1ac Cuban Oil

8/13/2019 1ac Cuban Oil

1/20


2/20

Contention 1: ChinaUS-Cuban oil coop checks US-China resource war.Benjamin- Alvarado 10 Jonathan Benjamin- Alvarado, PhD of Political Science, University of Nebraska, 2010, Cubas Energy Future: Strategic Approaches toCooperation, a Brookings Publication obtained as an ebook through MSU Electronic Resources page 9-11

Those involved in managing the security interests of the United States need to understand the geostrategic implications of interstate relations in the region in terms of energy security, and the extent to which theyaffect cooperation between the U nited States and Cuba . This includes an assessment of the medium tolong-term evolution of energy cooperation between Cuba and Venezuela ; of the broader relations betweenstates aligned with the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (Alternativa Bolivariana para las Americas, or ALBA) and Petrocaribe

consortiums; and of the growing influence of China in the region. 14 Also discussed in this volume is the extent towhich the diversification and dispersion of energy resources in Cuba might be a buffer against disruptions

in U.S. energy production and distribution that could result from natural disasters or market disruptions. Before

analyzing U.S. energy security in a geostrategic context, it is necessary to define energy security and strategic energy policy.Energy security is the capacity to avoid disruptions caused by natural, accidental, or intentional events affecting energy and utilitysupply and distribution systems. Energy security is said to prevail when fuel, power production and distribution systems, and end-user devices possess the five so- called S characteristics, as outlined by Drexel Kleber, the director of the Strategic OperationsPower Surety Task Force, in the Office of the Secretary of Defense: 15 Surety. Access to energy and fuel sources is assured. Survivability. Energy and fuel sources are resilient and durable in the face of potential damage. Supply. There is an identifiedavailable source of energy traditional fossil fuels, alternative energy (nuclear, clean coal, biomass, landfill gas, municipal solidwaste, hydrogen), or renewable energy (hydropower, geothermal pressure, wind, tidal. and solar). Sufficiency. There is anadequate quantity of power and fuel from a variety of sources. Sustainability. Operating practices can be perpetuated by limitingdemand, reducing waste, and effectively exploiting alternative energy and renewable resources to the fullest extent possible. Thefive S energy security and conservation objectives, though initially intended as a guide for the U.S. Department of Defense , have amuch broader applicability; not least, they serve as value parameters for energy policy decisionmaking. As Kleber has noted,Expenditures on energy conservation measures are viewed as investments with long -term rewards and dividends which are paidin commodities beyond money national security, soldiers lives, improved manpower utilization, military to civilian transfers, andincreased foreign policy options for elected officials, to name a few. 16 What, then, would an ideal strategic energy policy look likefor the United States or any other country, for that matter? Mahmoud Amin El-Gamal and Amy Myers Jaffe have set out a detailed

analysis of the objectives of a strategic energy policy, including the following: 1. To assure that markets operate efficiently so as todevelop the infrastructure necessary to meet growing energy demand 2. To ensure the well-being of the human habitat andecosystem 3. To ensure that mechanisms are in place for preventing and, if necessary, managing disruptions to energy supply. 17Articulating these objectives doesnt mean that fulfilling them is simple for policymakers for the following reasons. First, there are noovernight solutions to the energy supply and infrastructure bottlenecks facing the global markets. The trade-offs between energy-security considerations and national (non-energy) goals across the board must be continuously reviewed. States must adopt anintegrated energy policy balancing foreign policy, trade policy, and national security imperatives. In this way, strategic energy policyhas the ability to play a significant role in diplomatic discourse, especially where bilateral relations with major oil produ cers areconcerned. For El-Gamal and Jaffe this is a critical consideration, for three principal reasons: 1. U.S. energy independence is notattainable. 2. The policy instruments available to deal with energy supply disruptions are increasingly inadequate. 3. The UnitedStates needs to articulate a new vision for optimal management of international energy interdependence. 18 Thus, the questions

and issues surrounding energy security become existential in a manner that has hardly been discussedheretofore, but clearly resonates in the face of ongoing changes in access to secure energy sources, persistent energy dependency,

and the seemingly insatiable demand for petroleum products to fuel the American way of life .

These concerns immediately raise three important questions relevant to our discussion of possibleengagement with Cuba in the energy sphere: 1. How will the ongoing development and evolution of Unin CubapetrleoS.A. (Cupet), Cubas state oil company, limit or obstruct U.S. efforts to meet its strategic objectives? 2. What role can int ernational

oil companies play in the short and long-term development of energy resources and infrastructure in Cuba? 3. How will thespecter of competition with Brazil, Russia, China, and India over scarce petroleum resources affectU.S. energy-security policy , especially in light of the recent energy-development agreements between Brazil and Cuba,and Russia and Cuba, and the Chinese incursion into Latin American energy markets ? These questions deserve consideration,particularly in light of the growing presence of these external actors in Latin American energy markets. How might they increasecompetition and cooperation over scarce energy resources? In assessing the development of Cupet and its impact on U.S.


3/20

geostrategic imperatives, it is essential to evaluate how the U nited States might promote its interest in a global

and regional energy market shaped and influenced by the activities of n ational o il c ompanies, especially their influence on developments in Cuba. Including Mexicos Petrleos Mexicanos S.A. (Pemex) and Venezuelas state oilfirm, Petrleos de Venezuela S.A. (PDVSA) both of them NOCs in this evaluation is critically important for ensuring an acceptable

strategic context to U.S. interests. 19 The objective of this h ighly path-dependent development is the transformation of

Cupet into a stable NOC that exhibits high technical competency culminating in upstream oilfieldproduction and downstream refining and marketing capabilities. It is path-dependent because the set of decisions undertaken toachieve the objective (energy self-sufficiency) is limited by the decisions made in the past by Cuban policymakers, even though pastcircumstances may no longer be relevant. Prior to 2005, the energy policy objective was clearly centered on the revitalization ofexisting energy infrastructure and the expansion of domestic production, as limited as that may have been. Now there is a bigchange in Cubas circumstances: the growing importance of tapping the offshore reserves. An NOC, to be successful, must balan cenational social and political objectives with commercial objectives. Consequently, U.S. strategic policy must balance the promotion

of broader U.S. interests with those of the NOC if there is to be cooperation. 20 In light of the recent resurgence of oilnationalism, future cooperation depends largely on the extent to which observers can identify and articulatethe common energy-policy interests of NOCs and the U nited States . In Venezuela, high oil prices haveencouraged the Chvez government to undertake bold social policy initiatives. 21 Some suggest these decisions have come at theexpense of critical energy infrastructure needs, thereby increasing the likelihood of energy supply disruptions in the future. Becausethe United States relies on Venezuela for nearly 1 million barrels of oil daily, the policy decision to prioritize social spending overenergy infrastructure revitalization by the Chvez regime could have a significant impact in the United States, if it were to result in

diminished capacity in Venezuela to produce and export oil to the United States. 22 In Mexico, state control of the NOC Pemex hashad the stultifying impact of prolonged bureaucratic stagnation, r esulting in a decline in production and insufficient funding forreinvestment in new exploration and production. This is highly problematic for Mexico because the government derives 40 percentof its revenue from Pemex. 23 It also has raised concerns about the possibility of energy supply disruptions for the United States. Infact, in the first quarter of 2010 Mexicos oil exports to the United States fell by over 8 percent, as compared to 2009. 24 Concernsover the ability of major oil-producing countries and their NOCs to meet future global demand is compounded by insufficient levelsof reinvestment and the looming specter of interstate instability. But it is becoming abundantly clear that Venezuelas growi nginvestment in Cubas energy infrastructure crea tes the basis for a longer-term relationship that will enable Cuba to expand itsproductive, storage, and refining capacity, as it simultaneously strengthens the Venezuelan position in the region as a supplier of

both crude and refined petroleum products for its Petrocaribe and ALBA partners. There is also growing consternationthat NOCs may be used as instruments of state policy inimical to U.S. national interests. 25 Inparticular, Chinas growing presence in Latin America is being interpreted as a sig n ofintensifying competition over energy resources . Flynt Leverett and Jeffrey Bader suggest that this

competition could easily be the cause of international conflict in the coming years, as energydemands place a rising premium on the ability of China already the worlds third -largest crude oil importer, after the United Statesand Japan to access oil and gas resources.

Plan sufficiently hedges US energy security.Benjamin- Alvarado 10 Jonathan Benjamin-Alvarado, PhD of Political Science, University of Nebraska, 2010, Cubas Energy Future: Strategic Approaches toCooperation, a Brookings Publication obtained as an ebook through MSU Electronic Resources page 118-19

In chapter 1, I spotlighted five S characteristics of energy security and the r elated imperatives of strategic energy policy relevant to

both the Cuban case as well as that of the United States. The successful development of Cuban energyresources will enhance the energy security of the U nited States and its broader geostrategic

imperatives in the Caribbean region. Cuba can do this by potentially serving as an entrept for U.S. downstreamactivities (refining, marketing, storage, and transshipment). Cuba has already embarked on an aggressive program of investment and

development of its refining capacity, which could potentially support American energy needs by serving

as a hedge against supply disruptions of refined petroleum products or facilitating the redirection of oilshipments as needed owing to any number of circumstances.

