US Security Advantage

1AC --- Security Advantage

Enforcing the Cuban embargo overstretches US national
security assets --- prevents effective counter-terror and antiprolif efforts

International Debates 7 From the November 2007 Government Accountability Office

report Economic Sanctions: Agencies Face Competing Priorities in Enforcing the U.S.
Economic Embargo on Cuba. Enforcing Economic Sanctions Government
Accountability Office Analysis, International Debates, February 2009, Vol. 7 Issue 2,
p21-22.
Since 2004, the United States has tightened the rules governing these exceptions--directly affecting Cuban
Americans and other Americans who have sought to conduct authorized
travel and cash remittances -- to further deny Cuba hard currency. However, U.S. agencies cannot determine the actual impact of the rule changes on the
availability of hard currency to Cuba, in part because available data cannot reflect unauthorized travel and remittances -- travel licenses are easily counterfeited, travelers may transit through

Following the
September 2001 terrorist attacks, several agencies redirected resources
from enforcing the Cuba embargo to accomplishing homeland and national
security priorities, such as stopping terrorism, weapons proliferation,
narcotics trafficking, and money laundering. For example, reflecting DHS's strategic emphasis on targeting its resources to
countries that oppose the embargo, and new technologies for remittances and other international money transfers make tracking such remittances impossible.

priority threats and vulnerabilities, Immigration and Customs Enforcement devoted 30 percent fewer staff hours to investigating Cuba embargo violations in Fiscal Years (FY) 2002-2006 than in

, two agencies maintained a focus on

enforcing the Cuba embargo. Based on its assessment of the risk of embargo violations after 2004, DHS's Customs and Border Protection increased its
the previous five fiscal years. However, reflecting administration policy and embargo rule changes

intensive, secondary inspections of arrivals from Cuba at Miami International Airport -- one of the Nation's busiest -- and, in FY 2007, conducted secondary inspections of 20 percent of arrivals

. Our analysis of CBP data and interviews with CBP officials show that this
intensive inspection of travelers and the numerous resulting seizures of
small amounts of Cuban-made products have sometimes occupied a majority of the
airport's secondary inspection facilities and delayed inspections of other
passengers, straining the agency's resources for accomplishing its priority
mission: keeping terrorists, criminals, and inadmissible aliens out of the
country while facilitating the flow of legitimate trade and travel. This impact is especially troublesome in the
context of recent GAO reports of weaknesses in CBP's inspections capacity at major ports
of entry nationwide, which increase the potential of terrorists' and
inadmissible travelers' entering the country. In addition, since 2000, Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control
(OFAC) -- responsible for administering more than 20 sanctions programs -- has conducted more investigations and issued more penalties
related to the Cuba embargo than for all of the other sanctions programs it
administers. OFAC officials stated that Cuba embargo cases required fewer resources, but they could not provide data
showing that the agency's resource allocations appropriately support its
responsibility to enforce other sanctions, including those on countries
engaged in terrorism, weapons proliferation, and narcotics trafficking.
from Cuba versus 3 percent of arrivals from other countries

AND, US security reports confirm that the risk of nuclear

terrorism in Latin America is high
Ferkaluk, Brian 10. Executive Officer to the Commander at 88 Air Base
Wing
Logistics Readiness Officer at United States Air Force from Norwich
University. Latin America: Terrorist Actors on a Nuclear Stage, Global
Security Studies, 2010, Volume 1, Issue 3.

The TBA is a small area in Latin America where the borders of

Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay meet. This region has
historically been used for arms and drugs smuggling,
document fraud, money laundering and the manufacture and
movement of contraband goods in the border region
small

where their three countries meet.8

Lately, the region has not been plagued with this activity as it normally is. This came as a result of the 3+1 policy between the US and the TBA nations. It was a concerted effort by all four parties to

the US congress has expressed

great concern that Hezbollah and Hamas sympathizers from the
areas large Muslim population continue to raise funds for
these groups. This remains a concern despite the fact that no
operational Hezbollah or Hamas presence has been confirmed
there
however, two significant terrorist bombings in the
area caused by Hezbollah, both Jewish targets.
thwart all money laundering and other terrorist funding activities in the region. However,

. There have been,

The first was a 1992 bombing of the Israeli embassy

in Buenos Aires and the other was a 1994 bombing of the Argentine-Israeli Mutual Association (AMIA) in the same city. The US congress in 2007 passed H.Con. Res 188 which commended the
Argentine government for its proactive efforts in the AMIA investigation and called on the General Assembly of Interpol to issue red notices for five Iranian nationals indicted for the bombing. The

Latin America: Terrorist Actors on

a Nuclear Stage condemned the AMIA bombing and called on
Western Hemisphere governments to take actions to curb
activities that supported Hezbollah and other Islamist terrorist
organizations
These activities are not exclusive only to the TBA.
There are specific Latin American states that are causing great
concern to the US, particularly Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua.
congress went even further and passed H.Con.Res. 385 in 2008 which officially 115

. The actions taken by the US in regards to this area is demonstrative of an increasing trend that it is closely monitoring lest the activities undermine US

interests in the entire region.

This
comes in light of the pink tide, but is reinforced by the Iranian governments increased interest in influencing the region because of its geographic location to the United States border.

