1AC Agriculture Advantage—Scenario 1 is EconomyFirst- Status quo prevents agriculture trade with CubaGriswold 05- Daniel Griswold, director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute (“Four Decades of Failure: The U.S. Embargo against Cuba”, 10/12/05, http://www.cato.org/publications/speeches/four-decades-failure-us-embargo-against-cuba, Accessed: 7/3/13, zs)

Cuban families are not the only victims of the embargo. Many of the dollars Cubans could earn from U.S. tourists would come back to the United States to buy American products, especially farm goods .In 2000, Congress approved a modest opening of the embargo. The Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 allows cash-only sales to Cuba of U.S. farm products and medical supplies. The results of this opening have been quite amazing. Since 2000, total sales of farm products to Cuba have increased from virtually zero to $380 million last year. From dead last in U.S. farm export markets, Cuba ranked 25th last year out of 228 countries in total purchases of U.S. farm products. Cuba is now the fifth largest export market in Latin America for U.S. farm exports. American farmers sold more to Cuba last year than to Brazil. Our leading exports to Cuba are meat and poultry, rice, wheat, corn, and soybeans.The American Farm Bureau estimates that Cuba could eventually become a $1 billion agricultural export market for products of U.S. farmers and ranchers . The embargo stifles another $250 million in potential annual exports of fertilizer, herbicides, pesticides and tractors. According to a study by the U.S. International Trade Commission, the embargo costs American firms a total of $700 million to $1.2 billion per year. Farmers in Texas and neighboring states are among the biggest potential winners. One study by Texas A&M University estimated that Texas ranks fifth among states in potential farm exports to Cuba, with rice, poultry, beef and fertilizer the top exports.

Removing the embargo is key to agriculture tradeCopeland, Jolly, and Thompson 11- Cassandra Copeland, Curtis Jolly, Henry Thompson, professors of economics, business, and trade at the University of Auburn (2011, “Journal of economics and business”, PDF, Auburn, Accessed 6/27/13, http://www.auburn.edu/~thomph1/cubahistory.pdf, zs)

Cuba has substantial potential to export to the US. Cuba is the largest island in the Caribbean , about as large in land area as Alabama. Two-thirds of the land in Cuba can be cultivated . Cuba’s population of 11 million is about twice that of Alabama or about equal to Georgia or the combination of Mississippi, Louisiana, and Arkansas. Cuba is potentially a major component of the regional economy. Cuba’s major agriculture exports are sugar, citrus, fish, cigars, and coffee. These crops complement US wheat, rice, meat, poultry, cotton, soybeans, and feed grains. Cuba also has mineral deposits of nickel (world’s second largest reserves), cobalt, iron, copper, chromite, manganese, zinc, 12 and tungsten, as well as unexplored petroleum potential. Cuba has no potential to export manufactures but that would develop with foreign investment. Figure 11 reports US agricultural exports to Cuba in 2006, led by wheat, soybeans, chicken, corn, and rice. Given this demonstrated demand, it is safe to say lifting the embargo will increase demand for US agricultural products. Cuba can compete in only a few international agricultural markets but could supply a niche organic market in the US as suggested by Kost (1998) who projects annual agricultural exports to Cuba of $1 billion of US feed grains with a lifted embargo .

The agriculture industry is key to prevent US economic decline

Pulliam 12 – John Pulliam, writer for Galesberg, winner of 2010 AP article contest (“Farmers want Cuban embargo lifted”, Galesberg, 7/8/12, http://www.galesburg.com/news/x1271220402/Farmers-want-Cuban-embargo-lifted#axzz2Y1R3Us3L , accessed: 7/3/13, ckr)

“Restoring normal trade relations with Cuba is an important step in furthering Illinois farmers’ abilities to market their produce , including grains , meat and dairy products ,” said Tamara Nelsen, senior director of commodities for the Illinois Farm Bureau. “Agriculture has been a bright spot in our nation’s — and our state’s — economy during the recent downturn . Improving our trade relations with Cuba will only help to ensure agriculture can continue to strengthen our state and national economies.”While there may be some potential for renewed trade with Cuba if the embargo is lifted, Serven thinks it will help Cuba more than affecting U.S. farmers.“As far as being a boon for U.S. agriculture, I don’t think that will happen,” he said. “But it’s just the fact that we’re so close.”Strom said the trade embargo has very real effects. For instance, rather than buying rice from Mississippi, which would take three days to get to the island nation, Cuba is forced to buy it from Vietnam, which takes 28 days to ship the nation, about 100 miles south of Florida . “So logistically, the cost would be a whole lot cheaper (for Cuba) to buy food from the United States, just because of transportation costs,” Serven said.

Avoiding US economic decline key to global economy.BW ‘13(internally quoting Dr. Venkatesh Bala, chief economist at The Cambridge Group, a part of Nielsen – Business Wire – February 5, 2013 – lexis)

"North America is slowly but steadily heading in the right direction," said Dr. Bala. "Compared to a year ago,

North America showed progress toward recovery with a six-point year-on-year consumer confidence increase, driven

mainly by a three-point increase in a positive job outlook, up from 37 percent to 40 percent year-on-year. With continued weakness in Europe and uneven growth in Asia, it may well be that with a brighter job market, the U nited S tates w ill serve as the critical engine of improved global economic activity in 2013."

Global economic decline causes nuclear warAuslin ‘9 (Michael, Resident Scholar – American Enterprise Institute, and Desmond Lachman – Resident Fellow – American Enterprise Institute, “The Global Economy Unravels”, Forbes, 3-6, http://www.aei.org/article/100187)