And, US- Sino war goes nuclear. Crisis management wont check Lowther 13


4/20

Note: when this car d has a line that reads it says, it is referencing a 42 -page report by the WashingtonDC-based Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Ask your lab leaders about the CSIS and thePONI (Project on Nuclear Issues) several of them have worked for that organization and will have uniqueinsights. The study at hand was prepared by the CSIS Project on Nuclear Issues. The Tapiei Time articlewas written by William Lowther, who is the Washington DC staff writer for that organization and he isciting a report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, 3-16- 2013, Taiwan could spark

nuclear war: report, Taipei Times,http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2013/03/16/2003557211

Although Beijing and Washington have agreed to a range of crisis management mechanisms, such asthe Military Maritime Consultative Agreement and the establishment of a direct hotline between the Pentagon and the Ministry of Defense, thebases for miscommunication and misunderstanding remain and draw on deep historicalreservoirs of suspicion , the report says. For example, it says, it is unclear whether either side understandswhat kinds of actions would result in a military or even nuclear response by the other party. To makethings worse, neither side seems to believe the other s declared policies and intentions , suggesting that escalation management , already a very uncertain endeavor, could be especially difficult in any conflict, it says.Although conflict mercifully seems unlikely at this point, the report concludes that it cannot be ruled out and may become increasingly likely if we

are unwise or unlucky. The report says: With both sides possessing and looking set to retain formidable nuclear

weapons arsenals , such a conflict would be tremendously dangerous and quite possibly devastating .

Specifically energy conflicts rapidly escalate- deterrence claims are falseCabral 10 (Jim, Professor of International Relations and Political Science Landmark College, Book Review Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet,Z Magazine, July, http://www.zcommunications.org/rising-powers-shrinking-planet-by-jim-cabral)

Not surprisingly, the accelerating militarization of energy procurement increases the possibilities forarmed international conflict . With typical insight, Klare explains how nationalism provides momentum to

this process: "The long-term risk of escalation is growing even more potent because major energyimporters and exporters regularly appeal to that most dangerous of emotions, nationalism, in making their claim over the management of energy flows. Nationalistic appeals , once they have gripped a populace,

almost invariably promote fierce emotion and irrationality . Add to this the fact that the leaders of mostcountries involved in the great energy race have come to view the struggle over hydrocarbon assetsas a "zero-sum" contest one in which a gain for one country almost always represents a loss for others. A zero-sum mentality leads to a loss of flexibility in crisis situations , while the lens of nationalism turns the pursuitof energy assets into a sacred obligation of senior government officials." The "competitive arms transfers" that represent themilitarization of energy procurement also have another disturbing upshot: strengthening and legitimizing repressive, corruptregimes. In the case of U.S. arms recipients, the list is long and growing. It includes long-time allies in the Persian Gulf region SaudiArabia most notably whose anachronistic social policies effectively reduce women to the status of second class citizens; corruptibleAfrican governments in Nigeria, Chad, and Angola, where along with off-shore drilling sites along the continent's west coast U.S.-based oil companies such as Exxon and Chevron currently operate; and more recent allies in the energy rich Caspian Sea region,including what Klare refers to as the "autocratic regimes" of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan. While the governments of theoil rich Persian Gulf have long been wooed with deficit countries' military largess, the emergence of the Caspian Sea region'sgovernments as coveted allies may come as a bit of a surprise to some. Klare soberly sketches out a "three-way struggle for

geopolitical advantage" in the Caspian Sea basin, as the U.S., Russia (Caspian states having formerly been Soviet republics),and China funnel arms and other forms of military assistance into the region in competition for influence there. Againstressing the dangers of an escalation of conflict, Klare notes that: " This three- way struggleismilitarizing the Caspian basin , inundating the region with advanced arms and an ever growing corps

of military advisers, instructors, technicians, and combat-support personnel. [It will] heighten traditional suspicionsand rivalries that have long plagued the region. The Great Powers are not only adding tinder to possiblefuture fires, but also increasing the risk that they will be caught in any conflagration ."


5/20

This specific type of resource war escalates causing huge death tolls.Lendman 7 (Stephen Lendman is a renowned author and Research Associate of the Center for Research on Globalization (CRG). The Centre forResearch on Globalization (CRG) is an independent research and media organization based in Montreal. The CRG is involved in bookpublishing, support to humanitarian projects as well as educational outreach activities including the organization of publicconferences and lectures. The Centre also acts as a think tank on crucial economic and geopolitical issues. Stephen has writtenextensively on war and peace, social justice in America and many other national and international issues. Stephen Lendman is arecipient of a 2008 Project Censored Award, University of California at Sonoma Resource Wars Can We Survive Them? Global Research ,June 06, 2007 http://www.globalresearch.ca/resource-wars-can-we-survive-them/5892)

With the worlds energy supplies finite , the US heavily dependent on imports , and peak oil near or approaching, security for America means assuring a sustainable supply of wha t we cant do

without. It includes waging wars to get it , protect it, and defend the maritime trade routes over which it travels. Thatmeans energys partnered with predatory New World Order globalization, militarism, wars, ecological recklessness, and now anextremist US administration willing to risk Armageddon for world dominance. Central to its plan is first controlling essentialresources everywhere, at any cost, starting with oil and where most of it is located in the Middle East and Central Asia. The New

Great Game and Perils From It The new Great Games begun, but this time the stakes are greater than ever asexplained above. The old one lasted nearly 100 years pitting the British empire against Tsarist Russia when the issue wasnt oil. Thistime , its the US with help from Israel, Britain, the West, and satellite states like Japan, South Korea and Taiwan

challenging Russia and China with todays weapons and technology on both sides making earlier ones look like toys.At stake is more than oil. It s planet earth with survival of all life on it issue number one twice over.Resource s and wars for them means militarism is increasing, peace declining, and the planets ability to sustain life front andcenter, if anyones paying attention. Theyd better be because beyond the point of no return, theres no secondchance the way Einstein explained after the atom was split . His famous quote on future wars was : I know not withwhat weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. Under a worst case scenario, its

more dire than that. There may be nothing left but resilient beetles and bacteria in the wake of anuclear holocaust meaning even a new stone age is way in the future, if at all. The threat is real and once nearlyhappened during the Cuban Missile Crisis in October, 1962. We later learned a miracle saved us at the40th anniversary October, 2002 summit meeting in Havana attended by the US and Russia along with host country Cuba . For thefirst time, we were told how close we came to nuclear Armageddon. Devastation was avoidedonly because Soviet submarine captain Vasily Arkhipov countermanded his order to firenuclear-tipped torpedos when Russian submarines were attacked by US destroyers nearKennedys quarantine line . Had he done it, only our imagination can speculate what might have followed and whetherplanet earth, or at least a big part of it, would have survived.

Gradualism cant solve - Cuba Window is closing- failure to capitalize causescompetitors to developBenjamin- Alvarado 10 Jonathan Benjamin- Alvarado, PhD of Political Science, University of Nebraska, 2010, Cubas Energy Future: Strategic Approaches toCooperation, a Brookings Publication obtained as an ebook through MSU Electronic Resources page 123-4

There is a significant commercial opening for the U nited States in Cuba, should it choose topursue it . Cuban energy development will proceed with or without U.S. involvement, but U.S.

involvement has the potential of speeding up the pace of development and could create anopening for a broader discussion of important geostrategic concerns for the both countries. To thatend we make the following policy recommendation s aimed at facilitating the promotion of strategiccommercial relations between the U nited States and Cuba to develop energy resources.


6/20

Cuba engagement is key to Obamas credibility ---reverses the perceived declineof US influence---solves multilateralismDickerson 10 Lieutenant Colonel Sergio M. Dickerson, 2010, "United States SecurityStrategy Towards Cuba," Strategy Research Project, www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA518053

Conclusion Today, 20 years have passed since the fall of the Berlin Wall its time to chip away at thediplomatic wall that still remains between U.S. and Cuba. As we seek a new foreign policywith Cuba it is imperative that we take into consideration that distrust will characterizenegotiations with the Cuban government . On the other hand, consider that loosening or lifting the

embargo could also be mutually beneficial . Cubas need and Americas surplus capability toprovide goods and services could be profitable and eventually addictive to Cuba. Under theseconditions, diplomacy has a better chance to flourish . If the Cuban model succeeds President

Obama will be seen as a true leader for multilateralism . Success in Cuba could afford the

international momentum and credibility to solve other seemingly wicked problems like the

Middle East and Kashmir . President Obama could leverage this international reputation with

other rogue nations like Iran and North Korea who might associate their plight with Cuba. 35

The U.S. could begin to lead again and reverse its perceived decline in the greater globalorder bringing true peace for years to come.

