Julia+and+Victor

=1AC=

Removing the embargo restores US-Cuba relations – now is the key time to prevent permanent isolation
[] **)**
 * Tisdall ~’13 (Simon, Death of Hugo Chávez brings chance of fresh start for US and Latin America, 3/5/13,**

Hugo Chávez~’s departure furnishes Barack Obama with an opportunity to repair US ties with Venezuela AND build confidence with Venezuela, the Castro regime~’s key backer, she suggested.

Recent easing of restrictions is only a first step – the plan is critical to normalize economic engagement, five reasons

 * Creamer ~’11 (Robert, political organizer and strategist for four decades, Changes in U.S. Cuba Policy Good First Step — But It~’s Time to Normalize Relations, 1/18/11, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/changes-in-us-cuba-policy_b_810161.html)**

The changes in U.S. Cuba policy announced Friday by the Obama administration AND completely normalize relations with Cuba, end our economic embargo. Here~’s why: 1). Our policy of isolating Cuba has failed to bring change to Cuba. AND allies all have friendly relations, but our policy of isolating Cuba persists. 2). The only real accomplishment of past isolationist policies toward Cuba was to restrict AND actually prevents the presumed goal of our policy — to open up Cuba. 3). By maintaining our economic embargo we penalize the American economy and cost American AND by the creation of jobs in their countries rather than the United States. 4). Our failure to normalize relations with Cuba undermines American interests throughout the world AND membership and called on the U.S. to end the embargo. 5). Domestic political support for the embargo — especially among Cuban Americans in Florida AND promise of fostering positive and real change in Cuba. Amen to that.

First, is Russia – normalized relations with Cuba are necessary to prevent Russian expansionism

 * Stratfor ~’8** [The Russian Resurgence and the New-Old Front, http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20080915_russian_resurgence_and_new_old_front]

Containment requires that United States counter Russian expansionism at every turn, crafting a new AND not outright inaccessible. In many ways, this is containment in reverse.

Russian imperialism will result in a US/Russian nuclear war
(Charles Scaliger, staff writer for the New American, 9/30/2008, Fanning the Flames in Georgia, The New American, p. http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-mainmenu-26/europe-mainmenu-35/394) An American defense of Georgia could risk nuclear war, yet the Bush administration seems AND and threatening to re-militarize Cuba. Defense of Georgia or even of
 * Scaliger ~’8**

her oil pipelines seems inadequate rationale for potential nuclear war, yet the Bush administration seems determined to turn this regional brush fire into a Cuban Missile Crisis-like international stare-down. The chief motive for the exaggerated hullabaloo is the expansion of NATO, which continues to absorb more nations and redefine its organizational mission almost two decades after the disintegration of the Soviet Union. What was once touted as a military alliance to defend the West and its interests against the communist menace has been reinvented AND and Moscow much more likely than it ever was during the Cold War.

US/Russian war causes extinction – most probable
(Nick Bostrom, professor of philosophy - Oxford University, March, 2002, Existential Risks: Analyzing Human Extinction Scenarios and Related Hazards, Journal of Evolution and Technology, p. http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html) A much greater existential risk emerged with the build-up of nuclear arsenals in AND preludes to the existential risks that we will encounter in the 21st century.
 * Bostrom ~’2**

US influence in the region is critical to deter conflict – China is trying to displace the US

 * Dowd ~’12**(Alan, Senior Fellow with the American Security Council Foundation, "Crisis in the America~’s," [])

Focused on military operations in the Middle East, nuclear threats in Iran and North AND
 * There is room for only one great power in the Western Hemisphere.

Second, is China – US-Cuba relations check Chinese influence in the region

 * Benjamin-Alvadaro ~’6** (Jonathan, Report for the Cuban Research Institute, Florida International University, PhD, Professor of Political Science at University of Nebraska at Omaha, Director of the Intelligence Community Centers of Academic Excellence Program at UNO, Treasurer of the American Political Science Association, "The Current Status and Future Prospects for Oil Exploration in Cuba: A Special," [])

Additionally, Venezuela remains the fourth largest importer of oil to the United States and AND circumstances but have well-served the commercial interests of all parties involved.