What do these trends mean in the short and medium term? The Great Depression showed how social and global chaos followed hard on economic collapse. The mere fact that parliaments across the globe, from America to Japan, are unable to make responsible, economically sound recovery plans suggests that they do not know what to do and are simply hoping for the least disruption. Equally worrisome is the adoption of more statist economic programs around the globe, and the concurrent decline of trust in free-market systems. The threat of instability is a pressing concern. China, until last year the world's fastest growing economy, just reported that 20 million migrant laborers lost their jobs. Even in the flush times of recent years, China faced upward of 70,000 labor uprisings a year. A sustained downturn poses grave and possibly immediate threats to Chinese internal stability . The regime in Beijing may be faced with a choice of repressing its own people or diverting their energies outward, leading to conflict with China's neighbors. Russia, an oil state completely dependent on energy sales, has had to put down riots in its Far East as well as in downtown Moscow. Vladimir Putin's rule has been predicated on squeezing civil liberties while providing economic largesse. If that devil's bargain falls apart, then wide -scale repression in side Russia, along with a continuing threatening posture toward Russia's neighbors, is likely. Even apparently stable societies face increasing risk and the threat of internal or possibly external conflict. As Japan's exports have plummeted by nearly 50%, one-third of the country's prefectures have passed emergency economic stabilization plans. Hundreds of thousands of temporary employees hired during the first part of this decade are being laid off. Spain's unemployment rate is expected to climb to nearly 20% by the end of 2010; Spanish unions are already protesting the lack of jobs, and the specter of violence, as occurred in the 1980s, is haunting the country. Meanwhile, in Greece, workers have already taken to the streets. Europe as a whole will face dangerously increasing tensions between native citizens and immigrants, largely from poorer Muslim nations, who have increased the labor pool in the past several decades. Spain has absorbed five million immigrants since 1999, while nearly 9% of Germany's residents have foreign citizenship, including almost 2 million Turks. The xenophobic labor strikes in the U.K. do not bode well for the rest of Europe. A prolonged global downturn , let alone a collapse , would

dramatically raise tensions inside these countries . Couple that with possible protectionist legislation in the United States,

unresolved ethnic and territorial disputes in all regions of the globe and a loss of confidence that world leaders actually know what they are doing. The result may be a series of small explosions that coalesce into a big bang .

Ag Adv AT: Cuba not key to US AgCuba markets key to U.S. agricultureWilliams 02—Graduate of University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture (“MORE ASSISTANCE PLEASE: LIFTING THE CUBAN EMBARGO MAY HELP REVIVE AMERICAN FARMS”, Drake Journal of Agricultural Law, 1/2002, http://students.law.drake.edu/aglawjournal/docs/agVol07No2-Williams.pdf, Accessed 7/3/12, jtc)American farmers are at a point where they desperately need to search for new avenues and alternatives to increase their profits and pull themselves out of financial difficulty. I believe that one such way is lifting the highly

controversial Cuban embargo, thus granting American farmers entrance into the Cuban market. It is apparent that Cuba has a need for food and American farmers are looking to increase foreign markets. Therefore, lifting the Cuban embargo may help to solve both countries’ problems. Recently, there has been widespread support for lifting the Cuban food and medicine embargo by American farmers and Congressmen because it is estimated that Cuba buys a little less than one billion dollars of food annually from

countries such as Canada, Europe, and Latin America.110 Any well-trained businessman knows that a billion-dollar market is a gold mine in the world of economics.111 And, any well-trained businessman knows that “opening additional export markets,” a billion dollar one at that, is vital to any “industry that is in a severe economic crisis.”112 Therefore, many American farmers and certain Congressman have taken steps to open the Cuban market to American Farmers.113 For example, Representative Nick Lampson of Texas, along with several rice farmers, traveled to Cuba in search of new export markets, in turn, they asked United States lawmakers to lift the restrictions on food and medicine sales to Cuba.114 Representative Lampson believes that “the objectives for which [the embargo] was created no longer makes any sense in either political or economic terms.”115 Furthermore, Representative Lampson

believes that the economic sanctions specifically hurt two groups of people, “the Cuban people who need our food, and United States farmers who can produce it in abundance.”116 Other Congressmen have also asked for lifting the embargo, mainly because of the rising interest and influence from agricultural and business groups who want to transact business with Cuba.117 For example, in March 2000, Senator Jesse Helms, an outspoken supporter of the embargo, passed a bill that would permit the sale of American food and medicine to the Cuban people.118 It is also believed that the American public is even changing its views about the embargo.119 Several polls showed that the Cuban embargo support of the past was beginning to fade because six of ten Americans backed the sanctions; today, forty-seven percent of the American public feel its time to remove Cuba’s sanctions.120 Furthermore, at least thirty-eight powerful and influential farm groups and agribusiness companies support lifting the sanctions against Cuba.121 More support is soon to follow, especially since two ships carrying U.S. chicken arrived in Cuba, completing the first trade between the two nations since the embargo was first implemented.122 Moreover at that time, more shipments were expected to bring about $30 million dollars worth of American wheat, corn, soybeans, rice, and chicken.123 This magnitude of support clearly demonstrates the eagerness of American farmers and businesses to tap into the economic opportunities that are present in Cuba.124 But the recent food sales to Cuba will surely fuel the debate in the United States between American farmers and corporations who would like to see an end to the embargo, and Cuban exile groups who would like to make the sanctions tougher.125 If the United States government were to lift the Cuban embargo to provide assistance to the American farmer, then such a move will give them access to a new billion-dollar market in which to sell its food. More importantly, this new billion-dollar market will ultimately provide American farmers with some of the aid that they so desperately seek. Clearly, American farmers want, need, and feel that they should have the opportunity to tap into this market, just as farmers and businessmen from other nations have. Presently, other countries have a head start with Cuban investment.126 However, as a practical matter, tapping into this market could be beneficial to both countries because Cuba is so close to the United States.127 Therefore, this advantage afforded to other countries could shift to the United States simply because of the proximity between the two nations.128 B. The United States’ Proximity to Cuba Cuba is only ninety miles south of the United States.129 Thus,

both countries could save considerable amounts of time and money because of reduced transportation costs.130 Moreover, American farmers’ products could be easily and quickly transported to Cuba if the embargo were lifted.131 C. The Cuban Economy The Cuban economy is in terrible shape.132 Presently, “the Cuban economy has stagnated because its primary benefactor, the former Soviet Union, is no longer able to provide it significant financial support.”133 Again, between 1989 and 1990, “Cuba lost its major commercial markets together with the Soviet subsidies it had been receiving.”134 Moreover, from 1959 to 1994, Cuba’s GNP fell from U.S. $32.5 billion to U.S. $ 18.6 billion.135 During that same time, the total worth of Cuba’s exports fell from U.S. $5.4 billion to U.S. $1.7 billion.136