Engagement is inevitable, its a question of effectiveness ---Obamas cre dibilitysolves South China Sea conflictGhitis 13 (Frida, world affairs columnist for The Miami Herald and World Politics Review. Aformer CNN producer and correspondent, she is the author of The End of Revolution: AChanging World in the Age of Live Television . World to Obama: You can't ignore us, 1/22,http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/22/opinion/ghitis-obama-world)President Obama made it very clear: The second term is all about the domestic agenda. If only the

world would cooperate. Obama outlined his goals for the next four years, sketching above all a progressive vision of acountry with less inequality and more justice. And, judging by his inaugural speech, he plans to put his shoulder to the wheel. Afterall, much of the first term was consumed with averting a national economic catastrophe. Now he can get on with building a legacy,reviving that hope and change he promised back during the 2008 campaign. But the most subtly striking part of Obama's

inauguration speech was how it largely ignored the rest of the globe. In his 20-minute address, he dedicated perhapsone minute to foreign policy. America, he said, will "try and resolve our differences with other nations peacefully." He vowed thecountry "will remain the anchor of strong alliances" and it will support democracy. He also declared the United States "must be asource of hope for the poor, the sick, the marginalized, the victims of prejudice..." and stand for "human dignity and justice."

Beyond that, he did not spare a single word for tens of thousands killed by dictators, as they have been in Syria ;nothing about the struggle for liberal democratic rights in places like Egypt , which sets the tone for the Middle East . Nothing

about repression and thwarting of freedom of expression, the rollback of democratic rights, or the push to destroy existingdemocracies, statements that could have come as welcome words of encouragement for people who share American values of

freedom and justice in places like Egypt, China, Iran, Russia or Mali. The president should keep in mind that millionsaround the world yearn to know they have the backing of the most powerful country onEarth. As he surely knows, even his words make a big difference. And while Obama plans to dedicate his efforts tothe domestic agenda, a number of brewing international crises are sure to steal his attention and

demand his time . Here are a few of the foreign policy issues that, like it or not, may force Obama todivert his focus from domestic concerns in this new term. Syria unraveling: The United Nations says more than
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA518053http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA518053http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA518053http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA518053http://www.chieftain.com/president-obama-opens-second-term-with-emphasis-on-equality/article_1a670fe0-63f6-11e2-a22a-001a4bcf887a.htmlhttp://www.chieftain.com/president-obama-opens-second-term-with-emphasis-on-equality/article_1a670fe0-63f6-11e2-a22a-001a4bcf887a.htmlhttp://www.chieftain.com/president-obama-opens-second-term-with-emphasis-on-equality/article_1a670fe0-63f6-11e2-a22a-001a4bcf887a.htmlhttp://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/21/obama-it-is-now-our-generations-task-to-carry-on-what-pioneers-began/?hpt=hp_t1http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/21/obama-it-is-now-our-generations-task-to-carry-on-what-pioneers-began/?hpt=hp_t1http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/21/obama-it-is-now-our-generations-task-to-carry-on-what-pioneers-began/?hpt=hp_t1http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/21/obama-it-is-now-our-generations-task-to-carry-on-what-pioneers-began/?hpt=hp_t1http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/21/obama-it-is-now-our-generations-task-to-carry-on-what-pioneers-began/?hpt=hp_t1http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/21/obama-it-is-now-our-generations-task-to-carry-on-what-pioneers-began/?hpt=hp_t1http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/21/obama-it-is-now-our-generations-task-to-carry-on-what-pioneers-began/?hpt=hp_t1http://www.chieftain.com/president-obama-opens-second-term-with-emphasis-on-equality/article_1a670fe0-63f6-11e2-a22a-001a4bcf887a.htmlhttp://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA518053http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA518053


7/20

60,000 people have already died in a civil war t hat the West has, to its shame, done little to keep from spinning out ofcontrol. Washingto nhas warned that the use of chemical or biological weapons might force its hand. But the regime may have

already used them . The West has failed to nurture a moderate force in the conflict. Now Islamistextremists are growing more powerful within the opposition. The chances are growing thatworst-case scenarios will materialize. Washington will not be able to endlessly ignore thisdangerous war. Egypt and the challenge of democracy: What happens in Egypt strongly influences the rest of the Middle East-- and hence world peace -- which makes it all the more troubling to see liberal democratic forces lose battle after battle for politicalinfluence against Islamist parties, and to hear blatantly anti-Semitic speech coming from the mouth of Mohammed Morsy barely two

years before he became president. Iran's nuclear program : Obama took office promising a new, more conciliatoryeffort to persuade Iran to drop its nuclear enrichment program. Four years later, he has succeeded in implementinginternational sanctions, but Iran has continued enriching uranium , leading United Nations inspectors to find"credible evidence" that Tehran is working on nuclear weapons. Sooner or later the moment of truth will arrive. If a deal is notreached, Obama will have to decide if he wants to be the president on whose watch a

nuclear weapons race was unleashed in the most dangerous and unstable part of the

world . North Africa terrorism: A much-neglected region of the world i s becoming increasingly difficult to disregard. In recentdays , Islamist extremists took American and other hostages in Algeria and France sent its military to fight advancing Islamistextremists in Mali, a country that once represented optimism for democratic rule in Africa, now overtaken by militants who are

potentially turning it into a staging ground for international terrorism. Russia repression: As Russian President VladimirPutin succeeds in crushing opposition to his increasingly authoritarian rule, he and his allies are makinganti-American words and policies their favorite theme. A recent ban on adoption of Russian orphans by Americanparents is only the most vile example. But Washington needs Russian cooperation to achieve its goals at the U.N. regarding Iran,

Syria and other matters. It is a complicated problem with which Obama will have to wrestle. Thenthere are the long-standing challenges that could take a turn for the worse, such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Obama may not want to wade into that morass again, but events may

force his hand . And there are the so-called "black swans," events of low probability and high impact. There is talk thatChina and Japan could go to war over a cluster of disputed islands. A war between two of the world'slargest economies could prove devastating to the global economy, just as a sudden and dramatic reversal in the fragile Eurozone

economy could spell disaster. Japan's is only the hottest of many territorial disputes between China

and its Asian neighbors. Then there's North Korea with its nuclear weapons. We could see regions that have garneredlittle attention come back to the forefront, such as Latin America, where conflict could arise in a post-Hugo Chavez Venezuela. Thepresident -- and the country - - could also benefit f rom unexpectedly positive outcomes. Imagine a happy turn of events in Iran, abreakthrough between Israelis and Palestinians, the return of prosperity in Europe, a successful push by liberal democratic forces inthe Arab uprising countries, which could create new opportunities, lowering risks around the world, easing trade, restoringconfidence and improving the chances for the very agenda Obama described in his inaugural speech. The aspirations he expressed

for America are the ones he should express for our tumultuous planet. Perhaps in his next big speech, the State of the Union, hecan remember America's leadership position and devote more attention to those around theworld who see it as a source of inspiration and encouragement. After all, in this second term Obama will not be able todevote as small a portion of his attention to foreign policy as he did during his inauguralspeech. International disengagement is not an option. As others before Obama have discovered, historyhas a habit of toying with the best laid, most well-intentioned plans of American presidents.

South China Sea conflict causes nuclear warWittner 11 (Lawrence S. Wittner, Emeritus Professor of History at the State University of New York/Albany, Wittner is theauthor of eight books, the editor or co-editor of another four, and the author of over 250 published articles and book reviews. From1984 to 1987, he edited Peace & Change, a journal of peace research., 11/28/2011, "Is a Nuclear War With China Possible?",www.huntingtonnews.net/14446)