Specifically, increased Chinese influence risks war over Taiwan

 * Fergusson ~’12**(Robbie, Researcher at Royal Society for the Arts, Featured Contributor at International Business Times, Former Conference %26 Research Assistant at Security Watch, Former Researcher at University College London, Master of Science, China in the International Arena, The University of Glasgow, "The Chinese Challenge to the Monroe Doctrine," [])

Taiwan – domestic, or foreign policy?¶ China~’s goals in the region amount to AND the PRC to conclude a settlement on Taiwan, perhaps by force.

Global nuclear war Hunkovic 9 – American Military University (Lee J., "The Chinese-Taiwanese Conflict: Possible Futures of a Confrontation between China, Taiwan and the United States of America," http://www.lamp-method.org/eCommons/Hunkovic.pdf)

A war between China, Taiwan and the United States has the potential to escalate AND in which the United States and China are the two most dominant members.

Cuban reforms are inevitable but the loss of external investment risks economic and social collapse – offering normal trade relations is vital
Ashby 13, Senior Research Fellow at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs. He served in the U.S. Commerce Department~’s International Trade Administration as Director of the Office of Mexico and the Caribbean and acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for the Western Hemisphere(Timothy, "Preserving Stability in Cuba After Normalizing Relations with the United States – The Importance of Trading with State-Owned Enterprises" 3/29/13, Council on Hemispheric Affairs, http://www.coha.org/preserving-stability-in-cuba-timothy-ashby/)//AD

Cuba under Raúl Castro has entered a new period of economic, social, and AND for tourists, and freedom being granted for most Cubans to travel abroad. Stating that it was time for the "gradual transfer" of "key roles to new generations," President Raúl Castro announced that he will retire by 2018, and named as his possible successor a man who was not even born at the time of the Cuban Revolution. [1] The twilight of the Castro era presents challenges and opportunities for US policy makers. Normalization of relations is inevitable, regardless of timing, yet external and internal factors may accelerate or retard the process. The death of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez is likely to undermine the already dysfunctional Cuban AND bilateral trade with all Cuban enterprises, both private and state-owned. The collapse of Cuba~’s tottering economy could seismically impact the United States and neighboring countries. It certainly did during the Mariel Boatlift of 1980, precipitated by a downturn in the Cuban economy which led to tensions on the island. Over 125,000 Cuban refugees landed in the Miami area, including 31,000 criminals and mental patients. Today, the United States defines its national security interests regarding Cuba as follows: • Avoid one or more mass migrations; • Prevent Cuba from becoming another porous border that allows continuous large-scale migration to the hemisphere; • Prevent Cuba from becoming a major source or transshipment point for the illegal drug trade; • Avoid Cuba becoming a state with ungoverned spaces that could provide a platform for terrorists and others wishing to harm the United States. [2] All of these national security threats are directly related to economic and social conditions within Cuba. US policy specifically supports "a market-oriented economic system" [3] AND economic growth. SOEs employ 72 percent of Cuban workers. [5] A rational commercial rapprochement towards Cuba would therefore require a change in current laws and in the system of regulations prohibiting the importation of Cuban goods and products. Normalized bilateral trade will benefit the Cuban people by helping to provide economic stability and fostering the growth of a middle class – both of which are essential for the foundation of democratic institutions. Two-way trade must include both Cuba~’s private sector as well as SOEs.

Cuban collapse destroys the global war on terror and makes conflicts in hotspots around the globe more likely
Gorrell, 5 - Lieutenant Colonel, US Army, paper submitted for the USAWC STRATEGY RESEARCH PROJECT (Tim, "CUBA: THE NEXT UNANTICIPATED ANTICIPATED STRATEGIC CRISIS?" [] GWOT=Global War on Terrorism

Regardless of the succession, under the current U.S. policy, Cuba~’s AND hundred thousand fleeing to the U.S., creating a refugee crisis. Equally important, by adhering to a negative containment policy, the U.S AND could be greatly facilitated by a Cuba base of operation and accelerate considerably. In the midst of an unstable Cuba, the opportunity for radical fundamentalist groups to AND the Americas. A proactive policy now can mitigate these potential future problems. U.S. domestic political support is also turning against the current negative policy AND new approach to U.S.-Cuban relations. (Table 1) The time has come to look realistically at the Cuban issue. Castro will rule AND in an effort to facilitate a manageable transition to post-Castro Cuba?