AG Adv EXT: Removal key to AgLifting the embargo benefits the US agricultural industry, USITC studySullivan 3/29 --- Mark P. Sullivan, Specialist in Latin American Affairs for the Congressional Research Office (“Cuba: U.S. Policy and Issues for the 113th Congress”, March 29, 2013, FAS, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R43024.pdf, accessed June 28, 2013, MY)The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) produced a study in 2007 analyzing the effects of both U.S. government financing restrictions for agricultural exports to Cuba and U.S. travel restrictions on the level of U.S. agricultural sales to Cuba.48 At the time of the study, the U.S. share of various Cuban agricultural imports

was estimated to range from 0-99% depending on the commodity. If U.S. financing restrictions were lifted, the study estimated that the U.S. share of Cuban agricultural, fish, and forest products imports would rise to between one-half and two-thirds. According to the study, if travel restrictions for all U.S. citizens were lifted, the influx of U.S. tourists would be significant in the short term and would boost demand for imported agricultural products, particularly high-end products for

the tourist sector. If both financing and travel restrictions were lifted, the study found that the largest gains in U.S. exports to Cuba would be for fresh fruits and vegetables, milk powder, processed foods, wheat, and dry beans.In 2009, the USITC issued a working paper that updated the agency’s 2007 study on U.S. agricultural sales to Cuba. The update concluded that if U.S. restrictions on financing and travel were lifted in 2008, U.S. agricultural exports to Cuba would have increased between $216 million and $478 million and the U.S. share of Cuba’s agricultural imports would have increased from 38% to between 49% and 64%.49 Among the U.S. agricultural products that would have benefited the most were wheat, rice, beef, pork, processed foods, and fish products. In general, some groups favor further easing restrictions on agricultural exports to Cuba. U.S. agribusiness companies that support the removal of restrictions on agricultural exports to Cuba believe that U.S. farmers are unable to capitalize on a market so close to the United States. Those who support the lifting of financing restrictions contend such an action would help smaller U.S. companies increase their exports to Cuba more rapidly. Opponents of further easing restrictions on agricultural exports to Cuba maintain that U.S. policy does not deny such sales to Cuba, as evidenced by the large amount of sales since 2001. In particular, some agricultural producers that export to Cuba support continuation of the provision requiring payment of cash in advance because it ensures that they will be paid.

Lifting Embargo key to Farm exports/ imports.Griswold 09 Daniel Griswold, director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C. (6/27/13, “The US Embargo of Cuba is a Failure”, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/us-embargo-cuba-is-failure)Admitting Cuba to the OAS may be premature, given the organisation’s charter that requires its members to be democracies that respect human

rights, but changes to the US economic embargo are long overdue. The embargo has been a failure by every measure. It has not changed the course or nature of the Cuban government. It has not liberated a single Cuban citizen. In fact, the embargo has made the

Cuban people a bit more impoverished, without making them one bit more free. At the same time, it has deprived Americans of their freedom

to travel and has cost US farmers and other producers billions of dollars of potential exports. Congress and President Barack Obama should act now to lift the embargo to allow more travel and farm exports to Cuba.”As a tool of US foreign policy, the embargo actually enhances the Castro government’s standing by giving it a handy excuse for the failures of the island’s Caribbean-style socialism. Brothers Fidel and Raul can rail for hours about the suffering the embargo inflicts on Cubans, even though the damage done by their communist policies has been far worse. The embargo has failed to give us an ounce of extra leverage over what happens in Havana. In 2000,

Congress approved a modest opening of the embargo. The Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act allows cash-only sales to Cuba of US farm products and medical supplies. The results of this modest opening have been quite amazing. Since 2000, total sales of farm products to Cuba have increased from virtually zero to $691m in 2008. The top US exports by value are corn, meat and poultry, wheat and soybeans. From dead last, Cuba is now the number six customer in Latin America for

US agricultural products. Last year, American farmers sold more to the 11.5 million people who live in Cuba than to the 200 million people in Brazil. According to the US international trade commission, US farm exports would increase another $250m if restrictions were lifted on export financing. This should not be interpreted as a call for export-import bank subsidies. Trade with Cuba must be entirely commercial and market driven. Lifting the embargo should not mean that US taxpayers must now subsidise exports to Cuba. But neither should the government stand in the way. USITC estimates do not capture the long-term export potential to Cuba from normalised relations. The Bahamas, Dominican Republic, Jamaica and Guatemala spend an average of 2.8% of their GDP to buy farm exports from the US. If Cuba spent the same share of its GDP on

US farm exports, exports could more than double the current level, to $1.5bn a year. Advocates of the embargo argue that trading with Cuba will only put dollars into the coffers of the Castro regime. And it’s true that the government in Havana, because it controls the economy, can skim off a large share of the remittances and tourist dollars spent in Cuba. But of course, selling more US products to Cuba would quickly relieve the Castro regime of those same dollars. if more US tourists were permitted to visit Cuba, and at the same time US exports to Cuba were further liberalised, the US economy could reclaim dollars from the Castro regime as fast as the regime could acquire them. In effect, the exchange would be of agricultural products for tourism services, a kind of “bread for beaches”, “food for fun” trade relationship. Meanwhile, the increase in Americans visiting Cuba would dramatically increase contact between Cubans and Americans. The unique US-Cuban relationship that flourished before Castro could be renewed, which would increase US influence and potentially hasten the decline of the communist regime. Congress and President Barack Obama should act now to lift the embargo to allow more travel and farm exports to Cuba. Expanding our freedom to travel to, trade with and invest in Cuba would make Americans better off and would help the Cuban people and speed the day when they can enjoy the freedom they deserve.

Lifting Embargo Key to AgricultureDanielson 13 Richard Danielson, covers city government and politics in Tampa. He grew up in Clearwater, graduated from Vanderbilt University and joined the Times in 1987. (“U.S. Rep. Kathy Castor: Lift Cuba embargo, travel limits”, Tampa Bay Times, April 8, 2013, http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/us-rep-kathy-castor-lift-cuba-embargo-travel-restrictions/2113828, Date Accessed: June 28, 2013, SD)

companies, except for computer and some high-tech companies, can sell to Cuba now — for cash. What the embargo

prevents, he said, is extending the regime credit, and he said it should since he doesn't believe the nation would repay its debts. He also predicted opening Cuba to tourism would hurt Florida's economy. "If the travel ban is lifted, there ain't going to be a tourist in our neck of the woods for five years, because every tourist is going to go south," he said. While Fernandez said Castor's trip was valid and lawful, he contended her proposals do nothing but give credibility and propaganda points to a dictatorship. "She joins Beyoncé, Flake and all the terrorists of the Western hemisphere in their expression of solidarity with the repression and tyranny of the Cuban regime," Fernandez said. Castor said such critics "need to recognize the fact that there are new, privately owned small businesses — restaurants everywhere, hotels and motels. Reform is happening, and much of the money is not going to support the actual government. It is going to those individuals, just like the remittances. "Every American should be able to travel" to Cuba, she said, "including Beyoncé and Jay-Z, and including the people in the Tampa Bay area — and they should fly out of Tampa."