While nuclear weapons exist, there remains a danger that they will be used . After all, forcenturies national conflicts have led to wars, with nations employing their deadliest weapons .The current deterioration of U.S. relations with China might end up providing us with yet another
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/02/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.htmlhttp://www.cnn.com/2013/01/02/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.htmlhttp://www.cnn.com/2013/01/02/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/04/world/middleeast/nato-prepares-missile-defenses-for-turkey.html?_r=0http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/04/world/middleeast/nato-prepares-missile-defenses-for-turkey.html?_r=0http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/04/world/middleeast/nato-prepares-missile-defenses-for-turkey.html?_r=0http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/19/us-syria-chemical-newspaper-idUSBRE90I0JV20130119http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/19/us-syria-chemical-newspaper-idUSBRE90I0JV20130119http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/19/us-syria-chemical-newspaper-idUSBRE90I0JV20130119http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/19/us-syria-chemical-newspaper-idUSBRE90I0JV20130119http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/01/fighter-syria-aleppo-turkey.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/15/world/middleeast/egypts-leader-morsi-made-anti-jewish-slurs.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/15/world/middleeast/egypts-leader-morsi-made-anti-jewish-slurs.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/15/world/middleeast/egypts-leader-morsi-made-anti-jewish-slurs.htmlhttp://news.yahoo.com/un-credible-evidence-iran-working-nuke-weapons-153544271.htmlhttp://news.yahoo.com/un-credible-evidence-iran-working-nuke-weapons-153544271.htmlhttp://news.yahoo.com/un-credible-evidence-iran-working-nuke-weapons-153544271.htmlhttp://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/18/opinion/ghitis-algeria-hostage-crisis/index.html?hpt=op_t1http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/18/opinion/ghitis-algeria-hostage-crisis/index.html?hpt=op_t1http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/18/opinion/ghitis-algeria-hostage-crisis/index.html?hpt=op_t1http://www.france24.com/en/20121027-russian-opposition-leaders-detained-protest-navalny-udaltsov-vladimir-putinhttp://www.france24.com/en/20121027-russian-opposition-leaders-detained-protest-navalny-udaltsov-vladimir-putinhttp://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2013/russiahttp://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2013/russiahttp://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2013/russiahttp://www.economist.com/news/asia/21569757-armed-clashes-over-trivial-specks-east-china-sea-loom-closer-drums-warhttp://www.economist.com/news/asia/21569757-armed-clashes-over-trivial-specks-east-china-sea-loom-closer-drums-warhttp://www.economist.com/news/asia/21569757-armed-clashes-over-trivial-specks-east-china-sea-loom-closer-drums-warhttp://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2013/russiahttp://www.france24.com/en/20121027-russian-opposition-leaders-detained-protest-navalny-udaltsov-vladimir-putinhttp://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/18/opinion/ghitis-algeria-hostage-crisis/index.html?hpt=op_t1http://news.yahoo.com/un-credible-evidence-iran-working-nuke-weapons-153544271.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/15/world/middleeast/egypts-leader-morsi-made-anti-jewish-slurs.htmlhttp://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/01/fighter-syria-aleppo-turkey.htmlhttp://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/19/us-syria-chemical-newspaper-idUSBRE90I0JV20130119http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/19/us-syria-chemical-newspaper-idUSBRE90I0JV20130119http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/04/world/middleeast/nato-prepares-missile-defenses-for-turkey.html?_r=0http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/02/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html


8/20

example of this phenomenon . The gathering tension between the United States and China is clear enough. Dis turbed by Chinas growing economic and military strength, the U.S . government recently challengedChinas claims in the S outh China Sea, increased the U.S. military presence in Australia, and deepenedU.S. military ties with other nations in the Pacific region . According to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, theUnited States was asserting our own position as a Pacific power. But need this lead to nuclear war ? Not necessarily .

And yet , there are signs that it could. After all, both the United States and China possess largenumbers of nuclear weapons. The U.S. government threatened to attack China with nuclearweapons during the Korean War and, later, during the conflict over the future of Chinasoffshore islands, Quemoy and Matsu . In the midst of the latter confrontation, President Dwight Eisenhower declaredpublicly, and chillingly, that U.S. nuclear weapons would be used just exactly as you would use a bullet or anything else. Of course,China didnt have nuclear weapons then. Now that it does, perhap s the behavior of national leaders will be more temperate. But theloose nuclear threats of U.S. and Soviet government officials during the Cold War, when both nations had vast nuclear arsenals,

should convince us that, even as the military ante is raised, nuclear saber-rattling persists. Some pundits argue thatnuclear weapons prevent wars between nuclear-armed nations ; and, admittedly, there havent been verymany at least not yet. But the Kargil War of 1999, between nuclear-armed India and nuclear-armed Pakistan ,should convince us that such wars can occur . Indeed, in that case, the conflict almost slipped intoa nuclear war. Pakistans foreign secretary threatened that, if the war escalated, his country felt free to use any weapon in

its arsenal. During the conflict, Pakistan did move nuclear weapons toward its border, while India, it is claimed, readied its ownnuclear missiles for an attack on Pakistan. At the least, though, dont nuclear weapons deter a nuclear attack ? Dothey? Obviously , NATO leader s didnt feel deterred , for, throughout the Cold War, NATOsstrategy was to respond to a Soviet conventional military attack on Western Europe bylaunching a Western nuclear attack on the nuclear-armed Soviet Union . Furthermore, if U.S.government officials really believed that nuclear deterrence worked, they would not haveresorted to championing Star Wars and its modern variant, national missile defense. Why are these vastlyexpensive and probably unworkable military defense systems needed if other nuclear powers aredeterred from attacking by U.S. nuclear might ? Of course, the bottom line for those Americansconvinced that nuclear weapons safeguard them from a Chinese nuclear attack might be thatthe U.S. nuclear arsenal is far greater than its Chinese counterpart. Today, it is estimated that the U.S.government possesses over five thousand nuclear warheads, while the Chinese government has a total inventory of roughly three

hundred. Moreover, only about forty of these Chinese nuclear weapons can reach the United States. Surely the United States wouldwin any nuclear war with China. But what would that victory entail? A nuclear attack by China wouldimmediately slaughter at least 10 million Americans in a great storm of blast and fire, while leaving many moredying horribly of sickness and radiation poisoning. The Chinese death toll in a nuclear war would be farhigher . Both nations would be reduced to smoldering, radioactive wastelands . Also, radioactive debrissent aloft by the nuclear explosions would blot out the sun and bring on a nuclear winter

around the globe destroying agriculture, creating worldwide famine, and generating chaos

and destruction.


9/20

Contention 2: CubaCuban oil dependence on Venezuela is unsustainable---Venezuela will cut offsuppliesKeppel 3/16 (Stephen, ABC News, What Chvez's Death Means for Cuba, Venezuela and theU.S. http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/chavezs -death-means-cuba-venezuela-us/story?id=18669003)Upon hearing news of the death of Hugo Chvez , scores of Venezuelans gathered in cautiouscelebration in Doral, a South Florida community with the highest concentration of Venezuelans outside Venezuela. They arehoping that Chvez's passing will bring about change in their homeland. Others in the region were not as happy. Sure Chvez was politically influential in Latin America, but in many ways his economic influence was even greater especially with friendly countries like Cuba , Nicaragua, Ecuador, Argentina, Bolivia and a score of Caribbean nations thatbenefited from Venezuela's oil-discount program, PetroCaribe. In the name of "economic solidarity," Chvezwas extremely generous with these friends, offering oil at discounted rates and with flexiblelending conditions . Nicaragua, for example, was known to pay for Venezuelan oil with shipments of beef, sugar, coffee, milkand even 19,000 pairs of pants. According to figures from the state-owned oil company PDVSA, in 2011 Venezuela sent 243,500barrels of oil a day (or around 8 percent of its production) to 16 countries across Latin America. Yet the absence of Chvezand the potential drawdown of economic support would have the biggest impact on Cuba.That country receives more than 100,000 barrels of discounted oil per day and billions ofdollars each year in exchange for Cuban medical personnel, technology experts, political consultants and other"professionals." That's because Chvez had a special relationship with Cuba and the Castros. Hisrelationships with other presidents were also often very personal. That approach may be difficult to sustain in hisabsence. Even if Nicolas Maduro , Chvez's chosen replacement, wins the upcoming election, he will be moresusceptible to domestic pressure to reduce Venezuela's foreign aid, given all the economicchallenges at home. The Cubans have bad memories of the ending of Soviet patronage in the 1990sand are right to be worried about what the death of Chvez may bring. Where will Cuba turnthis time if Venezuelan aid dries up? Maybe the United States. That doesn't mean the U.S. government, however.Rather, Cuba would likely turn to the nearly two million Cubans living in this country. They are already sending around $2 billion ayear back to the island in remittances. Already, Raul Castro seems to have been preparing to make the Cuban economy a little bitmore flexible and open to investment, and the Obama administration has made it easier for Cubans in the U.S. to send money back

home. Which brings us to Venezuela's financial situation. The truth is the economic state therehas been uncertain and chaotic ever since Chavez got sick, and that is unlikely to change in theshort term. There is supposed to be a new election, and it appears that Maduro will win. But he will face a tougheconomic situation. Plus, he lacks the charisma of Chvez and may not be able to maintainpopularity if things get tougher.