Latin America is the critical staging point for terrorist attacks

against the US
Farah, 07 Douglas Farah is IASCs Senior Fellow, Financial Investigations and

Transparency. Farah specializes in research, writing and training on transnational

criminal organizations and armed groups and their affects on states and corruption;
terrorism, terror finance and proliferation; and, illicit financial flow. The Growing
Terrorism Challenges from Latin America, International Assessment and Strategy
Center, February 18, 2007.
http://www.strategycenter.net/research/pubID.149/pub_detail.asp
The threat of these groups is magnified by the potential alliances between radical
Islamist groups (predominately Shia because of their more formal presence, but not exclusively) and the powerful,
wealthy criminal networks that have deep roots in the hemisphere. These
networks already possess the capacity to move tons of illegal drugs, thousands of
vehicles, sophisticated weaponry and large numbers of illegal immigrants
across the U.S. border, all capacities that Islamist groups can take advantage
of and could desire to engage with. As Gen. James Hill testified in 2004, when he was commander of US SOUTHCOM:
Beyond narcoterrorist and gang violence, branches of Middle Eastern
terrorist organizations conduct support activities in the Southern Command
area of responsibility. Islamic radical group supporters, extending from the Caribbean basin to the tri-border area of Paraguay, Argentina
and Brazil, conduct fund raising activities. Terrorists who have planned or participated in attacks
in the Middle East and the United States, such as captured high profile al Qaida terrorist Khalid Shaihk Mohammed,
have spent time in the region. Supporters generate illicit funds through
money laundering, drug trafficking, arms deals, human smuggling, piracy,
and document forgery. They funnel tens of millions of dollars every year

back to their parent organizations in the Middle East, thus extending the
global support structure of international terrorism to this hemisphere. Not
surprisingly, Islamic radical groups, narcoterrorists in Colombia, and urban
gangs across Latin America all practice many of the same illicit business
methods.[23] The criminal organizations have access to the United States
and, if they should choose, could facilitate an attack by Islamist groups who
could pay for their services. As has been shown in Africa and elsewhere, radical Islamic groups are willing to form short-term
tactical alliances with criminal groups (the Madrid bombings, the blood diamond trade in West Africa), despite the lack of ideological or theological kinship with
their temporary allies. There is evidence that such alliances have already been formed, at least on a temporary basis. In little-noticed Congressional testimony in
March 2006, FBI Director Robert Mueller said his agency had broken up a human smuggling ring "in which Hezbollah operatives were assisting others with some
association with Hezbollah in coming to the United States." Mueller admitted that Hezbollah had succeeded in smuggling some of its operatives across the border,
telling the House committee: "That was an organization that we dismantled and identified those persons who had been smuggled in. And they have been addressed

There has also been relatively little attention paid, on a policy and
intelligence level, to the newer role of transnational criminal youth gangs
based in Central America, such as Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) and Mara Calle18. Yet these groups, with
aggregate membership now in the tens of thousands, pose a clear threat to
U.S. critical infrastructure because of their strong organizations across the
United States, their familiarity with weapons and explosives and rigid,
brutally-enforced discipline. The U.S. military estimates that there are now
at least 70,000 gang members in Central America and that "the level of
sophistication and brutality of these gangs is without precedent ."[25] In 2005, the FBI
as well."[24]

declared the MS-13 the most dangerous street gang in America, with as many as 10,000 members, operating in almost every state.

Weak border enforcement ensures that terrorists smuggle

nuclear weapons into the US
Joyner 9 [Christopher C: Professor of Government and Foreign Service at

Georgetown, June 22nd, Article: Nuclear terrorism in a globalizing world: assessing the
threat and the emerging management regime, http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1216486733.html]
During the last decade, the determination of al-Qaeda to acquire nuclear weapons, the
information and communication powers afforded to them by globalization, and the existence of fissile
nuclear materials in unstable regions have all contributed to the transformation of the
threat of nuclear terrorism from a hypothetical scenario into a policy issue of grave concern. (27) In its
examination of the terrorist threats facing the United States after the events of September 11, 2001, the 9/11 Commission
averred that, "[p]reventing terrorists from gaining access to weapons of mass destruction must be elevated above all other
problems of national security ... [the President] should develop a comprehensive plan to dramatically accelerate the
timetable for securing all nuclear weapons material around the world." (28) This report was based on the discovery of
documents by the United States describing the extent of al-Qaeda's nuclear ambitions. In 1998, Osama bin Laden declared
that the acquisition of nuclear weapons was a "religious duty." (29) Since this time, reports indicate that al-Qaeda has
made numerous attempts to purchase nuclear weapons on the black market, but these efforts have been thwarted by
supposed sellers scamming al-Qaeda. (30) Indeed, the CIA's Bin Laden Unit has documented what it describes as a
"professional" attempt to acquire nuclear weapons by al-Qaeda, which prompted the conclusion that "there could be no
doubt after this date [late 1996] that al-Qaeda was in deadly earnest in seeking nuclear weapons. (31) This particular
attempt even involved meetings with Pakistani nuclear scientists, as well as calls for other scientists with nuclear expertise
to join the fight against the United States. In spite of the disruption of al-Qaeda's network since the War on Terror began
in 2001, U.S. officials continue to warn that its members retain the ability to launch terrorist nuclear attacks coordinated
from its new bases in Pakistan. (32) As such, the desire of al-Qaeda to conduct massive nuclear