Lifting Embargo key to agriculture sector.Lloyd 11 Delia Lloyd, PhD in political science.(“Ten Reasons to Lift the Cuba Embargo”, Huffpost Politics, 2011, http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/24/ten-reasons-to-lift-the-cuba-embargo, Date Accessed: June 28, 2013, SD)

It's good economics. It's long been recognized that opening up Cuba to American investment would be a huge boon to the tourism industry in both countries. According to the Cuban government, 250,000 Cuban-Americans visited from the United States in 2009, up from roughly 170,000 the year before, suggesting a pent-up demand. Lifting the embargo would also be an enormous boon the U.S. agricultural sector. One 2009 study estimated that doing away with all financing and travel restrictions on U.S. agricultural exports to Cuba would have boosted 2008 dairy sales to that country from $13 million to between $39 million and $87 million, increasing U.S. market share from 6 percent to between 18 and 42 percent.

The embargo hurts the US agricultural industry. Grogg 06- Patricia Grogg; Cuban correspondent to IPS, studied Journalism in the University of Havana (“Cuba Embargo’s Boomerang Effect” IPS, October 2006, http://havanajournal.com/politics/entry/cuba-embargos-boomerang-effect/, accessed: 6/27/13, ML)

Washington’s embargo against Cuba also has an impact on the United States economy and prevents millions of U.S. citizens from benefiting from Cuban medical progress, according to a report released by the Cuban foreign ministry.The text of the report will be presented at the United Nations General Assembly, which on Nov. 8 will be examining for the fifteenth consecutive year the need to end the embargo imposed by Washington on Havana more than four decades ago. The document states that “because of the blockade regulations” it has been impossible to begin clinical trials in the U.S. with TheraCIM, a Cuban pharmaceutical product for treating brain tumours in children.TheraCIM is produced by the Molecular Immunology Centre, which in 2004 made a deal with U.S. company CancerVax to develop and produce therapeutic vaccines against cancer.This medication is registered in Cuba and other countries for treating cancer of the head and neck, and has been proved to reduce tumour mass. It could benefit children in the United States and other countries with this type of cancer, the report points out.It also adds that were it not for the embargo, millions of people in the United States suffering from diabetes could benefit from Citoprot P, a unique product and treatment method that accelerates healing of diabetic foot ulcers, reducing the risk of lower extremity amputations.Citoprot P was developed by the Cuban Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology. According to the foreign ministry report, about 20.8 million people in the United States suffer from diabetes, a chronic incurable disease.The restrictions that Cuba calls a blockade and the U.S. an embargo have cost this Caribbean country 86.1 billion dollars in total damages throughout the period, including four billion in 2005 alone, the document says.Last year the U.N. approved by 182 votes the Cuban motion in favour of lifting the embargo. The motion was first set before the U.N. General Assembly in 1992, when only 59 countries voted in favour of the resolution.The report states that the ban on U.S. tourism to Cuba causes tourist agents in the U.S. losses of 565 million dollars per million U.S. tourists who are prevented from visiting the country.An estimated 1.8 million U.S. tourists could have vacationed in this Caribbean island in 2005, but because of the ban, U.S. tourist agencies lost potential income of 996 million dollars, the report says.In addition, the U.S. imports about 148,000 tons of primary nickel and some 10,000 tons of cobalt annually “from distant markets.”But “If the blockade did not exist,” it could purchase these raw materials from Cuba, only 200 kilometres away, the report notes.At present Cuba produces about 77,000 tons of nickel a year, and output is set to increase through an investment programme agreed with Canada in March 2005 for the expansion and modernisation of a joint venture company to exploit the mineral.Cuba has proven nickel reserves of 800 million tons, and potential reserves are estimated at two billion tons. The country’s cobalt reserves amount to approximately 26 percent of total world reserves, according to official sources.In presenting the report, Cuban deputy foreign minister Bruno Rodríquez said on Monday that the George W. Bush administration has created “an inter-agency task force on Cuban nickel,” to monitor and prevent sales of this strategic mineral.Energy is another good business that Havana says U.S. companies are missing out on, because they are forbidden to participate in prospecting for oil on Cuba’s undersea platform in the Gulf of Mexico, only 137 kilometres from Florida.The platform to the north of Cuba has an estimated potential of between one billion and 9.3 billion barrels of crude and between 1.9 trillion and 22 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.These estimates in the Cuban foreign ministry’s report are attributed to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), which said “the possibilities of success are of the order of 95 percent.”In 1999 Cuba opened up to tender 112,000 square kilometres of its waters in the Gulf of Mexico, divided into 51 blocks, for foreign exploration aimed at eventual exploitation.The Spanish-Argentine company Repsol YPF currently has a contract to drill in six of these blocks, with a total surface area of 10,700 square kilometres. This year, however it decided to spread the risk and has sold a 30 percent share in the venture to each of two other companies, from India and Norway, retaining 40 percent itself.The Canadian firm Sherritt International has also signed a contract for four blocks in this deep water drilling area.

Legislation approved in 2000 by the U.S. Congress permits the sale of foods to Cuba, an exception to the embargo that began to be implemented in 2001.Between late 2001 and 2004, Cuban purchases from U.S. firms totalled over one billion dollars in cash.

In 2005, Cuba had earmarked between 700 and 800 million dollars to buy food from the United States. But Washington tightened its trading restrictions with Cuba, and the trade dropped to some 474 million dollars.“Due to the obstacles to trade imposed by the blockade, U.S. agricultural exporters lost income of about 300 million dollars, which were used for purchases in other markets,” the Cuban report said.