US-Cuban oil cooperation is key to revitalize their domestic oil sectorBenjamin-Alvadaro 6 (Jonathan, Report for the Cuban Research Institute, FloridaInternational 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 o f the American Political Science Association, The Current Status and FutureProspects for Oil Exploration in Cuba: A Special, http://cri.fiu.edu/research/commissioned -reports/oil-cuba-alvarado.pdf)Why is it important to clarify the current status of Cuban energy in the face of a continuingopposition by the United States to anything resembling what can be construed as good news for the Castro regime?Obviously, because up until this point it hasnt cost the United States much if anything. The currentpolicy continues to clearly place at the forefront the sanctity and utility of a comprehensive economic and political embargo in the


10/20

hopes that it helps to foment a change in regime and a peaceful transition to a democratic system of governance and a

complimentary market economy. As energy security concerns continue to percolate up to anincreasingly important status in the realm of national security objectives we may begin to see

the erosion of the hard position against the Cuban regime regardless of its leadership. Theoverview of the Cuban energy developments clearly and unambiguously reveals that the

Castro regime has every intention of continuing to promote, design and implement energy developmentpolicies that will benefit Cuba for generations to come. Cuba is sparing no effort by instituting bottom-up and top-down policy initiatives to meet this challenge. It has significantly increased its internationalcooperation in the energy sector and continues to enhance its efforts to ensure energysecurity in these most uncertain of times. But it stands to reason that no matter how successful these efforts

are, they will come up short. Two factors may alter this present situation. First, Cuba may indeedrealize a bonanza from the offshore tracts that will allow it to possibly address its many energy challenges, from increasing oil

production and refining capacity, to improving the nations energy infrastructure, ensuring a stable e nergy future. Second, and noless significant, is the possibility of normalization of trade relations with the United States. Thisis important not only because it will allow direct foreign investment, technology transfer and

information sharing between these neighboring states but it possibly enhances the energy security ofboth states , and hence, the region, realized through a division of labor and dispersion of resources that serve as a hedge againstnatural disaster and market disruptions. Moreover, all states could derive benefit from the public information campaigns to promoteenergy efficiency and conservation presently being promoted in Cuba in the face of diminishing energy stocks and uncertain global

markets. Ultimately , and only after normalization, the task still falls to the Cuban government, but thecost will necessarily be spread through a number of sources that are predominately Americanbecause of strategic interests, proximity and affinity. It suffices to say that the requisite investment

and assistance will have a distinct American tinge to it, inasmuch as American corporations,U.S. government agencies, and international financial institutions, of which the U.S. is a majorcontributor, will play important roles in the funding of the effort to revitalize the Cuban

energy sector. Cuban officials are not averse and perhaps would prefer that the U.S. be its major

partner in this effort owing to the fact that most if not all of the cutting-edge technology in energy , oiland gas comes from the United States. It is remarkable that the Cuban energy sector is as vibrantas it presently is , absent the type of infrastructural investment that is available to most developing states,in large part because of the American economic embargo. Finally, the cost is significant an d it stands toreason that the longer one waits to address the challenge at hand the higher the cost of modernizing the

energy sector . For this reason alone, the American role in assisting Cuba in this effort will be significantand every day that the task is put off, it increases the long-term cost of the effort. This shouldserve as an obvious point of entry into cooperation with the Cuban government and

perhaps can serve as a catalyst for promoting confidence, trust and cooperation in this

critical issue area across the region.

The plan solves Cuban dependence on Venezuela---revenues lead to politicalreforms that create stabilityPinon 11 Jorge R. Pin is a visiting research fellow at the Latin American and CaribbeanCenters Cuban Research Institute at FIU. Spring 2011, "Why the United States and CubaCollaborate (and What Could Happen If TheyDon't)" casgroup.fiu.edu/pages/docs/2157/1306356964_Hemisphere_Vol._20.pdf


11/20

If Cubas suspected but yet undiscovered hydrocarbon reserves are proven real, it will takebetween three and five years to develop them fully . Production volumes would have to reach more than 200,000 barrelsper day to have the same positive economic impact currently derived from foreign oil subsidies. If this occurs, significant revenues fromoil, natural gas and sugarcane ethanol would integrate Cuba into global and regional marketswithin the next five years. International oil companies such as Spains Repsol, Norways Statoil

Norsk Hydro and Brazils Petrobras are actively exploring Cubas Gulf of Mexico waters. Cubanauthorities have invited United States oil companies to participate in developing the islands

offshore oil and natural gas resources, but US law does not allow this . Although US oil, oilequipment and service companies have the capital, technology and operational knowhow toexplore, produce and refine Cubas potential reserves in a safe and responsible manner, thealmost five-decade old unilateral political and economic embargo keeps them on thesidelines. Cuba currently relies on heavily subsidized oil from Venezuela for two-thirds of itspetroleum needs. This supply contributes to the Cuban governments ability to maintaina politically antagonistic and belligerent position towards the US . The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991made Cuba aware of the political and economic risks and consequences of depending on a single source of imported oil. Only when Cubadiversifies suppliers and develops its offshore hydrocarbon resources , estimated by the UnitedStates Geological Survey at 5.5 million barrels of oil and 9.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, willit have the economic independence to consider political and economic reforms. It is in the USinterest to develop a new policy toward the island based on constructive engagement tosupport the emergence of a Cuban state in which Cubans themselves can determine the politicaland economic future of their country through democratic means. Cuba is about to embark on an 18-month oil explorationdrilling program to validate the presence of recoverable hydrocarbon reserves. US support of such endeavors would be beneficial in the framework ofa constructive engagement policy. The Deepwater Horizon drilling semi-submersible incident and the resulting catastrophic oil spill demonstratethe urgency of developing a policy of energy and environmental cooperation between the United States and Cuba. As Cuba develops i ts deepwater oiland natural gas potential, the possible consequences of a spill call for proactive planning by both countries to minimize or avoid an environmentaldisaster. To respond effectively to an oil-related marine accident, any company operating in Cuba would require immediate access to US oil servicescompanies for the nearinstant technology and know-how needed to halt and limit damage to the marine environment. Obviously, the establishmentof working relations between the US and Cuba in the area of marine environmental protection would assis t enormously in the contingency planningand cooperation necessary for an early and effective response to an oil spill. The United States and Cuba are already parties to a number ofmultilateral oil pollution agreements, such as the 1973 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) and the 1983

Convention for the protection and Development of the Marine Environment in the Wider Caribbean Region (Cartagena Convention). Both agreementsaddress prevention of pollution of the marine environment by ships from operational or accidental causes. The 1990 International Convention on OilPollution Preparedness, Response and Cooperation also offers a precedent for cooperation. The convention is desig ned to encourage and facilitateinternational cooperation and mutual assistance in preparing for and responding to major oil pollution incidents. Signatory n ations are tasked withdeveloping and maintaining adequate capabilities to deal with such an emergency. In the case of Cuba and the United States, the capabilities must betransnational, as there is no barrier to the movement of oil from one countrys waters to anothers. The United States, therefore, must developappropriate regulatory and procedural frameworks for the free movement of equipment, personnel and expertise between the two countries as part ofany oil spill response. The 1980 Agreement of Cooperation between the United States and Mexico Regarding Pollution of the Marine Environment byDischarges of Hydrocarbons and Other Hazardous Substances (MEXUS Plan) provides the foundation for a similar protocol with Cuba. This wouldinclude the establishment of joint response teams, coordinating roles, rapid incident notification mechanisms, joint ope rations centers andcommunication procedures, along with regular exercises and meetings. The United States government, irrespective of the current embargo, has thepower to license the sale, lease or loan of emergency relief and reconstruction equipment and the travel of expert personnel to Cuba following an oil

spill. Cubas long -term energy challenges will be a consequence of its future economic growthand rising standard of living within a market environment. This anticipated growth will dependlargely on the development of a competitively priced, readily available and environmentallysound long-term energy plan. Cuban energy policy should embrace energy conservation,modernization of the energy infrastructure, and balance in sourcing oil/gas supplies andrenewable energy sources that protect the islands environment. The country would benefitfrom the guidance of a variety of partners, including the United States.