attacks against the United States is one of the principal factors that has made nuclear
terrorism a real threat in the 21st century. The danger that al-Qaeda's nuclear ambitions pose to the
United States is compounded by the manner in which the processes of globalization have
impacted the world. These impacts have not only empowered other purveyors of jihadist violence, but they
also have simplified the means by which such terrorists can smuggle and deliver nuclear
weapons to their intended targets. Notwithstanding the debate over the pros and cons of globalization, it is
widely accepted that, "[t]he technological revolution presupposes global computerized networks and the free
movement of goods, information, and peoples across national boundaries." (33) In the same ways that
these occurrences facilitate more efficient functioning of daily life in many states, globalization concomitantly creates
more and speedier networks through which international terrorist organizations can perpetrate violent attacks. (34)
Technological innovations such as the internet and telecommunication networks that have accompanied globalization

allow terrorists to communicate with one another across the globe, and thus contribute to the ease with which they can
orchestrate and execute complex missions. (35) With respect to nuclear terrorism, terrorists can now discover the location
of fissile materials and plan attacks on nuclear facilities with much greater ease. Meanwhile, they are also able to utilize
tools like the internet to disseminate and access information concerning the construction of nuclear devices. (36) As such,
globalization has allowed terrorist groups like AI-Qaeda to transform themselves into powerful non-state actors with
specialized technological knowledge that can subvert the goals of powerful states. (37) Moreover, globalization

enables terrorist groups to transport nuclear weapons more stealthily from their places
of origin to intended targets. As a result of globalization and commercial liberalization, massive amounts of
international trade and commerce occur everyday. Given the sheer volume of goods entering all states, the chance of
detecting illicit commodities is lower. (38) In the case of the United States, as of late 2008 there were 317 entry points into
the country, which makes the volume of goods entering the United States that much more difficult to detect and
thoroughly examine. (39) This is significant because, with respect to nuclear materials, only small amounts of easily
concealable fissile material are needed to create dangerous devices. Accordingly, physical detection is made more difficult
and smuggling nuclear material in large containers becomes more practicable. (40) Electronic detection instruments,
while in development and being tested in limited cases, have not yet been fully deployed. (41) Meanwhile, large

amounts of illegal drugs and immigrants enter even the most highly industrialized countries like the
United States every year, testifying to the ease with which groups could simply smuggle
nuclear materials across porous state borders. (42)These developments render the threat
of nuclear terrorism a far more serious policy issue than previously acknowledged, as they afford
terrorist organizations greater power and easier means to accomplish their nuclear
ambitions to destroy western societies. (43) Meanwhile, globalization means that "new threats cannot be
contained and controlled within one State" and will consequently require international solutions. (44)

Nuclear terrorism causes extinction

Hellman 8 [Martin E. Hellman, emeritus prof of engineering @ Stanford, Risk

Analysis of Nuclear Deterrence SPRING 2008 THE BENT OF TAU BETA PI,
http://www.nuclearrisk.org/paper.pdf]
The threat of nuclear terrorism looms much larger in the publics mind than the threat of a full-scale nuclear war, yet this article focuses
primarily on the latter. An explanation is therefore in order before proceeding. A terrorist attack involving a nuclear weapon
would be a catastrophe of immense proportions: A 10-kiloton bomb detonated at Grand Central Station on a typical work day
would likely kill some half a million people, and inflict over a trillion dollars in direct economic damage. America and its way of life would be changed forever. [Bunn 2003, pages viii-ix].

The likelihood of such an attack is also significant. Former Secretary of Defense William Perry has estimated
the chance of a nuclear terrorist incident within the next decade to be roughly 50 percent [Bunn 2007, page 15].
David Albright, a former weapons inspector in Iraq, estimates those odds at less than one percent, but notes, We would never accept a situation where the chance of a major nuclear
accident like Chernobyl would be anywhere near 1% .... A nuclear terrorism attack is a low-probability event, but we cant live in a world where its anything but extremely low-probability.

In a survey of 85 national security experts, Senator Richard Lugar found a median

an attack involving a nuclear explosion occurring somewhere in
the world in the next 10 years, with 79 percent of the respondents believing it more
likely to be carried out by terrorists than by a government [Lugar 2005, pp. 14-15]. I support increased efforts to
reduce the threat of nuclear terrorism, but that is not inconsistent with the approach of this article. Because terrorism is one of the potential trigger
mechanisms for a full-scale nuclear war, the risk analyses proposed herein will include estimating the risk of nuclear terrorism as one
[Hegland 2005].

estimate of 20 percent for the probability of

component of the overall risk. If that risk, the overall risk, or both are found to be unacceptable, then the proposed remedies would be directed to reduce which- ever risk(s) warrant
attention. Similar remarks apply to a number of other threats (e.g., nuclear war between the U.S. and China over Taiwan). his article would be incomplete if it only dealt with the threat of
nuclear terrorism and neglected the threat of full- scale nuclear war. If both risks are unacceptable, an effort to reduce only the terrorist component would leave humanity in great peril. In

societys almost total neglect of the threat of full-scale nuclear war makes studying
that risk all the more important. The cosT of World War iii The danger associated with nuclear deterrence depends on both the cost of a failure and
fact,

the failure rate.3 This section explores the cost of a failure of nuclear deterrence, and the next section is concerned with the failure rate. While other definitions are possible, this article
defines a failure of deterrence to mean a full-scale exchange of all nuclear weapons available to the U.S. and Russia, an event that will be termed World War III. Approximately 20 million
people died as a result of the first World War. World War IIs fatalities were double or triple that numberchaos prevented a more precise deter- mination. In both cases humanity
recovered, and the world today bears few scars that attest to the horror of those two wars. Many people therefore implicitly believe that a third World War would be horrible but survivable,
an extrapola- tion of the effects of the first two global wars. In that view, World War III, while horrible, is something that humanity may just have to face and from which it will then have to
recover. In contrast, some of those most qualified to assess the situation hold a very different view. In a 1961 speech to a joint session of the Philippine Con- gress, General Douglas