Ag Adv A2: Cuba Says No

Cuban farmers want the embargo lifted—key to agriculture tradePulliam 12- John Pulliam, Senior Analyst, Risk Management at OneAmerica, Columbia University (“Farmers want Cuban Embargo Lifted”, 6/8/12, Galesburg, http://www.galesburg.com/news/x1271220402/Farmers-want-Cuban-embargo-lifted#axzz2Xzqoe8Ai, Accessed: 7/3/13, zs)Grant Strom, who farms near Williamsfield, and David Serven, a St. Augustine-area farmer, were among more than 20 Illinois Farm Bureau members and staff from across the state who traveled to Cuba on June 28 through July 2 in an effort to promote the resumption of normal trading relations with the country.Strom, who was impressed by the Cuban people, said U.S. farmers can sell their products to the Caribbean nation, but there are a number of hurdles to jump to do so. For instance, the U.S. government will not allow Cuba to buy agriculture products on credit. “If Cuba wants to buy a barge load of wheat, they have to pay for it in cash,” he said.While products such as coffee, rum and cigars are produced in Cuba and in demand in the U.S., “They can’t sell those things back to us,” Strom said. He said those restrictions hurt farmers in the U.S., who cannot readily sell their crops to the potential market, as well as the average Cuban, rather than government officials in the Communist country.Food shortage “They’re on the brink of a food shortage in Cuba,” Strom said. Serven said each Cuban has a food coupon book. “They can go to market and buy their needs at subsidized costs,” he said.Serven said Cubans used to be able to use coupons to buy household goods, as well, but those are no longer available.“Restoring normal trade relations with Cuba is an important step in furthering Illinois farmers’ abilities to market their produce, including grains, meat and dairy products,” said Tamara Nelsen, senior director of commodities for the Illinois Farm Bureau. “Agriculture has been a bright spot in our nation’s — and our state’s — economy during the recent downturn. Improving our trade relations with Cuba will only help to ensure agriculture can continue to strengthen our state and national economies.” While there may be some potential for renewed trade with Cuba if the embargo is lifted, Serven thinks it will help Cuba more than affecting U.S. farmers.“As far as being a boon for U.S. agriculture, I don’t think that will happen,” he said. “But it’s just the fact that we’re so close.” Strom said the trade embargo has very real effects. For instance, rather than buying rice from Mississippi, which would take three days to get to the island nation, Cuba is forced to buy it from Vietnam, which takes 28 days to ship the nation, about 100 miles south of Florida.

Cuba will say yes – high demandGegg and Larose 7 – Betty Valle Gegg and John Larose, Members of the MidAmerica Farmer Grower, (“Commodity Groups Exert Strong Push to Remove Cuban Embargo”, Publication for the MidAmerica Farmer Grower Organization, NO DATE (most recent year referenced was 2007), http://www.mafg.net/Files/Commodity%20Groups%20Exert%20Strong%20Push%20To%20Lift%20Cuban%20EmbargogNfhoi.pdf, Accessed 6/28/13, AW)

We found the country very anxious to buy U.S. commodities .” Unfortunately, the restrictions that they pay cash before the product leaves the United States has hampered their ability to buy. Yet they have been buying a half million metric tons or 20 million bushels of corn annually from the United States for several years. He said there’s been an effort for a long time in Congress, led by Congresswoman JoAnn Emerson, to dissolve the trade embargo with

Cuba. “There have been some modifications in the procedures, some loosening of the rules for ob- taining licenses, but other measures have not been significantly improved,” Hobbie said.

“Lob- byists from Florida and New Jersey work very hard to keep the current legislation in place.” Hobbie said that while this administration has been less willing to consider changes in the law, other administrations have been unwilling to lift the ban as well. “Neither Democrat nor Republican adminis- trations have shown a willingness to lift the ban,” he said. Rice Producers Respond To Situation Since 2002, the U.S. Rice Producers Associa- tion (USRPA) has been to Cuba 10 to 12 times to foster trade there. However, it has become more difficult for U.S. citizens to get a Visa. “People have been denied since then,” said USRPA President and CEO Dwight Roberts. Hurricane Michelle in the fall of 2001 was the spur that opened trade with Cuba in the 21st Century. USRPA worked to get the U.S. government to allow rice shipments to aid the people. “Our government allowed us to donate,” Roberts continued, “but the Cubans reacted with a ‘thank you, but no thank you,’ but ‘ we’ll be happy to buy food products from you . ’ So from that the U.S. government tweaked the em- bargo and allowed the sale of food products to Cuba on a cash basis

with a list of other re- strictions. We were off and running in moving rice into Cuba.” At that time the rice sent to Cuba was milled rice, but Roberts said he’s in favor of the sale of any type of rice to Cuba. Even Fidel Castro him- self said the country was better off buying milled rice because of a need to upgrade their mills. The mills are located in the interior of the country so purchasing rough rice adds the cost of transport. “It’s more cost effective for them; and with rice prices today, Pedro Alvarez (president and CEO of ALIMPORT, the government agency respon- sible for food imports to Cuba) told me recently when I was there that they paid $97 a ton for paddy rice. That was when they first started buying rice. Today prices of paddy rice are in the neighborhood of $500 a ton.” Prices in Thailand and Vietnam on a milled basis are around $800 a ton. When you add $140 a ton freight rate, the United States can easily compete with that plan. “They do not export paddy rice from Asia so the Cubans have to crunch the numbers to see which is the best deal for them,” Roberts added. “I think they will continue to buy a combination of the two, they know what their internal issues and costs are and when their harvest comes off. Maybe there are times of the year that their mills are too busy to take paddy rice, but other times paddy rice could be a better deal for them.” Roberts said he learned in an email that Cuba bought 10,000 tons of U.S. rice for April ship- ment. “They were looking for an additional 10,000,” he said. “They’ve just about stretched their credit in Vietnam, plus the type of rice they are getting out of Vietnam is just trash. Cubans know rice, I mean they really know. Americans don’t even take the time to look at it but Cubans look at the color, they smell it, they know their rice and how well it cooks. “I have spoken at the U.S. Cuban trade talks that they’ve had a time or two and we’re fixing to host our Second Annual Rice Congress of the Americas,” Roberts said. “It’s going to be in Brazil later this month. Last year we had the first one in Cancun and we had people from 22 different countries there. Alvarez came and spoke and we have someone that covers the main markets. It was a very good presentation and we’ve kept Cuba very much involved in the Western Hemisphere. “When I say we educated the Cubans, we also shared our opinions on the market with the Cubans. Our thoughts on the world market- place, western hemisphere, Asian influence and that type of thing and having them a part of this Rice Congress of The Americas has been real important because they rival Mexico as the number

one importer of rice in the western hemisphere or close to Brazil on a shear volume basis.” Roberts and the USRPA found the people of Cuba very friendly and eager to deal with them. “They know us and we know them well,” Roberts said. “Our efforts are to give them a bet- ter understanding of the U.S. rice industry, how we are structured and operate, our feelings on the western hemisphere and trade within the