12/20

Cuban instability causes Latin American instability, refugee crisis, and distractsthe US from critical hotspots including North Korea-reconstructing US policy toCuba is key to solveGorrell 5 (Tim, Lieutenant Colonel, CUBA: THE NEXT UNANTICIPATED ANTICIPATEDSTRATEGIC CRISIS? 3/18, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi -bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA433074)Regardless of the succession, under the current U.S. policy, Cubas problems of a post Castrotransformation only worsen. In addition to Cubans on the island, there will be those in exile whowill return claiming authority. And there are remnants of the dissident community within Cubawho will attempt to exercise similar authority. A power vacuum or absence of order willcreate the conditions for instability and civil war . Whether Raul or another successor from withinthe current government can hold power is debatable. However, that individual will nonetheless extend thecurrent policies for an indefinite period, which will only compound the Cuban situation. When Cuba finallycollapses anarchy is a strong possibility if the U.S. maintains the wait and see approach . The U.S. then must

deal with an unstable country 90 miles off its coast. In the midst of this chaos, thousands will flee the

island. During the Mariel boatlift in 1980 125,000 fled the island.26 Many were criminals; this time the number could be

several hundred thousand flee ing to the U.S., creating a refugee crisis. Equally important, by adhering to anegative containment policy, the U.S. may be creating its next series of transnational criminal problems. Cuba is along the axis of the drug-trafficking flow into the U.S. from Columbia. The Castro government as a matter of policy does not support the drug

trade. In fact, Cubas actions have shown that its stance on drugs is more than hollow rhetoric asindicated by its increasing seizure of drugs 7.5 tons in 1995, 8.8 tons in 1999, and 13 tons in 2000.27 While there may beindividuals within the government and outside who engage in drug trafficking and a percentage of drugs entering the U.S. may pass through Cuba,

the Cuban government is not the path of least resistance for the flow of drugs. If there wereno Cuban restraints, the flow of drugs to the U.S. could be greatly facilitated by a Cuba base ofoperation and accelerate considerably. In the midst of an unstable Cuba, the opportunity forradical fundamentalist groups to operate in the region increases. If these groups can export

terrorist activity from Cuba to the U.S. or throughout the hemisphere then the war against

this extremism gets more complicated . Such activity could increase direct attacks and disrupt

the economies, threatening the stability of the fragile democracies that are buddingthroughout the region. In light of a failed state in the region, the U.S. may be forced to deploymilitary forces to Cuba, creating the conditions for another insurgency . The ramifications of this actioncould very well fuel greater anti-American sentiment throughout the Americas. A proactive policy now canmitigate these potential future problems. U.S. domestic political support is also turning against the current negative policy. The Cuban Americanpopulation in the U.S. totals 1,241,685 or 3.5% of t he population.28 Most of these exiles reside in Florida; their influence has been a factor indetermining the margin of victory in the past two presidential elections. But this election strategy may be flawed, because recent polls of CubanAmericans reflect a decline for President Bush based on his policy crackdown. There is a clear softening in the Cuban-American community with regardto sanctions. Younger Cuban Americans do not necessarily subscribe to the hard -line approach. These changes signal an opportunity for a newapproach to U.S.-Cuban relations. (Table 1) The time has come to look realistically at the Cuban issue. Castro will rule until he dies. The only issue is

what happens then? The U.S. can little afford to be distracted by a failed state 90 miles off its coast. The administration , given the present state of world affairs, does not have the luxury or the resources topursue the traditional American model of crisis management. The President and other government and militaryleaders have warned that the GWOT will be long and protracted. These warnings were sounded when the administration didnot anticipate operations in Iraq consuming so many military, diplomatic and economic resources. There is justifiable concern that Africa and

the Caucasus region are potential hot spots for terrorist activity , so these areas should be secure. North

Korea will continue to be an unpredictable crisis in waiting. We also cannot ignore China .What if China resorts to aggression to resolve the Taiwan situation? Will the U.S. go to war over Taiwan?


13/20

Additionally, Iran could conceivably be the next target for U.S. pre-emptive action. These areknown and potential situations that could easily require all or many of the elements ofnational power to resolve. I n view of such global issues, can the U.S. afford to sustain the status quo andsimply let the Cuban situation play out? The U.S. is at a crossroads: should the policies of the past 40 years remain in effect withvigor? Or should the U.S. pursue a new approach to Cuba in an effort to facilitate a manageable transition to post-Castro Cuba?

Refugee crises divert Coast Guard resources---they gut mission effectivenessMargaret D. Stock (Associate Professor, Department of Social Sciences, United States MilitaryAcademy, West Point, New York and Lieutenant Colonel, Military Police Corps, United StatesArmy Reserve) 2001 , National Security and Immigration Policy: Reclaiming Terms, MeasuringSuccess, and Setting Prioritieshttp://www.aclu.org/files/fbimappingfoia/20111110/ACLURM002826.pdf7 Fed. Reg. 68924 (Nov. 13, 2002) (A surge in illegal migration by sea threatens national security bydiverting valuable United States Coast Guard and other resources from counter-terrorism ...);

In re D-J-, 23 I & N Dec. 572 (A.G. 2003) (*T+here is a substantial prospect that the release of such aliens .... [would]encourage future surges in illegal migration by sea ... diverting valuable Coast Guard and DOJ

resources from counterterrorism and homeland security responsibilities .)

Coast Guard capabilities are key to naval power projectionScott Decker (LT CMNDER USCG) Feb2001 The coast guard is capable of conducting andleading expeditionary harbor defense/port security and Harbor approach defense operations,http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA389731.. .From the Sea touches on this, identifying sealift as a key enabler for joint operations and identifying the potential for Coast Guard

involvement. Protection of our sealift assets is vital to our success as "sea lines of communicationcarry more than 95 percent of the logistic support for forward-deployed forces. . .Although vesselsare vulnerable throughout their voyage, that vulnerability is greatest in the transition area between "bluewater" (deep oceans and seas) and "brown water" (coastal regions) and at [the] points of origin and

destination." 6 This transition area is the Coast Guard's backyard: its units play there everyday .As America elected to spend the Cold War peace-dividend at home, the Navy sought to increase efficiencies and maximize the use of

declining defense funds by improving the multi-mission capabilities of its high-end combatants. As less capable ships arebeing decommissioned to save money, the Navy is losing the flexibility it professes is necessaryfor future success . In essence it is finding itself between the "rocks" of limited defense dollars and the uncharted "shoals" ofasymmetric warfare. Fewer combatants, although highly capable, equate to less forward presence and a net loss when conflictensues. "If you lose a multi-mission platform, the impact on your overall warfighting capability [is more significant] with theremainder of the force."7 Then CNO ADM Jay Johnson correctly identified the situation in late summer 1999 and recommended a

way out: "the Navy must consider increasing the size of its fleet to further diminish the threat of an attack along a coast.. . Simplyput, numbers do matter ."8 While defense spending is likely to rise with the pro-defense Bushadministration, it will likely not be enough to support both a significant increase in thenumber of combatants and the development of a theater missile defense system. The "rocks and shoals" will still exist.Admiral James Loy, the Coast Guard's current Commandant recently observed, "In the [Cold War] era of a 600-ship Navy, 40 or soCoast Guard cutters were a virtual afterthought. But today with regional instability and strife around the world and 116 surface combatants in the Navy, [our 41major] cutters along with several hundred coastal patrolboats take on a new significance ."9 This statement demonstrates that Coast Guard resources can help

fulfill the low-end role. The CINCs have identified these deficiencies as well and are seeking ways to fill the gaps. A 1992research study on 21s1 century Coast Guard roles and missions asked them the following: "What specialized service could the CG

perform for DOD in the next century, and is there a gap in DOD capabilities that the Coast Guard could fill?" The responsesranged from consolidating the Navy's naval control of the shipping mission into the MDZ [maritime defense zone] command


14/20

structure to assuming responsibilities for "the low end of the high-low mix of ships." Additional responses addressed providingcapabilities for which the Navy does not have sufficient resources, and presence in low threatareas. 10 Seven years later, the Joint Interagency Task Force on Roles and Missions of the United States Coast Guard [hereafterreferred to as' Interagency Task Force'], established by then-President Clinton to "provide advice and recommendations regardingthe appropriate roles and missions for the United States Coast Guard through the year 2020,"11 validated this continuing need forCoast Guard involvement, and concluded, "The National Security Strategy and the conclusions of the Quadrennial Defense Review

require forces capable of fighting and winning two nearly simultaneous Major Theater Wars. Toeffect that strategy, the war-fighting Commanders-in-Chief have incorporated and dependupon Coast Guard assets for their war plans."12 In summation, the CINCs are depending onCoast Guard forces as key partners in the larger joint USN/USCG harbor defense/portsecurity organization currently in place-to fulfill the vision in Forward...From the Sea that"...U.S. naval forces will assume critical roles in the protection of vital sealift along the strategiclines of approach to the theater of conflict, including the air- and sea-ports of debarkation."13The Coast Guard is ready to respond: permitting the U.S. to project a "seamless" joint force,filling a critical role in protecting U.S power projection capabilities, and freeing up additionalcombatants for offensive use.