No longer does
it possess even the chance of the winner of a duel. It contains now only the germs of
double suicide. Former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara ex- pressed a similar view: If deterrence fails and conflict develops, the present U.S. and NATO strategy
carries with it a high risk that Western civilization will be destroyed [McNamara 1986, page 6]. More recently, George Shultz, William Perry,
MacArthur, stated, Global war has become a Frankenstein to destroy both sides. If you lose, you are annihilated. If you win, you stand only to lose.

Henry Kissinger, and Sam Nunn4 echoed those concerns when they quoted President Reagans belief that nuclear weapons were totally irrational, totally inhu- mane, good for nothing but
killing, possibly destructive of life on earth and civilization. [Shultz 2007] Official studies, while couched in less emotional terms, still convey the horrendous toll that World War III would

The resulting deaths would be far beyond any precedent

exact:
. Executive branch calculations show a range of U.S.
deaths from 35 to 77 percent (i.e., 79-160 million dead) a change in targeting could kill somewhere between 20 million and 30 million additional people on each side .... These
calculations reflect only deaths during the first 30 days. Additional millions would be injured, and many would eventually die from lack of adequate medical care millions of people might
starve or freeze during the follow- ing winter, but it is not possible to estimate how many. further millions might eventually die of latent radiation effects. [OTA 1979, page 8] This
OTA report also noted the possibility of serious ecological damage [OTA 1979, page 9], a concern that as- sumed a new potentiality when the TTAPS report [TTAPS 1983] proposed that the
ash and dust from so many nearly simultaneous

nuclear explosions and their resultant fire- storms could usher in a nuclear

winter that might erase homo sapiens from the face of the earth,

much as many scientists now

believe the K-T Extinction that wiped out the dinosaurs resulted from an impact winter caused by ash and dust from a large asteroid or comet striking Earth. The TTAPS report produced a

even
a limited nuclear exchange or one between newer nuclear-weapon states, such as India and Pakistan, could have devastating
long-lasting climatic consequences due to the large volumes of smoke that would be generated by fires in modern megacities. While it is
heated debate, and there is still no scientific consensus on whether a nuclear winter would follow a full-scale nuclear war. Recent work [Robock 2007, Toon 2007] suggests that

uncertain how destructive World War III would be, prudence dictates that we apply the same engi- neering conservatism that saved the Golden Gate Bridge from collapsing on its 50th
anniversary and assume that

preventing World War III is a necessity not an option.

Independently, nuclear proliferation increases the risk of

nuclear war
Glennon, 13 Michel J Glennon is the author of numerous articles on constitutional

and international law as well as several books and the professor of international Law at
the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, in Medford, Massachusetts.
Pre-empting Proliferation: International Law, Morality, and Nuclear Weapons, The
European Journal of International Law, 2013. EBSCO.
In truth, because the track record, happily, is bare, no one knows whether
conventional war between nuclear powers would risk nuclear escalation.
Nonetheless, I share the belief of Scott Sagan, Bruce Blair,7 and others that the
danger of nuclear escalation in such circumstances is not negligible. The
claim that peace among the nuclear powers has been the product of 8 their nuclear
arsenals assumes without evidence that other factors have not contributed to these
decades of peace. Deterrence no doubt has played a role, but surely the story is a bit
more complex. Whatever stability the possession of nuclear weapons might
provide at the margins is, in any event, likely to be offset by the risks
entailed by proliferation. The more states that acquire nuclear weapons the
more states will want them; the more states that want them the more
available will be the technology and fissile materials needed to make them,
and the greater will be the chance that those weapons will be used,
rationally or irrationally. Use by one state against another would break the
taboo against further use and risk a world of nuclear armed anarchy.9 Use
by terrorists could generate a witch hunt to ferret out and punish the perpetrators that
would crack the legal and political foundations of liberal democracy. Any use would
almost surely cause massive, horrific suffering. Nuclear proliferation
therefore poses a threat to both the United States and the international
community.