region, not just with Cuba but with their neigh- bors. We spent a lot of time in an education

phase with the Cubans.” For a country of 11 million people, Cuba eats about as much rice as Mexico. Mexico bought 800,000 tons of rice in 2007 from the United States, Cuba bought 600,000 or 700,000 tons. “Brazil some years can approach 800,000 from Uruguay and Argentina and maybe a little bit from the United States so everyone falls off drastically after that,” Roberts continued. “They’re one of the major importers and play- ers. Per capita consumption of rice in Cuba is probably the highest in Latin America. Haiti would be very high. The poorer countries have the higher per capita consumption.” Roberts thinks the visits to Cuba have created the relationships that are necessary for trade to take place. “I believe that if we did not have an embargo, we would immediately sell in the very first year several hundred tons more than we’re selling now, even if the Cubans did not like us, which is totally false,” he said. “They are as friendly a people as I have known, and buying rice from the United States is still a good deal because of the proximity, especially in these times of high oil prices and high freights.” Cuba’s tourism industry is growing and Roberts feels that even if the entire embargo is not lifted, travel back and forth should be allowed. Tourists from Europe and other coun- tries regularly visit Cuba, but Americans cannot.

Ag Adv 2AC Famine Impact

Removing the embargo solves Cuban FamineZimmerman 10 – CHELSEA A. ZIMMERMAN, Fellow of the Center for The Study of the Presidency and Congress, Member of The Juvenile Rights Project and the Legal Aid Society, Barnard College, (“Rethinking The Cuban Trade Embargo: An Opportune Time To Mend a Broken Policy”, The Presidency – 2010 Fellows, NO DATE (Paper was written in 2010), http://www.thepresidency.org/storage/documents/Fellows2010/Zimmerman.pdf, Accessed 6/27/13, AW)

Despite the U.S. government’s attempts to promote democracy in Cuba through economic sanctions, Fidel Castro, the forme r leader of an underdeveloped nation of 11 million people, survived eight U.S. pr esidents and their attempts to oust him from office. With the recent resignation of Fidel Castro and the installation of his brother, 76-year-old Raul Castr o, as president, many observers in the U.S. and Cuba relish the opportunity to develop stronger trade ties. Although he has not signaled any major shift in Cuba’s econo mic system, in a speech given in July of 2007, Raul Castro acknowledged that structu ral changes were necessary to increase efficiency and the production of goods in Cuba. Castro recognizes the inherent

limitations on a country that imports more than 80 percent of its food, leaves half of its arable land fallow, and depends on Venezuela for 90 million barrels of oil per day ( The Center for Democracy in the Americas) . During the several years he has acted as president, Raul Castr o has pursued reform measures to make the government more efficient and invigorate t he Cuban economy. He has opened unused state land to private farmers, allowe d private farmers to buy their own feed and fertilizer rather than have them assig ned by the state, permitted nationals to buy computers, cell phones and other a ppliances that previously were prohibited, reformed the state wage system by remov ing salary limits, and allowed Cubans to gain title to state-owned homes (Weissert , 1). Most experts believe that Raul Castro will not undertake dramatic economic re forms over the near term. Furthermore, due to the diversification of its econ omic relationships with other countries, particularly China and Venezuela, Cuba i s less reliant on the United States as a potential business partner. Cuba is recovering from a series of hurricanes and tropical storms that hit Cuba in the fall of 2008 that by some estimates hav e caused over $9 billion worth of damage to Cuban farms and industry. Because foo d shortages are a serious problem in Cuba, the trade embargo with Cuba has re sulted in increased suffering

of the Cuban people. According to Peter Schwab, “t he most explosive impact of the U.S. embargo, even worse than that on public he alth, is the effect on food and hunger” (Schwab, 79). Food rationing began in Cuba in 1962, with the distribution of one rationing booklet for each Cuban household. Initially most food items were included in the rationing, but items such as fruits , vegetables, and eggs have been added and deleted based on their scarcity at the ti me (Alvarez, 1). The Cuban people have suffered from a crumbling eco nomy under Fidel

Castro’s rule, and the embargo imposed by the U.S. government has only made on attempts to weaken the Castro regime.

AG Adv Specific Ag Exports

Removing embargo boosts soybean exports – high Cuban demandGegg and Larose 7 – Betty Valle Gegg and John Larose, Members of the MidAmerica Farmer Grower, (“Commodity Groups Exert Strong Push to Remove Cuban Embargo”, Publication for the MidAmerica Farmer Grower Organization, NO DATE (most recent year referenced was 2007), http://www.mafg.net/Files/Commodity%20Groups%20Exert%20Strong%20Push%20To%20Lift%20Cuban%20EmbargogNfhoi.pdf, AW)

As a result of that, U.S. sales have in- creased. However, in 2005 some restrictions were placed on sales to Cuba, and if those were changed U.S. food exports would increase. “This last calendar year of 2007, we exported about $114 million in terms of soybeans, soy- bean meal and soybean oil. It is a good market for us ,” he said. Since the restrictions were placed on the mar- ket in 2005, soybean sales to Cuba have been about the same while soybean meal value has gone up; however, the actual tonnage shipped has gone down. The 2005 interpretations did have a negative effect on trade with Cuba. “The treasury department’s reinterpretation of the rules in 2005 requiring cash in advance has disrupted trade,” Censky said. “When the legis- lation passed, the initial interpretation was to allow for the payment right before the goods were physically delivered. The treasury reinter- preted that and now they require payment be- fore shipment leaves the United States. That’s very highly restrictive . We don’t have those re- quirements on any other country. The other re- striction is that no U.S. bank can be involved in the financial transaction. We see that as a hin- drance. That increases the overall banking costs, because U.S. exporters have to go to their bank, then their bank has to go to a third coun- try bank which then deals with Cuba to get the payment. It just increases the price of the trans- action by getting a third country bank in- volved.” Another restriction Censky doesn’t think should be in place is on the use of government credit guarantees or even U.S. market develop- ment funds. “We receive funding from both the soybean checkoff as well as from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to carry out market devel- opment activities around the world,” he ex- plained. “We can’t use a dime of either producers’ checkoff dollars or the money that comes from the USDA to do any kind of market development activities in Cuba.”