Hotspots all risk escalation to global nuclear war
David **Bosco** (a senior editor at Foreign Policy magazine) July **2006** "Forum: Keeping an eye peeled for World War III" []

The understanding that small but violent acts can spark global conflagration is etched into the world~’s consciousness. The reverberations from Princip~’s shots in the summer of 1914 ultimately took the lives of more than 10 million people, shattered four empires and dragged more than two dozen countries into war. This hot summer, as the world watches the violence in the Middle East, AND capabilities, and long-range missile technology is spreading like a virus. Some see the start of a global conflict. " We~’re in the early stages of what I would describe as the Third World War, " former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said recently. Certain religious Web sites are abuzz with talk of Armageddon. There may be as much hyperbole as prophecy in the forecasts for world war. But it~’s not hard to conjure ways that today~’s hot spots could ignite. Consider the following scenarios: Targeting Iran: As Israeli troops seek out and destroy Hezbollah forces in southern Lebanon AND against Israel — and they eventually yield, triggering a major regional war. Missiles away: With the world~’s eyes on the Middle East, North Korea~’s Kim AND , the world~’s superpower and the newest great power are nose to nose. As in the run-up to other wars, there is today more than enough tinder lying around to spark a great power conflict.The question is how effective the major powers have become at managing regional conflicts and preventing them from escalating. After two world wars and the decades-long Cold War, what has the world learned about managing conflict? The end of the Cold War had the salutary effect of dialing down many regional AND many local crises can be handed off to the humanitarians or simply ignored. But the end of the bipolar world has a downside. In the old days, the two competing superpowers sometimes reined in bellicose client states out of fear that regional conflicts would escalate. Which of the major powers today can claim to have such influence over Tehran or Pyongyang? Today~’s world has one great advantage: None of the leading powers appears determined to reorder international affairs as Germany was before both world wars and as Japan was in the years before World War II. True, China is a rapidly rising power — an often destabilizing phenomenon in international relations — but it appears inclined to focus on economic growth rather than military conquest (with the possible exception of Taiwan). Russia is resentful about its fall from superpower status, but it also seems reconciled to U.S. military dominance and more interested in tapping its massive oil and gas reserves than in rebuilding its decrepit military. Indeed, U.S. military superiority seems to be a key to global stability. Some theories of international relations predict that other major powers will eventually band together to challenge American might, but it~’s hard to find much evidence of such behavior. The United States, after all, invaded Iraq without U.N. approval and yet there was not even a hint that France, Russia or China would respond militarily.
 * Loose nukes: Al-Qaida has had Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf in its sights for years, and the organization finally gets its man. Pakistan descends into chaos as militants roam the streets and the army struggles to restore order. India decides to exploit the vacuum and punish the Kashmir-based militants it blames for the recent Mumbai railway bombings. Meanwhile, U.S. special operations forces sent to secure Pakistani nuclear facilities face off against an angry mob.
 * The empire strikes back: Pressure for democratic reform erupts in autocratic Belarus. As protesters mass outside the parliament in Minsk, president Alexander Lukashenko requests Russian support. After protesters are beaten and killed, they appeal for help, and neighboring Poland — a NATO member with bitter memories of Soviet repression — launches a humanitarian mission to shelter the regime~’s opponents. Polish and Russian troops clash, and a confrontation with NATO looms.

Independently, enforcing the embargo itself undermines the war on terror
Johnson, et al, 10 – Andy Johnson is a director in the national security program at The Third Way ("End the Embargo of Cuba", The National Security Program, 9/6/10, []

Keeping the embargo in place requires that the US government devote time and resources to AND position to fight terrorist organizations by freeing up resources currently enforcing the embargo. For example, the Treasury Department~’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), which AND to respond to the current threats posed by rogue states and terrorist networks. Cuba also remains on the State Department~’s state sponsor of terrorism list along with Iran AND in the Western Hemisphere bureau to initiate a new path for engaging Cuba.

