, Gauchat said, because its cultural authority and its impact on government have grown. For years, he said, the role science played was mostly behind the scenes, creating better military equipment and sending rockets into space.

The GOP hates science policy—plan drains Obama’s PC Pangburn 3/4/12-Editor of deathandtaxes (DJ, “Marco Rubio and 6 other GOP politicians at war with science”, deathandtaxes 2012, http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/191273/marco-rubio-and-6-othergop-politicians-at-war-with-science/, MB) Make no mistake, there is a war currently underway against science and rationalism within the GOP and at least one-half of this country. Climate change, evolution, human reproduction, the Big Bang theory, renewable energy, and the integrity of scientific search have all come under the critical gaze of fringedwelling conservative politicians, many of whom are united in their Christian faith.¶ One could practically write a book on the various absurdities proffered by GOP politicians, especially those with zip codes residing in the southern United States. Below are six particularly egregious offenders of science who, instead of attempting to maintain objective congressional integrity, are on something of a religious crusade in the halls of Congress.¶ The House Committee on Science, Space and Technology is chaired by Ralph Hall, a 32-year veteran of the House of Representatives. Hall is a Republican from Texas’s 4th district who was one of the founders of the Blue Dog Coalition in the Democratic party. (He switched parties in 2004). At first glance, Ralph seems rational. He is an enthusiastic supporter of NASA and an advocate for space exploration, in general. But when one considers his stance on climate change, he is very much in line with the science-denying GOP majority. And as committee chair on Science, Space and Technology, he is in firm control of debate on the issues.¶ Ralph is 89 years old, so perhaps he should be excused for his perspective on climate change. But when Ralph

says that global warming is a scam hatched by scientists to fund their research, he has entered the dark realm of religious conservative dementia.¶ Mr. Hall told The National Journal: “*Researchers+ each get $5,000 for every report *linking human activities to climate change+ they give out. That’s just my guess. I don’t have any proof of that. But I don’t believe ‘em. I still want to listen to ‘em and believe what I believe I ought to believe.”

Castro DA Science and technology are key to Cuba development—the plan gives Castro the resources needed to strengthen his regime Tamayo 10-writer for the Juvebtudrebelde.co.cu a Cuban Youth Newspaper (Rene, “Science and Technology Key in Cuba’s Development Strategy”, Juvebtudrebelde.co.cu 2010, http://www.juventudrebelde.co.cu/cuba/2010-11-19/science-and-technology-key-in-cuba-sdevelopment-strategy-, MB) The future of science, technology and innovation in Cuba is one of the issues being debated in the framework of the policy guidelines at assembly meetings scheduled to take place from December 1, 2010 to February 28, 2011. ¶ Science and technology are key aspects in a country where one million university graduates and millions of technicians have been trained over the last 50 years, and where the ninth grade is the minimum level of education required, a standard that places Cuba ahead of most Third World countries and most industrialized nations. ¶ In Cuba, when it comes to science, everybody has something to say. Even in the humblest workshops one can come across experienced engineers, researchers and technicians. ¶ Not to mention the tens of thousand of researchers employed at Cuban scientific institutions. A good example of Cuban achievements in this sector is the acknowledgement of Cuban science made by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in its Science Report 2010 released on November 10, on occasion of World Science Day. ¶ Science will play an essential role in the present and future development of nations. Cuba is well aware of this and taken steps in this area. In addition to the many pages the Social and Economic Policy Guidelines devotes to the issue, it is worth noting that the document itself is a valuable piece of scientific writing which reflects an arduous research work in the fields of Marxist theory and politics, as well as realism and common sense, qualities that are hard to find in today’s world. ¶ Under the heading of “After Science,” an economic scenario is described in the guidelines that emphasize a highly organized production scheme, work efficiency and technological development backed up by profound, responsible and committed scientific work. ¶ Research and Production ¶ This issue is addressed in depth in the draft and promotes synergy between research and production —which have sometimes advanced on separate paths.¶ In the section Management of Chapter 1, The Economic Administration Model, item 24, reads: “Whenever possible, research centers linked to production and services shall be merged with companies and other business management organizations.” ¶ The objective is to consolidate the links between research, development and production. Chapter 5, item 127, reads that socialist companies, which are and will be the essence of our economic system, must create the bases to combine the achievements of science and technology with production whenever possible and pertinent.”