2AC XTs

XT Embargo = Wasted Resources

The resources are going to waste
Thomas Omestad, 02 covers international affairs and diplomacy. In his
10-plus years with U.S. News, he has covered Mideast peace efforts,
Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez, Cuba under Fidel Castro, Syrias
government, anti-Americanism, Georgias new democracy, Taiwanese
democracy, Muslims in Europe, Libyas future, Moroccos Islamists,
German politics, post-authoritarian Indonesia, North Korean political
prisons and nuclear challenge, reform efforts in Iran, and more. He writes
on general issues of U.S. foreign policy. He occasionally travels with the
press corps that accompanies the president and secretary of state. So,
Whats Castro Smoking? U.S. News & World Report, 4/29/2002, Vol. 132
Issue 14, p27. EBSCO

a White House review of Cuba policy due

this month will probably recommend ways to crack down on illegal travel,
scrutinize and limit legal trips, and expand the reach of exile-run Radio and TV Marti on the island. In 2001, the
administration quadrupled the number of fines levied for illicit visits to
Cuba. And yet, only a tiny fraction of the estimated 120,000 violators last year
were caught. Nor are the Bush team's views on the subject monolithic. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill told
senators he would rather use the funds for policing Cuba travel to catch
terrorists. His candor tripped an alarm within the administration, and within hours he, in effect, disowned his comments. "Hostile." The State
Even as Congress moves toward easing the travel and embargo restrictions,

Department still accuses Cuba of sponsoring terrorism. It cites Castro's links to Colombian and Basque extremists--Havana gives some of them refuge--and the
sanctuary Cuba grants some 20 U.S. criminal fugitives. "Cuba is a national security issue," declares a U.S. policy adviser. "Cuba is a hostile state." So U.S.
intelligence agencies are studying Cuba's capacity to mount cyberattacks, and officials might seek an indictment of Castro for the 1996 shoot-down of two planes
flown near Cuban airspace by Miami-based exiles.

XT LA = Terrorist Threat
Latin America is the critical location for US anti-terror efforts
Mark Sullivan, 13. Specialist in Latin American Affairs. Latin America: Terrorism

Issues, Congressional Research Service, April 5, 2013.

http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=2063&context=key_workplace
U.S. attention to terrorism in Latin America intensified in the aftermath of
the September 2001 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, with an increase in bilateral and regional cooperation. In its 2011
Country Reports on Terrorism (issued in July 2012), the State Department maintained that the threat of a
transnational terrorist attack remained low for most countries in the
hemisphere. It reported that the majority of terrorist attacks in the hemisphere were
committed by two Colombian terrorist groups the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the National
Liberation Army (ELN)and other radical groups in the Andean region. With regard to Mexico, the report asserted that there was no evidence of ties between Mexican drug trafficking
organizations and terrorist groups, and no evidence that these criminal organizations had aims of political or territorial control, aside from seeking to protect and expand the impunity with which
they conduct their criminal activity.Cuba has remained on the State Departments list of state sponsors of terrorism since 1982 pursuant to Section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act.

Both Cuba and Venezuela are on the State Departments annual list of
countries determined to be not cooperating fully with U.S. antiterrorism
efforts pursuant to Section 40A of the Arms Export Control Act. U.S. officials have expressed concerns over the
past several years about Venezuelas lack of cooperation on antiterrorism
efforts, its relations with Iran, and potential support for Colombian
terrorist groups, although improved Venezuelan-Colombian relations have resulted in closer cooperation on antiterrorism and counter-narcotics efforts and border
security. Over the past several years, policymakers have been concerned about Irans
increasing activities in Latin America. Concerns center on Irans attempts to circumvent U.N. and U.S. sanctions, as well as on its ties to
the radical Lebanon-based Islamic group Hezbollah. Both Iran and Hezbollah are reported to be linked to two bombings against Jewish targets in Argentina in the early 1990s. As in past years, the

ideological
sympathizers in South America and the Caribbean continued to provide
financial and moral support to these and other terrorist groups in the
Middle East and South Asia.
State Department 2011 terrorism report maintains that there are no known operational cells of either Al Qaeda or Hezbollah in the hemisphere, but noted that

Latin American Countries are Causing a threat to US National

Security
Evan Brown, 09. Brown is a writer for the University of Pittsburgh, Matthew B.

Ridgway Center for International Security Studies. DRUG TRAFFICKING, VIOLENCE,

AND INSTABILITY IN MEXICO, COLOMBIA, AND THE CARIBBEAN: IMPLICATIONS
FOR U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY, Strategic Studies Institute, October 28, 2009,
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB968.pdf
The conference focused on a national security challenge which has to this point been contained but
is taking dramatically new and dangerous forms. The emergence of new criminal
groups in Colombia, increased violence in Mexico, and the possible spread of
these criminal activities to Cuba and other Caribbean islands, create new instabilities which
could result in one or more strategic shocks, in an area which is both the backyard
and soft underbelly of the United States . Even if this does not occur, the growing violence and instability in Mexico
and the Caribbean will clearly demand greater attention in the future. Until now, Mexico has been seen as simply a border problem . As the
trafficking organizations continue to defy authorities, undermine
governance, and escalate violence, Mexico has become much more of a
national security challenge. Several Caribbean states could fall into the same category. This conference offered an important
opportunity to assess these threats, and to consider what can be done to counter them.

XT Cuba = Terrorist Threat

Cuba = safe haven for terrorism
Ferkaluk, Brian 10. Executive Officer to the Commander at 88 Air Base
Wing
Logistics Readiness Officer at United States Air Force from Norwich
University. Latin America: Terrorist Actors on a Nuclear Stage, Global
Security Studies, 2010, Volume 1, Issue 3.