There are a few other countries like that, Iran and North Korea. Yet, Cuba is a unique situa- tion. For U.S. soybeans and soybean products the soybean association has a very high market share in Central America and throughout the Caribbean. In fact, before the embargo was in place, Cuba was the organization’s biggest for- eign country market in the world for soybean meal. “We were shipping the meal, given the prox- imity from the Gulf down to Cuba to support their livestock industry,” Censky said. “Of course, now they have gone to other suppliers, Brazil and Venezuela. We have been able to get some of that back since 2000 and we would like to get even more back.

Plan boosts rice exports – status quo licensing prevents tradeGegg and Larose 7 – Betty Valle Gegg and John Larose, Members of the MidAmerica Farmer Grower, (“Commodity Groups Exert Strong Push to Remove Cuban Embargo”, Publication for the MidAmerica Farmer Grower Organization, NO DATE (most recent year

referenced was 2007), http://www.mafg.net/Files/Commodity%20Groups%20Exert%20Strong%20Push%20To%20Lift%20Cuban%20EmbargogNfhoi.pdf, Accessed 6/28/13, AW)

U.S. Grain Council Comments The U.S. Grain Council, headed by President and CEO Kenneth Hobbie, promotes the expor- tation of corn, sorghum and barley products from the United States, and works to help de- velop export op- portunities. This organization has been very active in Cuba since 1997, actually traveling there before the first trading began. As an or-

ganization it’s structure is differ- ent from other commodity groups. The U.S. Grain Council has a contract with the USDA to enhance and carry out overseas trade. However, trade with Cuba is covered under national legislation. “The main reason trade with Cuba is curtailed is we have a standing law currently that pre- vents any significant business relationships from developing between the two countries,” said Hobbie. “It requires licensing to travel. We need the permission of the Department of Com- merce to trade with them. “We are not allowed to spend any government funding to enhance trade with Cuba, even though we are allowed to travel there,” Hobbie said. “Our members have to pay for that them- selves.

Ag Adv EXT: Economy Internal LinkLifting the embargo would have a massive economic impact—larger than NAFTAAmnesty International 10 Amnesty International is a global movement of people fighting injustice and promoting human rights. We work to protect people wherever justice, freedom, truth and dignity are denied. Currently the world’s largest grassroots human rights organization, we investigate and expose abuses, educate and mobilize the public, and help transform societies to create a safer, more just world. We received the Nobel Peace Prize for our life-saving work. (“Is the U.S. Embargo on Cuba a Form of Genocide?”, Amnesty International, September 8, 2010, http://www3.sympatico.ca/danchristienses/CubaFAQ137.html, Accessed: July 2, 2013, SD)

The restrictions imposed by the embargo help to deprive Cuba of vital access to medicines, new scientific and medical technology, food, chemical water treatment and electricity.... The impact of economic sanctions on health and health services is not limited to difficulties in the supply of medicine. Health and health services depend on functioning water and sanitation infrastructure, on electricity and other functioning equipment such as X-ray facilities or refrigerators to store vaccines. The financial burden and commercial barriers have led to shortages or intermittent availability of drugs, medicines, equipment and spare parts. It has also hindered the renovation of hospitals, clinics and care centres for the elderly. Source: "The US embargo against Cuba: Its impact on economic and social rights," Amnesty International, September 2009 In addition to blocking essential imports, the US embargo also continued to impose a significant drag on the development of the Cuban economy,

especially in the areas of agriculture and food production. According to at least one US agricultural expert, simply lifting the economic and financial restrictions imposed on Cuban farmers by the US embargo would have a dramatic impact on their production levels: Cuban agriculture has such a big potential that if it were to be totally developed it could surpass the volume of production of the Free Trade Treaty [the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) presumed]. William A.

Messina Jr., of the University of Florida's Agriculture Science Institute, said, that the communist island "has such good soil and it represents a challenge of such magnitude that, with the end of the embargo, the agricultural market impact on the continent would be larger that of the Free Trade Treaty.'' Source: "Cuba's agriculture shows promise," Miami Herald, September 29, 2009 Follow-up, September 2010 Amnesty International reiterates its condemnation of the US embargo: [The US embargo's is] negatively affecting Cubans’ access to medicines and medical technologies and endangering the health of millions. United Nations agencies and programs operating in Cuba, such as UNICEF, UNAIDS and UNFPA, have reported that the US embargo has undermined the implementation of programs aimed at improving the living conditions of Cubans. Source: "Amnesty International criticises President Obama's decision on Cuba," Amnesty International, September 8, 2010 Follow-up, October 2010 On October 26, 2010 the UN General Assembly voted overwhelmingly again to condemn the US embargo. Only Israel voted with the US against the resolution. Israel trades freely with Cuba, so even this single vote cannot be seen as support for these cruel and inhumane sanctions. On this the US is truly isolated on the world stage. The only abstentions were the tiny US-island colonies in the South Pacific: Palau (pop. 20,000), Micronesia (pop. 110,000) and the Marshall Islands (pop. 60,000).

U.S. AGRICULTURE ADVANTAGE

U.S. AGRICULTURE ADV.

U.S. ag is dependent on finding new export marketsRosson and Adcock, ’11, C. Parr Rosson, III, Dir. of the Center for North American Studies and Prof. and Extension Economist in the Dept of Agricultural Economics at Texas A&M University and Flynn J. Adcock, Prof. and Extension Economist and Dir. at the Center for North American Studies and International Program Coordinator and Assistant Director, Center for North American Studies, The Texas A&M University System, October 2011, “Emerging Markets for U.S. Agriculture: Focus on Cuba,” http://cnas.tamu.edu/Index/E312.pdf, ACC. 6-14-13, JT//JEDIAgriculture is twice as reliant on exports as the overall U.S. economy, and since the early 1970s, exports have accounted for 30 percent of total farm receipts in most years. U.S. agricultural exports are forecast to reach a record of $137 billion in 2011 (Fig. 1). As U.S. farm policy expenditures shrink and the world emerges from the most prolonged economic recession in decades, it is increasingly important to cultivate new export markets for agricultural products.