Foreign investment in biotech is key to Cuba’s economy. GS, innovate and deliver responsive solutions to complex Global security threats, 7/12/13 (Global Security “Cuba's Economy” http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/cuba/economy.htm Date accessed:7/13/13)KG According to the Cuban Ministry of the Basic Industry (MINBAS), nickel became the leading export and the top foreign exchange earner in 2007. In 2009, world nickel prices generated $870 million. Cuba's pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry is another emerging sector, ranking third in foreign sales behind nickel and oil products, and ahead of traditional products such as tobacco, rum, and sugar. Exports of pharmaceutical and biotech products were between $300 and $350 million in 2007-2008 and jumped to $520 million in 2009. To help keep the economy afloat, Cuba has actively courted foreign investment in targeted sectors. Although majority foreign ownership has been permitted since 1995, it has seldom been allowed. Foreign investment often takes the form of joint ventures with the Cuban Government holding half of the equity, management contracts for tourism facilities, or financing for agricultural crops. The number of joint ventures has steadily declined since 2002 to 218 in 2009. Moreover, a hostile investment climate, characterized by inefficient and overpriced labor, dense regulations, and an impenetrable bureaucracy, continue to deter foreign investment. Cuba's precarious economic position is complicated by the high price it must pay for foreign financing. The Cuban

Government defaulted on most of its international debt in 1986 and does not have access to credit from international financial institutions like the World Bank. Therefore, Havana must rely heavily on short-term loans to finance imports, chiefly food and fuel, and structured financial instruments tied to more stable revenue sources (e.g., nickel, tourism, and remittances). Because of its poor credit rating, an $18 billion hard currency debt, and the risks associated with Cuban investment, interest rates have reportedly been as high as 22%.

CIR Turns case Disad turns the case; immigration reform is key to scientific diplomacy Maughan 13—Heather is a freelance science writer, biologist, microbiome, microbiologist. William Henry Draper III [cited in the article] is a prominent venture capitalist that graduated from Yale University and Harvard Business school. (“US science diplomacy: the rocky road ahead”—1/29/2013) http://www.scidev.net/global/funding/feature/us-science-diplomacy-the-rocky-road-ahead--1.html) The Obama administration is expected to continue including science and technology (S&T) in its diplomacy agenda, according to interviews with a number of people recognised for their contributions to international science cooperation. But in the face of government spending cuts that could occur in 2013, US diplomatic efforts in S&T may be more reliant on collaboration with the private sector. In his first four years, Obama revamped S&T diplomacy. His 2009 speech in Cairo pledged to make Muslim-majority countries a priority and led to his creation of a programme of science envoys, prominent US scientists who travel as diplomats to "identify opportunities for new partnerships in science and technology". Legislation is not the only way forward, and some think the US government should be looking to the private sector for progress. William H. Draper III, co-chairman of the Draper Richards Kaplan Foundation, and a 2012 George Brown awardee, says that it is the government's job to prepare the ground for international cooperation that allows "freedom of travel, freedom to exchange ideas [and] to encourage cross border investment". He says this openness enables the kind of collaboration that can democratise technology, citing the example of his early investment in Skype, where money from the US private sector was invested in technology developed in Estonia and Sweden.