Reliance on naval mobility and deployment is inevitable because of offshorebalancing --- effective naval power is critical to foster cooperation and de-escalate all conflictsEngland 11 (Gordon England, former secretary of the Navy, James L. Jones, former commandantof the Marine Corps, Vern Clark, former chief of naval operations, Wall Street Journal, July 11,2011, The Necessity of U.S. Naval Power) All our citizens, and especially our servicemen and women, expect and deserve a thorough review of critical security decisions. Afterall, decisions today will affect the nation's strategic position for future generations. The future security environment underscores

two broad security trends. First, international political realities and the internationally agreed-to sovereign rights ofnations will increasingly limit the sustained involvement of American permanent land-based, heavy forces to themore extreme crises. This will make offshore options for deterrence and power projection ever more paramount in support of our

national interests. Second, the naval dimensions of American power will re-emerge as the primary means forassuring our allies and partners, ensuring prosperity in times of peace, and countering anti-access , area-denial efforts in times of crisis . We do not believe these trends will require the dismantling of land-based forces, as these forces willremain essential reservoirs of power. As the United States has learned time and again, once a crisis becomes a conflict, it isimpossible to predict with certainty its depth, duration and cost. That said, the U.S. has been shrinking its overseas land-based

installations, so the ability to project power globally will make the forward presence of naval forces an evenmore essential dimension of American influence. What we do believe is that uniquely responsive Navy -Marine Corpscapabilities provide the basis on which our most vital overseas interests are safeguarded. Forward presence and engagement iswhat allows the U.S. to maintain awareness, to deter aggression, and to quickly respond tothreats as they arise. Though we clearly must be prepared for the high-end threats, such preparation should be made in balancewith the means necessary to avoid escalation to the h igh end in the first place. The versatility of maritime forces provides a trulyunmatched advantage. The sea remains a vast space that provides nearly unlimited freedom of maneuver. Command of the seaallows for the presence of our naval forces, supported from a network of shore facilities, to be adjusted and scaled with little

external restraint. It permits reliance on proven capabilities such as prepositioned ships. Maritime capabilities

encourage and enable cooperation with other nations to solve common sea-based problems such as piracy,illegal trafficking, proliferation of W.M.D., and a host of other ills, which if unchecked can harm our friends andinterests abroad, and our own citizenry at home. The flexibility and responsiveness of naval forces provide our country witha general strategic deterrent in a potentially violent and unstable world. Most importantly, our naval forces project andsustain power at sea and ashore at the time, place, duration, and intensity of our choosing. Given these enduring qualities, toughchoices must clearly be made, especially in light of expected tight defense budgets. The administration and the Congress need tobalance the resources allocated to missions such as s trategic deterrence, ballistic missile defense, and cyber warfare with the moretraditional ones of sea control and power projection. The maritime capability and capacity vital to the flexible projection of U.S.power and influence around the globe must surely be preserved, especially in light of available technology. Capabilities such as theJoint Strike Fighter will provide strategic deterrence, in addition to tactical long-range strike, especially when operating from


15/20

forward-deployed naval vessels. Postured to respond quickly , the Navy -Marine Corps team integrates sea, air, and land power into

adaptive force packages spanning the entire spectrum of operations, from everyday cooperative security activities to unwelcome but not impossible wars between major powers. This is exactly what we will need to meet the challengesof the future.

Naval power solves global food crisis, Arctic war, Iranian aggression and Israel

war --- they all go nuclearEaglen 11 research fellow for national security Heritage, and McGrath, former naval officerand director Delex Consulting, Studies and Analysis, 5/16/ 11 (Mackenzie and Bryan, ThinkingAbout a Day Wit hout Sea Power: Implications for U.S. Defense Policy, Heritage Foundation ,)Global Implications. Under a scenario of dramatically reduced naval power, the United States wouldcease to be active in any international alliances. While it is reasonable to assume that land and air forces wouldbe similarly reduced in this scenario, the lack of credible maritime capability to move their bulk andestablish forward bases would render these forces irrelevant, even if the Army and Air Force were retained attodays levels. In Iraq and Afghanistan today, 90 percent of material arrives by sea, although material bound for Afghanistan must

then make a laborious journey by land into theater. Chinas claims on the S outh China Sea, previously disputedby virtually all nations in the region and routinely contested by U.S. and partner naval forces, are

accepted as a fait accompli, effectively turning the region into a Chinese lake. China establishes expansive oiland gas exploration with new deepwater drilling technology and secures its local sea lanes from intervention. Korea, unified in 2017after the implosion of the North, signs a mutual defense treaty with China and solidifies their relationship. Japan isincreasingly isolated and in 2020 2025 executes long-rumored plans to create an indigenous nuclear weapons capability. [11] By 2025, Japan has 25 mobile nuclear-armed missiles ostensibly targetingChina, toward which Japans historical animus remains strong. Chinas entente with Ru ssialeaves the Eurasian landmass dominated by Russia looking west and China looking east andsouth. Each cedes a sphere of dominance to the other and remains largely unconcerned with the events in the others sphere.Worldwide, trade in foodstuffs collapses. Expanding populations in the Middle East increasepressure on their governments , which are already stressed as the breakdown in world tradedisproportionately affects food importers . Piracy increases worldwide, driving food transportation costs evenhigher. In the Arctic, Russia aggressively asserts its dominance and effectively shoulders out other nationswith legitimate claims to seabed resources. No naval power exists to counter Russias claims. India, recognizingthat its previous role as a balancer to China has lost relevance with the retrenchment of the Americans, agrees to supplementChinese naval power in the Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf to protect the f low of oil to Southeast Asia. In exchange, China agrees toexercise increased influence on its client state Pakistan. The great typhoon of 2023 strikes Bangladesh, killing 23,000 people initially,and 200,000 more die in the subsequent weeks and months as the international community provides little humanitarian relief.

Cholera and malaria are epidemic. Iran dominates the Persian Gulf and is a nuclear power. Its navy aggressively patrols the Gulf while the Revolutionary Guard Navy harasses shipping and oil infrastructureto force Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries into Tehrans orbit. Russia supplies Iran with asteady flow of military technology and nuclear industry expertise . Lacking a regional threat, the Iranians happilycontrol the flow of oil from the Gulf and benefit economically from the protection provided to other GCC nations. In Egypt , thedecade-long experiment in participatory democracy ends with the ascendance of the Muslim Brotherhoodin a violent seizure of power. The United States is identified closely with the previous coalition government, and riotsbreak out at the U.S. embassy. Americans in Egypt are left to their own devices because the U.S. has no forces in theMediterranean capable of performing a noncombatant evacuation when the government closes major airports. Led byIran, a coalition of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq attacks Israel. Over 300,000 die in six months of fighting thatincludes a limited nuclear exchange between Iran and Israel. Israel is defeated, and the State of Palestine is declared in itsplace. Massive refugee camps are created to house the internally displaced Israelis, but a humanitarian nightmareensues from the inability of conquering forces to support them. The NATO alliance is shattered. The security of European nationsdepends increasingly on the lack of external threats and the nuclear capability of France, Britain, and Germany, which overcame itsreticence to military capability in light of Americas retrenchment. Europe depends for its energy security on Russia and Iran, whichcontrol the main supply lines and sources of oil and gas to Europe. Major European nations stand down their militaries and instead


16/20

make limited contributions to a new EU military constabulary force. No European nation maintains the ability to conduct significantout-of-area operations, and Europe as a whole maintains little airlift capacity.

Korean war goes nuclear, spills over globallySteven Metz 3-13 , Chairman of the Regional Strategy and Planning Department and ResearchProfessor of National Security Affairs at the Strategic Studies Institute, 3/13/13, StrategicHorizons: Thinking the Unthinkable on a Second Korean War,http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/12786/strategic-horizons-thinking-the-unthinkable-on-a-second-korean-warToday, North Korea is the most dangerous country on earth and the greatest threat to U.S.security . For years, the bizarre regime in Pyongyang has issued an unending stream of claims that a U.S. and South Korean invasion is imminent,while declaring that it will defeat this offensive just as -- according to official propaganda -- it overcame the unprovoked American attack in 1950. Often

the press releases from the official North Korean news agency are absurdly funny, and Americanpolicymakers tend to ignore them as a result. Continuing to do so , though, could be dangerous as eventsand rhetoric turn even more ominous . In response to North Korea's Feb. 12 nuclear test, the U.N. Security Council recentlytightened existing sanctions against Pyongyang. Even China, North Korea's long-standing benefactor and protector, went along. Convulsed by anger,

Pyongyang then threatened a pre-emptive nuclear strike against the U nited States and South Korea ,

abrogated the 1953 armistice that ended the Korean War and cut off the North-South hotline installed in 1971 to help avoid an escalationof tensions between the two neighbors. A spokesman for the North Korean Foreign Ministry asserted that a second Korean War is unavoidable. He

might be right; for the first time, an official statement from the North Korean government may prove true. No American leader wantsanother war in Korea . The problem is that the North Koreans make so many threatening and bizarreofficial statements and sustain such a high level of military readiness that Americanpolicymakers might fail to recognize the signs of impending attack . After all, every recent U.S. warbegan with miscalculation ; American policymakers misunderstood the intent of theiropponents, who in turn underestimated American determination . The conflict with North Koreacould repeat this pattern . Since the regime of Kim Jong Un has continued its predecessors tradition of responding hysterically to everyaction and statement it doesn't like, it's hard to assess exactly what might push Pyongyang over the edge and cause it to lash out . It could be something that the United States considers modest and reasonable, or it could be some sort ofinternal power struggle within the North Korean regime invisible to the outsi de world.