Although Cuba is the only state in Latin America that is officially on the State
Departments list of state sponsors of terrorism, there are other sources of aid
domestic terrorists can turn to. For instance, Venezuela provided key support to the
FARC. Caracas supplied some logistical, financial and lethal aid to the FARC9 Hugo
Chavez has publicly praised FARC leaders, calling for them to be classified as belligerent
forces, not terrorist groups. Although the report does not say that the Venezuela has
provided anything on the same line as safe haven, the FARC has found a willing
supporter in Cuba. The Cuban government provided safe haven in addition
to some medical care and some vital political consultation. This is not only
the case with FARC. Members of the Basque Fatherland, Liberty ETA and
National Liberation Army (ELN) also remained on Cuban soil for the bulk of
2008. Some of these members arrived in Cuba on official business, some in connection
with peace negotiations with the Spanish government and others with the Columbian
government. This asylum came coupled with public support from Cuban
officials, particularly for the FARC. This type of activity is not exclusively tied
to support for domestic terrorist groups. The Cuban government was also
reported to have permitted US fugitives legal residence in Cub . These groups
included members of Boricua Popular, or Macheteros, and the Black Liberation Army
These unabashed acts demonstrate the threat that leftwing governments can
and have posed to the US. Cuba has proven to be the oldest and most trying
state in the region. Although Cuba is the only state in the region that is on the US
list of state sponsors of terrorism, it is hardly the only state that threatens the US by
sustaining terrorist activity. Many Latin American states have not only shown that they
do not intend to fully cooperate with US efforts to combat terrorism, but they also
establish and strengthen ties with enemies of the US, particularly Iran. President
Ahmadinejad has made no secret of his intentions to exude Iranian influence in Latin
America. The US government has already taken note of this trend.
a

XT Terrorists Leak Through Border

Terrorist will easily leak through US borders absent effective
enforcement
Berman et al 7-15, Ilan. He focuses on regional security in the Middle East,

Central Asia, and the Russian Federation.[1] Lou Dobbs of CNN described him as "one of
the [U.S.]'s leading experts on the Middle East and Iran. Terror can Leak in Through
Americas Borders, US News, July 15, 2013.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2013/07/15/iran-operations-inlatin-america-are-a-threat-to-the-us
But the report does little of the sort . Rather, it contends that, in the main, Iran's activities in Latin America are nothing to worry
about. According to the Washington Times, the study which remains mostly classified concludes that "Iran is not supporting active terrorist cells in the

This represents
a dangerous misreading of Iran's threat potential in the Americas. First,
while it is true that comparatively few Iranian-sponsored attacks have come
to fruition in the Western Hemisphere to date, the danger is far from
negligible. In fact, Iran has attempted to attack the U.S. homeland at least twice
in the last decade: in 2007, when Guyanese national Abdul Kadir attempted to blow up fuel tanks at New York's John F. Kennedy
Airport, and again in October 2011 , when U.S. law enforcement authorities thwarted a plot by Iran's Revolutionary Guards to
Western Hemisphere" and that the Iranian regime "has far less influence and activities" in the region than commonly believed.

assassinate Saudi Arabia's ambassador to Washington, Adel al-Jubeir, at a D.C. restaurant.

2AC Add-Ons

Hegemony
Embargo ruins U.S. hegemony
Adams, John 11. General Adams holds Masters in International Relations (Boston

University), English (University of Massachusetts), and Strategic Studies (US Army War
College). 10 Reasons to Oppose the Embargo, Center for Democracy in the Americas.
October 21, 2011. http://www.democracyinamericas.org/blog-post/10-reasons-tooppose-the-embargo/
The U.S. embargo against Cuba is a Cold War relic that hurts America and Cuba by
preventing normal trade and travel between our two countries . From the perspective of U.S.
national security, not only does the embargo prevent our cooperation with Cuba on
common security issues such as crime and terrorism, it hurts U.S. standing
throughout the world by highlighting our aggression against a neighboring
country that poses no threat. The United States demeans itself by this futile
and hypocritical policy. It is long past time to repeal the U.S. embargo against Cuba.

Environment
Embargo ruins the environment
Whittle, Daniel 11 Daniel Whittle directs EDF's work to advance conservation of

marine and coastal ecosystems in Cuba. He works with Cuban scientists, lawyers and
resource managers to identify and implement collaborative strategies for fisheries
management, coral reef conservation, and sustainable coastal development in Cuba and
the region. 10 Reasons to Oppose the Embargo, Center for Democracy in the Americas.
October 21, 2011. http://www.democracyinamericas.org/blog-post/10-reasons-tooppose-the-embargo/
Oil drilling in Cuban waters creates an unprecedented urgency to rethink U.S. policy
toward Cuba. An oil spill in Cuba could be disastrous to shorelines, marine
life, coastal communities and livelihoods in both countries. The U.S. should
eliminate political and legal obstacles that hinder its ability to share
expertise if an emergency occurs in shared waters. The Obama Administration has taken some positive steps to promote scientific exchange and
dialogue on environmental protection with Cuba. Environmental diplomacydone right and carried out in good faithcan
lay a foundation for real and lasting improvement in Cuba-U.S. relations.