Draper also feels passionate about improvements to international science cooperation

that

could be made through changes to US policies. For example , he criticises immigration policies that "give people an education and then shove them out of the country". "Someone who goes to MIT [and then] graduates must leave our country in 18 months because he doesn't have a green card. We need a very solid and encouraging immigration policy. Every start-up [company I've invested in] in the past 20 years has involved at least one immigrant in the starting team," he says. For Vest, one of the most powerful diplomatic tools available may not directly involve the government at all, but instead take advantage of "the huge numbers of employees of US corporations, many of whom are engineers and scientists, that are deployed around the world. They live with their counterparts in many countries and spread our values." Vest also cites programmes such as MIT's OpenCourseWare initiative, which makes almost all of the institute's teaching materials available freely online, that are spreading education — including in S&T — around the world. "These, too, in my broad definition, are acts of public and S&T diplomacy and are very highly valued by people throughout the world," he says. Campbell says it is crucial not to forget how important young people are in international collaboration, whether in business or academia. Schemes such as CRDF Global's initiative Global Innovation through Science and Technology, which helps fund and mentor promising entrepreneurs, are investing in this idea. "The more that we can get young people interested and encouraged to do this, the better for the future of all of our countries," she concludes. Obama's appointments within the US Agency for International Development (USAID) have also strengthened the focus on S&T after "in recent decades, budget cuts and shifting mandates pulled the agency's focus away from emphasising science and technology", according to an article in Science. [2] But since Obama's 2009 speech, the Arab Spring has occurred and the USAID budget could be cut by more than US$100 million if no compromise is found to avert mandatory cuts due to come into force in late March. So will Obama be able to continue to use S&T as a force for good in the world? Business as usual? Cathleen Campbell, chief executive officer and president of CRDF Global, a non-profit organisation created by the US Congress to promote international scientific and technical collaboration, thinks Obama will continue to be supportive of S&T development. "I expect him to be investing in R&D, investing in new technology, and I also expect he is going to continue his emphasis on partnerships with countries around the world in the pursuit of research collaboration and entrepreneurship, new business development, and development of technology," she says. She adds that working with Muslim-majority countries will continue to be a priority, and that Obama indicated on a recent trip to Asia the emerging importance of the region. Others also think that diplomatic efforts focusing on Muslim-majority countries will improve in the wake of the Arab Spring. For example, Charles M. Vest, president of the US National Academy of Engineering and an awardee of CRDF Global's 2012 George Brown Award for International Science Cooperation, says: "Anything that opens up communications, as has occurred to some extent in the Arab Spring, increases opportunities for people-to-people science discussion". Laurie H. Glimcher, provost of medical affairs at Cornell University and the recipient of Argentina's 2012 Dr. Luis Federico Leloir Prize (for the promotion of the international scientific cooperation), points to another emerging priority: biomedical solutions to global health issues. "We have an emerging crisis on our hands that is going to affect all of us and that transcends geographic areas or borders: our aging population," she says. "For example, there are currently 25 million people in the world living with Alzheimer's disease. That's a staggering number and a heavy burden on our global healthcare system ... we have a challenge that could crush our existing global healthcare system if we don't find a solution." She stresses that "international collaboration, beyond borders and nationalities, is crucial to finding the medical and scientific solutions we need". Finding the funds Identifying key issues is easy. Finding the resources could be more challenging. "One of the big challenges that we will be facing, like any other country, is the resource question. What kind of financial resources are going to be available to be able to pursue all the work that needs to be done?" asks Campbell. The White House has proposed to reduce public spending by at least US$1 trillion over the next ten years. This would include the Department of State, through which many diplomatic efforts are funded. But budgetary constraint need not mean science diplomacy efforts must suffer. As Campbell says, collaboration between organisations and governments, and between the public and private sectors, could make up for some of the shortfall. But devoting resources to S&T diplomacy may become more difficult as Congress continues to disagree on how to best balance the budget before spending cuts occur in 2013. Changes in membership of Congress committees following the November 2012 election create further uncertainties.

Two bills proposing improved science cooperation and diplomacy have already been

presented in Congress but had little chance of being passed and were eventually referred back to the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology. They propose improving cooperation between the US agencies that fund science, and allocating funds to diplomatic efforts in Middle Eastern, Sub-Saharan African and Muslim-majority countries. Disagreements between Democrats and Republicans in Congress, and the November 2012 election, delayed the bills' progress. Although 2013 will bring a new chair to the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, Campbell thinks it's too early to predict whether this will increase the chances of passing the bills or other legislation related to S&T diplomacy.