Greater focus and resources to counter-terrorism is vital – WMD terrorism risks are increasing
Clark, 13 - Bruce Clarke is a retired Army Colonel with extensive strategic, operational and tactical experience. He is widely published on a myriad of strategic and operational subjects. Immediately prior to his retirement from the Army, Colonel Clarke was the Director of US National Security Studies at the US Army War College (Bruce, The Examiner, " The end to the war on terrorism—really?" 5/28, [])

I have been struck by the response to what my liberal friends call President Obama~’s AND and order and criminal proceedings not one that is based upon national interests. He argues, they claim, that we should favor energetic diplomacy, foreign aid and more measured responses to terrorism to the active engagement of terrorists in the past. Some have even suggested that he wants to capture terrorists and bring them to the US for trial. Thankfully even his liberal supporters understand the fallacy in this. Unfortunately this ambitious vision is unattainable because it is not based in the reality that is the world today. To say that it is fraught with risks, and hostage to forces that are out of the president~’s control would be an understatement. His poll based attempt to change the agenda (polls show an American war weariness) away from violations of the first amendment, the IRS scandal and Benghazi does not consider: He made this speech at the same time that the Saudis are concerned about the growing Iranian nuclear threat and overall threat to the region. Every arm chair strategist in Saudi Arabia has a version of the upcoming attack on the kingdom. Amid all of this uncertainty, it was telling that neither the president in his speech nor his aides afterward made any firm declarations about how his vision would be carried out. For example the vaunted reduction in drone strikes lacked any specificity. The reality that was not even mentioned in the President~’s speech is that the terrorist AND , Hezbollah or Iran~’s Revolutionary Guards will use them when they get them.
 * The toxic civil war in Syria
 * The extremist threat in Yemen
 * The American relationship with Pakistan as we seek to withdraw troops from Afghanistan
 * The increasing threat that is Iran and its proxies – Hezbollah and Hamas
 * The upcoming Islamic summer both domestically and internationally
 * The growing tensions created by Chinese attempts to dominate the South China Sea
 * The increase of Al Qaeda and its affiliated Islamic terrorist groups in North and Central Africa—the French are withdrawing from Mali, but the terrorists are not defeated, only scattered. The President~’s claim that Al Qaeda has been defeated is blatantly false according to the RAND Corporation and even some liberal think tanks.
 * Al Qaeda may be less concentrated than it was in Afghanistan but it is much more widely spread than it was.
 * North Korea~’s, reduced from the recent heights, but still present bellicosity continues
 * Finally, if all of these problems were solved he has no clear sense of what comes afterward

This risks extinction
(Robert, "After a Terrorist Nuclear Attack: Envisaging Catalytic Effects," Studies in Conflict %26 Terrorism, 33.7, InformaWorld)//BB
 * Ayson 10** - Professor of Strategic Studies and Director of the Centre for Strategic Studies: New Zealand at the Victoria University of Wellington

But these two nuclear worlds—a non-state actor nuclear attack and a AND be admitted that any preemption would probably still meet with a devastating response.

The unconditional offer of normal trade relations boosts US-Cuban relations and fosters a stable transition
Koenig, 10 – US Army Colonel, paper submitted for a Masters in Strategic Studies at the US Army War College (Lance, "Time for a New Cuba Policy" [])

The option with the greatest possibility of success and reward for the United States is to support the Cuban people, but not the Cuban government. The United States should take the following actions unilaterally: • Lift completely the economic embargo. Establish banking and financial relationships to facilitate the trading of goods and services between the two countries. • Lift completely the travel ban to allow not only Cuban-Americans with relatives but also all other Americans to travel to Cuba. This interaction of Americans with Cubans will help raise the awareness of Cubans about their northern neighbor. • Next, the United States should engage the Cuban government to develop a bilateral trade agreement. The goal of this initiative would be to achieve normal trade relations between the two countries. This leaves the issue of compensation for United States companies and individuals whose property was AND as the "Cinco Heroes" and their plight is well known.37 So what leverage do we have now that we have unilaterally given the Cuban government AND form of government is required before entering into negotiations for the Guantanamo base. Once Cuba makes changes towards a representative form of government the United States can start AND organization~’s values."39 These values include promoting democracy and defending human rights. The window of opportunity is open now for this type of change. The Obama AND the result of communism, but from the interaction with the capitalist world. There is a sound reason for unilaterally lifting the trade and travel embargoes without first AND the second and third order effects and their ability to control the outcome. One of the first problems for the Cuban government after the removal of the embargo AND the Cuban economy sputters and the government realizes they don~’t have a scapegoat. Conclusion The efforts expended by the United States to keep the embargo effective, the loss AND with the Cuban regime in a way that enhances United States interests.42 The United States cannot afford to miss out on the window of opportunity to affect AND guides her onto a path that will benefit the nations of the Americas.