Soft Power
The embargo undermines the image of the United States
throughout the world
Rumbaut, Ruben 11 Dr. Rumbaut is best known for his research on immigration

and refugee movements, generations, and transitions to adulthood. For more than three
decades, he has directed seminal comparative empirical studies of the adaptation of
immigrants and refugees in the United States. 10 Reasons to Oppose the Embargo,
Center for Democracy in the Americas. October 21, 2011.
http://www.democracyinamericas.org/blog-post/10-reasons-to-oppose-the-embargo/
The U.S. trade and travel embargo against Cuba is the longest in history, and the most
senseless and irredeemable. It is the act of a bully, based on pique. It is an abysmal
moral and political failure, diminishing not Cuba but the U.S. in world opinion and
respect. It has achieved the opposite of what it has sought, hurting both the Cuban people as well as U.S. interests. The
embargo is opposed by virtually the entire world as well as large domestic
majorities, even Cuban exiles and dissidents; yet, the U.S. government persists with its petty punitive policy, not out of reasoned principle but for
internal political posturing. The spectacle of the worlds largest economy and sole
superpower, seeking in vain for half a century to strangle a baseball-loving small developing
nation that dared to defy it, is a modern David and Goliath story and no one loves Goliath.

Prolif
AND, Relations are key to preventing nuclear proliferation in
the region.
Ferkaluk, Brian 10. Executive Officer to the Commander at 88 Air Base
Wing
Logistics Readiness Officer at United States Air Force from Norwich
University. Latin America: Terrorist Actors on a Nuclear Stage, Global
Security Studies, 2010, Volume 1, Issue 3

The close relationship the US must maintain with Latin America is not only
vital in the fight against domestic and international terrorism, but also in
the fight to curtail nuclear proliferation in the region . Although there is no immediate risk of Latin
America in becoming a haven for a nuclear arms race, it could pose a serious threat of pursuing nuclear
weapons in the coming years if the civilian-run governments of these states
fall victim to leftist revolutionaries. Another factor to consider is the fact that Latin America has
historically been active in both nuclear weapons development and nuclear
power development. And given Latin Americas tendency toward military
junta regimes (stratocracy), the US cannot turn a blind eye to the possibility of
nuclear activity in Latin America. All Latin American countries are party to
the NPT. Not all are members of international conventions such as the Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage and not all adopt an
Additional Protocol (AP) to their safeguards agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The region itself has been declared a nuclear-free
zone according to the Treaty of Tlatelolco. It entered into force in 1969 and did not have all 33 Latin American states sign onto it until Cuba added its name in

Brazil, for instance, has not let the

Treaty of Tlatelolco stand in the way of its own weapons development
program in the late 1970s. And Venezuela today is not letting it stand in its
way either. The most significant weakness of the treaty is the fact that it permits parties of the treaty to develop nuclear explosives for peaceful
2002. However, the treaty itself has not served as an absolute ban of nuclear weapons in the region.

purposes. Therefore, Latin America has served as battlefield in the fight for non-proliferation. According to Ken Berry, the research coordinator for the

Three countries from the Latin

American region are known to have at one time or another harbored desires to acquire
nuclear weapons: Argentina and Brazil, particularly during the years of military dictatorship there, through indigenous
programs of their own, while Cuba intended to allow the deployment of Soviet missiles
with nuclear warheads on its territory.13 With the fall of the Soviet Union, Cuba has abandoned any hope of
International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament (ICNND),

permitting nuclear warheads on its soil despite the fact that it still possesses a nuclear research reactor from the Soviet era. Both Argentina and Brazil cancelled
their nuclear programs after their governments transferred from stratocracies to civilian-run governments.

AND, Nuke War Causes Extinction

Carl Sagan, 04. an American astronomer, astrophysicist, cosmologist, author, science
popularizer and science communicator in astronomy and natural sciences. He published
more than 600 scientific papers[2] and articles and was author, co-author or editor of
more than 20 books. NUCLEAR WAR AND CLIMATIC CATASTROPHE: SOME
POLICY IMPLICATIONS, Foreign Affairs, 2004, EBSCO.

the scenario described here is by no means the most severe that could be
imagined with present world nuclear arsenals and those
contemplated for the near future. In almost any realistic case
involving nuclear exchanges between the superpowers, global
environmental changes sufficient to cause an extinction event
equal to or more severe than that at the close of the Cretaceous when the
dinosaurs and many other species died out are likely. In that
event, the possibility of the extinction of Homo sapiens cannot
Furthermore,

be excluded. The foregoing probable consequences of various nuclear war scenarios have implications for doctrine and policy. Some
have argued that the difference between the deaths of several
hundred million people in a nuclear war (as has seen thought until recently to be a reasonable upper
limit) and the death of every person on Earth (as now seems
possible) is only a matter of one order of magnitude . for me, the difference is
considerably greater. Restrict- ing our attention only to those who die as a
consequence of the war conceals its full impact . If we are required to calibrate extinction in
numerical terms, I would be sure to include the number of people in future generations who would not be born. A nuclear war
imperils all of our descend- ants, for as long as there will he
humans. Even if the population remains static, with an average lifetime of the order of 100 years, over a typical time period for the biological evolution
of a successful species (roughly ten million years), we are talking ahout some 500 trillion people yet to come. By this criterion, the stakes are
one million times greater for extinction than for the more
modest nuclear wars that kill "only" hundreds of millions of
people.There are many other possible measures of the potential
loss including culture and science, the evolutionary history of
the planet, and the significance of the lives of all of our ancestors
who contrib- uted to the future of their descendants. Extinction
is the undoing of the human enterprise.