While we cannot know

whether

the

recent round of threats from Pyongyang is serious or simply more of the same old lathering , it would beprudent to think the unthinkable and reason through what a war instigated by a fearful and delusional North Korean regime mightmean for U.S. security. The second Korean War could begin with missile strikes against South Korean,Japanese or U.S. targets , or with a combination of missile strikes and a major conventional invasion of the South -- something NorthKorea has prepared for many decades. Early attacks might include nuclear weapons , but even if they didn't, the UnitedStates would probably move quickly to destroy any existing North Korean nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. The war itself wouldbe extremely costly and probably long . North Korea is the most militarized society on earth. Its armed forces are backward but huge.It's hard to tell whether the North Korean people, hav ing been fed a steady diet of propaganda based on adulation of the Kim regime, would resist U.S.and South Korean forces that entered the North or be thankful for relief from their brutally parasitic rulers. As the conflic t in Iraq showed, the UnitedStates and its allies should prepare for widespread, protracted resistance even while hoping it doesn't occur. Extended guerri lla operations andinsurgency could potentially last for years following the defeat of North Korea's conventional military. North Korea would need massive relief, as wouldSouth Korea and Japan if Pyongyang used nuclear weapons. Stabilizing North Korea and developing an effective and peaceful regime would require a

lengthy occupation, whether U.S.-dominated or with the United States as a major contributor. The second Korean War wouldforce military mobilization in the U nited States. This would initially involve the military's existing reserve component, but it

would probably ultimately require a major expansion of the U.S. military and hence a draft . The military'straining infrastructure and the defense industrial base would have to grow. This would be a body blow to efforts to cutgovernment spending in the United States and postpone serious deficit reduction for some time , evenif Washington increased taxes to help fund the war . Moreover, a second Korean conflict would shock the global economy and potentially have destabilizing effects outside Northeast Asia . Eventually, though, the United States and its allies would defeat the North Korean military. At that point it would be impossible for the United States tosimply re-establish the status quo ante bellum as it did after the first Korean War. The Kim regime is too unpredictable, desperate and dangerous to


17/20

tolerate. Hence regime change and a permanent ending to the threat from North Korea would have to be America's strategic obje ctive. China wouldpose the most pressing and serious challenge to such a transformation of North Korea. After all, Beijing's intervention saved North Korean dictator KimIl Sung after he invaded South Korea in the 1950s, and Chinese assistance has kept the subsequent members of the Kim family dictatorship in power.Since the second Korean War would invariably begin like the first one -- with North Korean aggression -- hopefully China has matured enough as a greatpower to allow the world to remove its dangerous allies this time. If the war began with out-of-the-blue North Korean missile strikes, China couldconceivably even contribute to a multinational operation to remove the Kim regime. Still, China would vehemently oppose a long-term U.S. militarypresence in North Korea or a unified Korea allied with the United States. One way around this might be a grand bargain leaving a unified but neutralKorea. However appealing this might be, Korea might hesitate to adopt neutrality as it sits just across the Yalu River from a China that tends to claim all

territory that it controlled at any point in its history. If the aftermath of the second Korean War is not handled adroitly, the result couldeasily be heightened hostility between the U nited States and China , perhaps even a new cold war. After all, historyshows that deep economic connections do not automatically prevent nations from hostility andwar -- in 1914 Germany was heavily involved in the Russian economy and had extensive trade and financial ties with France and Great Br itain. It isnot inconceivable then, that after the second Korean War, U.S.-China relations would be antagonistic and hostile at the same time that the twocontinued mutual trade and investment. Stranger things have happened in statecraft.


18/20

PlanThus the plan: As they pertain to crude oil reservoirs, the United States federalgovernment should lift its restrictions that preclude United States firms fromexploring, extracting, refining, importing, or coordinating engineering andsafety protocols with the Republic of Cuba.


19/20

Contention 3: SolvencyFirst Plan is effective , topical , and US firms would say yes .Benjamin- Alvarado 10 Jonathan Benjamin- Alvarado, PhD of Political Science, University of Nebraska, 2010, Cubas Energy Future: Strategic A pproaches toCooperation, a Brookings Publication obtained as an ebook through MSU Electronic Resources page 125-26

There are numerous areas in the energy sector in which the U nited States and Cuba can and shouldcooperate: exploration , energy production , downstream operations , transportation, and auxiliaryservices. In addition, the opportunity for U.S. firms to invest directly in the development of Cubanenergy resources should be created . Recent history shows that Cuba possesses the potential to be a strong regionaltrade partner in the area of energy and infrastructure development. It might be premature for U.S. firms to begin opening branchoffices along Avenida Quinta in the Miramar district of Havana, but it is rational to cons ider the benefits that would be drawn fromthe expansion of trade and cooperation between Cuba and the United States in energy development. There will be obviouslimitations on such investment opportunities because of the empresa mixta joint-venture model that the Cuban governmentemploys, but as previously stated, international oil companies are not averse to adjusting their investment models to specific market

conditions, and in the case of Cuba it would be no different. In fact, there has been no lack of interest on the partof American international oil firms in developing a Cuban market. The prevailing Cuban model of joint-venture investment and cooperation has proved to be attractive internationally, and there are numerous opportunities in this area for American firms as soon as there are significant changes in the Cuban embargo sothat this type of engagement can occur.

Second Cuba also says yes. This spills -into broader cooperationBenjamin- Alvarado 10 Jonathan Benjamin-Alvarado, PhD of Political Science , University of Nebraska, 2010, Cubas Energy Future: Strategic Approaches toCooperation, a Brookings Publication obtained as an ebook through MSU Electronic Resources page 120Undoubtedly, after fifty years of enmity, there is a significant lack of trust and confidence between the United States and Cuba. Thisis plain from the almost quaint maintenance of a sanctions regime that seeks to isolate Cuba economically and politically but hardlyreflects the dramatic changes that have occurred on the island since 1991, not to mention since 2008, when Fidel Castro officially

stepped aside as Cubas president. Now, the opportunity to advance relations in the energy arena appears tobe ripe . Since 2004, representatives from American companies, trade organizations, universities, and think tanks have had theopportunity to meet with Cuban energy officials. The scope and objectives of Cuban energy development schemes have beendisseminated, dissected, and discussed across a number of settings where the interested parties are now familiar with and well

versed in the agendas and opportunities that exist in this arena. In public discussions, Cuban energy authorities havemade it clear that their preferred energy development scenario includes working closely withthe U.S. oil and gas industry and using state-of-the-art U.S. oil technologies . The assessment from U.S. energy expertson the technical acumen and capability of Cuban energy officials has been overwhelmingly positive. 9 Should the U.S. government and the Obama administration see fit to shift its policy so as to allow broader participation of American academicsand practitioners in the energy field to attend conferences and meet with Cuban energy officials, it may pave the way toestablishing much-needed familiarity and confidence across these communities.

Drilling is inevitable regardless of the embargo Gonzalez 13 Ivet Gonzlez has been the correspondent for IPS Cuba since 2011.Cuba Diversifies But Energy Focus Still on Oil Inter-PressService News Agency http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/03/cuba-diversifies-but-energy-focus-still-on-oil/


20/20

In January 2012, the Scarabeo 9 drilling rig was brought to Cuba from Asia to sink an exploratory well into theseabed in the Gulf of Mexico. Cuba estimates that there could be up to 20 billion barrels of oil reservesin a 112,000-square kilometre area, although the United States projects a total of about five b illion barrels. But inNovember, Cuba s Ministry of Basic Industry announced that the rig would be removed from Cuba, after threefailed attempts to find a commercially viable well, financed by PDVSA, Spains Repsol, PC Gulf a subsidiary of Malaysias Petronas and Gazpromneft of Russia. After this harsh blow, Cupet reported that the Moscow-based firm Zarubezhneft would explore for oil

off north-central Cuba using the Norwegian-owned Songa Mercur drilling platform. The Russian state-run company is drilling a6,500-metre well in an endeavour that is expected to take six months. The Cuban government has not lost hopethat the country will manage to become self-sufficient in energy . In another importantdevelopment zone , around the port of El Mariel in the province of Artemisa, bordering Havana, the plan is tocreate a support base for future oil industry activity. But the need to diversify the energy

supply is increasingly seen as a priority in Cuba s current economic reform process.

US embargo doesnt work in the context of oil its functionally a unilateralembargo .Sotolongo 11 Kristie, Associate Editor, Downstream Newsletter Group, Hart Energy Publishing Internally quoting Kirby Jones, founder of theWashington-based U.S.-Cuba Trade Association http://www.epmag.com/Production/Cuban-Oil-Rush-Beckons-US-Embargo-Reform_86074If it really is 20 billion, then its a game changer, Jonathon Benjamin -Alvarado, a Cuba oil analyst at the University of Nebraska-Omah a, told Time magazine in 2008. It provides a lot more justification for changing elements of the embargo, just as we did whe n

we allowed agricultural and medical sales to Cuba more than a de

Documents

1ac Cuban Oil