US leadership is unsustainable without a highly visible commitment to multilateralism
Lake, 10– Professor of Social Sciences, distinguished professor of political science at UC San Diego (David A., "Making America Safe for the World: Multilateralism and the Rehabilitation of US authority", [])//NG

The safeguarding of US authority requires multilateralism that is broader and certainly deeper than in AND last half-century and extend it to new areas of the globe. The advanced military capabilities of the United States will make it a key actor in AND political order so that they can provide a meaningful check on US authority. Americans are likely to resist the idea of tying their hands more tightly in a AND on US foreign policy may appear too high a price to bear. 49 But if the United States is to remain the leader of the free world AND own self-interest, lead the way to a new world order.

The plan is a powerful symbol of that commitment
Burgsdorff, 9– Ph. D in Political Science from Freiburg University, EU Fellow at the University of Miami (Sven Kühn von, "Problems and Opportunities for the Incoming Obama Administration", [])//NG//

//6.3 How would the international community react? At international level all major// //AND// //it would be interpreted by the international community as steps towards effective multilateralism.//

//**====The alternative to multilateralism is unilateral militarism – the plan establishes a model for hemispheric diplomacy that sustains US leadership====**// //**Grandin 10** – teaches history at New York University and is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (Greg, "Empire~’s Senescence: U.S. Policy in Latin America," New Labor Forum, 19:1, Winter 2010, pg. 14-23)//SJF

Washington~’s relations with Latin America—particularly in terms of the gap between what its AND would be meaningless without Brazil, South America~’s largest and most dynamic economy. The U.S. would scale back its military operations in Colombia—including AND power, and political paralysis quicken the U.S.~’s fall.

The plan creates a credible model for multilateral conflict resolution

 * Dickerson 10** – Lieutenant Colonel, US Army, paper submitted in fulfillment of a Master of Strategic Studies Degree at the US Army War College (Sergio M, "UNITED STATES SECURITY STRATEGY TOWARDS CUBA," 1/14/10, http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a518053.pdf)//SJF