Other

Iran is in LA
Iran has presence in Latin America
West, 12 Allen B West is a former United States Congressman and current

contributor for Fox News and PJ Media. Iran is a Threat in Latin America, Washington
Times, August 28, 2012. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/28/iran-isa-threat-in-latin-america/

a strategic alliance is being formed between Iran and

Venezuela More than 150 Iranian diplomats are accredited in
Caracas
demonstrating the Tehran regimes
unusual involvement in Latin America Over the past few years
to increased military involvement
between the two countries, a complex financial web to bypass
international sanctions against the ayatollahs and an
operational infrastructure for carrying out terrorism against the
nations of the free world, especially the United States and
Israel. This growing alliance between their respective military
establishments allows Iran to extend its strategic coordination
deep into the Western Hemisphere, enabling conventional,
nuclear and terrorist capabilities well beyond Tehrans
geographic vicinity
Right here, under our noses,

a disproportionate number by any count

, this

honeymoon between Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has given birth

. It was revealed recently that Venezuela is building military drones for Iran and has supplied Iran with an unknown number of F-16
warplanes for countermeasure training and radar calibration. Also, the top Venezuelan diplomat in Florida, Consul General Livia Acosta, was expelled in January by the State Department because

The unholy alliance also has

enabled Iran to skirt United Nations and other international
economic sanctions meant to slow Tehrans nuclear weapons
program. Venezuela has publicly declared its support for Irans
nuclear aspirations, and an economic and financial web of joint
ventures, accounts and agreements makes it easy for Iran to
bypass arms embargoes, banking freezes, oil boycotts and other
economic steps taken to slow the theocracys nuclear policy of
proliferation
of her well-documented involvement with an Iranian cyberterrorism plot against American nuclear facilities.

. For instance, Venezuela provides front companies and facilities to Irans petrochemical and arms industries, uses its banking system to middle-man oil
payments, and extends political support for Tehran in the international arena in order to bypass international sanctions. This Venezuelan support constitutes a vital lifeline, nurturing the

Yet the Iranian infiltration of Latin

America goes beyond Venezuela. Tehran has funded the
establishment of a paramilitary facility in Bolivia for the
training of operatives from the Bolivarian Alliance for the
Americas
Iran also is
active in what is known as the triple frontier region, a lawless
zone between Brazil, Paraguay and Argentina. It is a hotbed of
extremism, black marketing, smuggling and narco-terrorist
funding,
ayatollahs bomb, and enables Irans nuclear program to grow and strengthen.

. Iranian Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi (wanted by Interpol for his involvement in terrorist bombings in Argentina) personally presided over the academys

inauguration, and as many as 300 Iranian trainers from the blacklisted Iranian Revolutionary Guards are reported to be involved in the centers operation.

mostly under the direction of a very large radical Shiite diaspora living in the area. In addition, Iranian embassies and consulates throughout the continent contain large
contingents of attaches, members of the Qods Force whose mission is to engender clandestine support for Iranian covert operations.

Venezuela Prolif
Venezuela Wants Nukes
Ferkaluk, Brian 10. Executive Officer to the Commander at 88 Air Base
Wing
Logistics Readiness Officer at United States Air Force from Norwich
University. Latin America: Terrorist Actors on a Nuclear Stage, Global
Security Studies, 2010, Volume 1, Issue 3

Venezuela, in addition to openly supporting domestic terrorism has openly

expressed its desire to acquire nuclear materials. Although nuclear weapons, as opposed to standard nuclear materials,
has not been something he openly advocates for, the US is paying close attention to his activity because, as we have learned
from the Argentine and Brazilian examples, secrecy is always the name of the game. The Carnegie Endowment estimates that Venezuela will require at least fifteen years to develop all necessary

.
Chavez has sought help from both Brazil and Argentina for technology and aid in developing that technology. However, with Venezuelas Iranian connections, they refused out
of fear of a US reaction. Nevertheless, this has not stopped Venezuela from seeking aid outside of its
borders. It has become gradually more congenial with Iran, China and
Russia. Russia in particular has become particularly close with Venezuela
on this issue. In April of 2010, Vladimir Putin made a trip to Venezuela for the first time. His intent was to discuss a RussoVenezuelan agreement on bilateral nuclear cooperation in a minor attempt to make the world more democratic, [and] make it balanced and multipolar.16 The results of
the meeting began the first of what may be many plans to develop a nuclear power plant to
be built with Russian help, a goal of Hugo Chavez since 2005 . Additionally, Russia
will continue to sell weapons to Venezuela . For five years already, Venezuela has already
spent $4 billion worth of weapons, to include helicopters, fighter jets and Kalashnikov rifles. Such developments
have caused great concerns for the US due to the fact that Venezuela could
quickly become the same threat in Latin America as Iran is in the Middle
East, or Qahdafi was in Libya. This Russo-Venezuelan agreement reinforces a relationship that primarily empowers Venezuela itself. The Iranian-Venezuelan relationship causes much
physical and intellectual infrastructure to safely establish its first plant Furthermore, with the struggling international economy, Venezuela will have great difficulties paying for such projects.
Hugo

different concerns for the US. In this relationship Venezuela is not the benefactor, Iran is. The concern is the transfer of uranium, which Venezuela possesses. Chavez has personally helped Iran
establish diplomatic and economic ties for similar reasons he solidified ties with Russia. It is likely that he will begin trading Venezuelan uranium for Iranian nuclear technology