At the international political level, President Obama sees resuming relations with Cuba as a AND of a "new beginning" in U.S.-Cuba relations. While dismissing Cuba~’s immediate security threat to the U.S., we cannot ignore AND back to our punitive approaches to U.S. diplomacy towards Cuba. On the other hand, consider that foreign diplomacy achieves a breakthrough under Raul~’s Cuba AND continue the embargo is reached, international support would be easier to garner. Almost 21 years since the wall fell in Berlin, it is time to chip away at the diplomatic wall that still remains between U.S. and Cuba. This paper will further define our interests in Cuba and why President Obama should continue his quest for renewed diplomatic relations with Cuba. It will discuss potential risks associated with retaining the current 50-year diplomatic policy and give some broad suggestions regarding a new U.S. – Cuba foreign policy. Policy and National Interest Present U.S. policy towards Cuba is economic isolation imposed via embargo to AND Cuba policy, past opportunities and ultimate failure over the past 50 years. From 1959 to1964, beginning with President Eisenhower but shaped primarily by the Kennedy Administration AND by 1974, 45% of Cuba~’s exports came from western governments.7 The period 1965-1972, although officially endorsing the previous administration~’s tough stance, AND " in 1980 intensified this opposition and quickly derailed Carter~’s initiatives in Congress. As President Reagan took office in 1980, U.S. – Cuba relations AND Administrations made no significant concessions to Cuba and status quo between countries remained. The last meaningful opportunity for change occurred after the fall of the Berlin Wall and AND allow third country U.S. companies from trading with Cuba.15 By the time President Clinton came to office, momentum had already shifted in Cuba~’s AND tighten the noose failed terribly and only succeeded in further alienating both governments. The second Bush Administration did little to engage Cuba and after September 11, 2001, was completely engrossed in the War on Terror. U.S. policy towards Cuba has changed little in 50 years. Although the embargo continues to fail despite our best efforts to tighten it, our policy has remained steadfast and the U.S. is no closer to normalizing relations with Cuba. A History of Anger and Distrust After 50 years, deep-seated distrust and anger exists between the U. AND conditions for diplomatic success in future U.S. – Cuba relations. Experts argue over who~’s started the dispute between nations: was it the Cuban Agrarian AND encourage the long-term changes U.S. wants in Cuba. The embargo itself remains a perpetual albatross that continues to undermine any real diplomatic progress AND .S. had succeeded in isolating Cuba from its western traders.20 Tightening the noose placed extraordinary economic pressure on Cuba considering U.S. multilateral AND , and Asian countries participated in Cuba~’s largest ever annual trade fair."26 Castro~’s interest in improving U.S. - Cuba relations was perhaps the greatest AND now largely ineffective bilateral embargo served only to increase animosity between both countries. It is difficult to quantify, but essential to note, that U.S AND U.S. national interests and not the legacy of Fidel Castro. Another important pitfall is to exploit democracy as a precondition for diplomacy and economic engagement AND 28 The recommendation then focuses largely on steps to pursue a democratic Cuba. To separate security and stability from democratic pursuits in Cuba could benefit both causes. AND generation to open dialogue with Cuba without the democratic preconditions tied to negotiations. As we pursue diplomatic relations with Cuba we should not expect full disclosure, immediate AND is needed until Cuba has the confidence to commit to further diplomatic relations. Current U.S.-Cuba Policy Analysis Understanding the deep-seated animosity and distrust that continues to fuel U.S. - Cuba tensions will aid us in properly analyzing the feasibility, acceptability and suitability (FAS) of current and future U.S. policy with Cuba. Identifying FAS applications to diplomacy, information, military, economic, finance, intelligence and law enforcement (DIME-FIL) will highlight weaknesses in current U.S. – Cuba relations that can be modified for future improvement. The logical question with regards to current U.S. – Cuba policy is AND . to pursue the current course there is no evidence it will succeed. How acceptable is it to U.S. foreign policy? There are three AND . acceptability is necessary to achieve U.S. ends in Cuba. Several embargo refinements over the years like the Libertad Act have further tightened restrictions on AND , our efforts to impose embargo restrictions are unacceptable tradeoffs for homeland security. In the final analysis, U.S. – Cuba policy is not sustainable AND foregone diplomatic engagement and chosen coercive economic power as our only political tool. Does Cuba Pose A Security Threat to the U.S.? Let~’s begin by asking this question: can we afford to escort commerce through Caribbean AND are definite advantages to having healthy regional partnerships to deal with regional problems. While economic pressure has failed to bring about government change, it could trigger a AND not exist for real change in U.S. – Cuba relations. Proposed U.S.-Cuba Policy Analysis If today marks President Obama~’s "new strategy" towards Cuba we must begin with U.S. National interests in the broader Latin American context. Over the past 50 years our approach has been germane to Cuba and not the larger Latin American construct. In so doing we have isolated Cuba from Latin America for coercive reasons yes, but also for the very democratic principles we hoped Cuba would follow. The State Department~’s Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs (covers Canada and Cuba) has AND conditions and exposing them to the democratic enticements we hope they will emulate. Achieving Congressional approval will be difficult although not impossible in the present economic recession. AND these to the American public before the media or his opposition defines these. We~’ve established that coercive means have failed to achieve democracy and economic stability in Cuba AND U.S. shepherding, lead them to a more representative government. If we accept that reestablishing relations with Cuba is the first real step to a AND to allow time to reap success or mitigate failure before the next elections. The U.S. cannot afford to miss another opportunity to normalize relations with Cuba. A Cuba without Fidel is an opportunity – whether it is Raul or his replacement in 2013. The U.S. must lay the foundation today for renewed U.S. Cuba relations. Delaying could also signal the contrary to Raul Castro suspiciously awaiting the true purpose of recent U.S. concessions. While a long term goal may be to influence change in government, it cannot AND the restoration of trust that must occur before complete reciprocation can be expected. Conclusion Today, 20 years have passed since the fall of the Berlin Wall – it~’s AND Cuba. Under these conditions, diplomacy has a better chance to flourish. If the Cuban model succeeds President Obama will be seen as a true leader for AND decline in the greater global order bringing true peace for years to come.

Reliance on unilateralism will collapse US leadership and cause global wars with weapons of mass destruction
Montalván, 10 - a 17-year veteran of the U.S. Army including multiple combat tours in Iraq, master~’s of science from Columbia University~’s Graduate School of Journalism (Luis, "Multilateralism is Essential for Peace in the 21st Century" Huffington Post, 4/23, [])

Unilateralism is the wrong approach for American Diplomacy. There is nothing to suggest its AND whole world will pay the price if we let unilateralism pervade this century. As the bloodiest 100 years in recorded history, the 20th Century is replete with examples of how policy and practice intersect to foment war. The proliferation of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons and the constantly mutating dynamic of terrorism inform our current, dangerous reality. Amidst this backdrop of destruction, there are lessons for those who are looking for them. Seeds of peacemaking and conflict resolution were planted which we must germinate in order to halt and then reverse the trend toward violence and chaos. Perhaps the 21st Century could be the first 100 years in which nations invest more in building peace than in making war. In the 20th Century, local conflicts ignited global tensions and genocide on an unprecedented scale, costing incalculable life and treasure. The two world wars and other explosive conflicts erupted over such issues as ethnic disputes, the securing of natural resources, corporate interests, ideology and religion. The international business of war produced economies of scale prompted by the industrial, technological, and communications revolutions. The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria and his wife in Sarajevo by anarchist AND of Nations to prevent WWII may have galvanized our culture~’s distrust of multilateralism. Throughout the 20th Century and until today, nations and other entities have invested precious financial, intellectual, social, institutional and political capital into arming themselves with weaponry, instead of building their capacity for peace. Technologies change and improve with increasing rapidity, but those advances have included improvements in how to kill more people more efficiently and with smaller devices. WWII was the shining example of multilateralism and its power. Vietnam and Korea were examples of its limitations. South Africa and India demonstrated that the support of the international community could enable countries to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. All these contribute and form the basis of the state of nations today. The 20th Century left us at a crossroads: will we perpetuate the machinery and culture of war or surpass our greatest dreams by encouraging and enforcing peace policies and practices worldwide? The 21st Century began ominously with the attacks of September 11, 2001, which AND and increasingly matching reaction is a global culture of military aggression and war. The resulting disintegration of the international community contributed to the most serious economic disaster since the Great Depression. Already struggling to survive amidst broken economies, the proliferation of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons and global terrorism strains multilateralism when it should embolden it. If it is true that every weapon invented is eventually used, we have much to fear if we do not reverse this lethal trend. Since national conflicts frequently spill over into regional and world-wide conflict, multilateral AND at the local or national level work, why not apply it multilaterally? Concerned about the resurgence of unilateralism in the US~’s current Marjeh and Kandahar operations in Afghanistan, former Assistant Secretary of State Gene Dewey recently noted that "it~’s been very lonely being a leading multilateralist in Washington over the last nine years. Too few policy-makers have sensed where our unilateralism has led, and is leading." Saudi Arabia and other authoritarian Islamic countries generated the seeds that not only birthed the AND with peacemaking and conflict-resolution, instead of only "joint forces." At this crossroads, we can use the knowledge economy, social network and the international community to turn the rhetoric of hope into reality. We sit upon an historical precipice of policies and practices of sustainable, culturally responsive peace-building and violence prevention within and beyond our borders. Despite their faults, the institutions set up after in response to WWII (UN) and the Cold War (NATO) can be the 21st Century~’s vehicles for peace. We can use those instruments of multilateralism to build the peacekeeping, disaster relief, and conflict resolution forces that bring countries together. "Actually, I believe we have strategically shifted from that of a global war AND U.S. Army (Currently on his second tour in Iraq) Concerns over economic stability, limited resources and security have divided us. Now is the time to create rather than divide common ground.

Any step short of unconditional removal means won~’t create the same symbol of multilateralism
Vivanco 6- LLM from Harvard Law School, Americas director of Humans Rights Watch (Jose Miguel, "Restraint, not force, will bring change to Cuba", humans rights watch, 12/22/06, [], google scholar)//KW

This reluctance would be understandable but misguided. Most Cubans do want change. If they do not call for it after Mr Castro~’s death, it will be largely for the same reason they did not during his lifetime: the country~’s repressive machinery, which ruined countless lives, remains intact today. If the international community misreads this silence, it will miss a historic opportunity. AND
 * the heroic image of the Latin American David confronting the US Goliath.

Whether Raúl Castro can claim the "David" role will depend largely on Washington AND Cuba, they were unwilling to be seen as siding with a bully. To its credit, the Bush administration responded to news of Mr Castro~’s decline in AND the Cuban government make concessions when the embargo helps keep it in power? Yet, it would be naïve to think the embargo~’s end would prompt the Cuban AND when the US stops acting like Goliath will Cuba stop looking like David.