U.S. AGRICULTURE ADV. The embargo costs the U.S. billions in ag exports—Lifting the embargo brings quick benefits on the groundBrian Alexander, Jan. 28, ‘2, AMERICA’S FARMERS BEARING HEAVY BURDEN FOR U.S. EMBARGO AGAINST CUBA: NEW REPORT, Cuba Policy Foundation, http://www.cubafoundation.org/pdf/CPF-Release-AgStudy-0202.28.htm, ACC. 6-13-13, JT//JEDIThe U.S. economy is losing up to $1.24 billion annually in agricultural exports because of the embargo against Cuba – and up to $3.6 billion more annually in related economic output. That’s the finding of a new report by two of America’s top agricultural economists , released today by the Cuba Policy Foundation, the Washington-based organization led by senior diplomats in Republican Administrations."If the embargo were lifted, the average American farmer would feel a difference in his or her life within two to three years," says the report’s co-author, C. Parr Rosson, professor of agricultural economics at Texas A&M University. The report, "Economic Impacts of U.S. Agricultural Exports to Cuba," was written by professor Rosson and his colleague at Texas A&M, Flynn Adcock.Based on the report, two former U.S. Secretaries of Agriculture, the Reagan Administration’s John Block and the Clinton Administration’s Dan Glickman, today wrote to President Bush: "Current U.S. policy has not given relief to the Cuban people. And now it's just as clear: Our policy is also harming American farmers during these tough economic times. Mr. President, the sooner we lift this failed embargo, the better."

Ag industry is the engine of the American economyHand that Feeds Us, ‘9, “Agriculture Grows America’s Economy,” ACC. 7/12/13 http://www.thehandthatfeedsus.org/factsheets/EconomyFactSheet.pdf, JT//JEDIAmerica's farmers and ranchers do more than just produce the safest, most abundant, and most affordable food supply the world has ever known . The U.S. agricultural industry is also an economic engine that fuels this country and its people.! 21 million American jobs have their root in the U.S. food and fiber industry—more than five times as many workers as the U.S. automotive manufacturing, sales and service sectors combined. Source: American Farm Bureau Federation, Dept. of Labor! U.S. farms and ranches spent $288 billion to produce $369 billion in goods in 2010—U.S. ag-related sales alone were larger than the GDPs of 200 other countries. Source: USDA, World Bank! American agriculture is one of the few U.S. business sectors to boast a trade surplus, exporting $108 billion in farm goods in 2010. Source: USDA

U.S. AGRICULTURE ADV. Economic decline causes global war Royal 10 (Jedediah, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction – U.S. Department of Defense, “Economic Integration, Economic Signaling and the Problem of Economic Crises”, Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives, Ed. Goldsmith and Brauer, p. 213-215) Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict. Political science literature has contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and defence behaviour of interdependent states. Research in this vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable contributions follow. First, on the systemic level, Pollins (2008) advances Modelski and Thompson's (1996) work on leadership cycle theory, finding that rhythms in the global economy are associated with the rise and fall of a pre-eminent power and the often bloody transition from one pre-eminent leader to the next. As such, exogenous shocks such as economic crises could usher in a redistribution of relative power (see also Gilpin. 1981) that leads to uncertainty about power balances, increasing the risk of miscalculation (Feaver, 1995). Alternatively, even a relatively certain redistribution of power could lead to a permissive environment for conflict as a rising power may seek to challenge a declining power (Werner. 1999). Separately, Pollins (1996) also shows that global economic cycles combined with parallel leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict among major, medium and small powers, although he suggests that the causes and connections between global economic conditions and security conditions remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic level, Copeland's (1996, 2000) theory of trade expectations suggests that 'future expectation of trade' is a significant variable in understanding economic conditions and security behaviour of states. He argues that interdependent states are likely to gain pacific benefits from trade so long as they have an optimistic view of future trade relations. However, if the expectations of future trade decline , particularly for difficult to replace items such as energy resources, the likelihood for conflict increases, as states will be inclined to use force to gain access to those resources. Crises could potentially be the trigger for decreased trade expectations either on its own or because it triggers protectionist moves by interdependent states.4 Third, others have considered the link between economic decline and external armed conflict at a national level. Blomberg and Hess (2002) find a strong correlation between internal conflict and external conflict, particularly during periods of economic downturn. They write: The linkages between internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and mutually reinforcing. Economic conflict tends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favour. Moreover, the presence of a recession tends to amplify the extent to which international and external conflicts self-reinforce each other. (Blomberg & Hess, 2002. p. 89) Economic decline has also been linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blomberg, Hess, & Weerapana, 2004), which has the capacity to spill across borders and lead to external tensions. Furthermore, crises generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government. " Diversionary theory" suggests that, when facing unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting governments have increased incentives to fabricate external military conflicts to create a 'rally around the flag' effect . Wang (1996), DeRouen (1995). and Blomberg, Hess, and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing that economic decline and use of force are at least indirectly correlated. Gelpi (1997), Miller (1999), and Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that the tendency towards diversionary tactics are greater for democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from office due to lack of domestic support. DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence showing that periods of weak economic performance in the United States, and thus weak Presidential popularity, are statistically linked to an increase in the use of force. In summary, recent economic scholarship positively correlates economic integration with an increase in the frequency of economic crises, whereas political science scholarship links economic decline with external conflict at systemic, dyadic and national levels.5 This implied connection between integration, crises and armed conflict has not featured prominently in the economic-security debate and deserves more attention.

U.S. AGRICULTURE ADV.

Lifting the embargo is essential to political freedom and economic growth. Agribusiness trading alleviates Cuban hungerCHELSEA A. ZIMMERMAN, Georgetown Law, ’10, “Rethinking The Cuban Trade Embargo: An Opportune Time To Mend a Broken Policy,” http://www.thepresidency.org/storage/documents/Fellows2010/Zimmerman.pdf, ACC. 6-13-2013, JT//JEDITrade levels between Cuba and the U.S. could reach $5 billion annually by removing the trade embargo, resulting in a boost to American agribusinesses while also helping to alleviate hunger among Cubans. A policy environment open to international trade and investment is a necessary ingredient to sustain higher rates of economic growth and to promote political freedom through exposure to new technology, communications, and democratic ideas (Griswold, 1; Sachs and Warner). Allowing Cuba to more freely import U.S. food is a means of lowering domestic prices and increasing incomes of the poor, food availability and domestic production. U.S. companies will introduce new technologies and production methods, while raising wages and labor standards as a result of trading with Cuba. The additional creation of wealth will help to advance social, political, and economic conditions independent of the governing authorities in Cuba. The most economically open countries today are more than three times as likely to enjoy full political and civil freedoms as those that are relatively closed (Griswold, 1).

We have an ethical obligation to reduce hungerLaFollette 3 Hugh, http://www.hughlafollette.com/papers/World.Hunger.htm, Blackwell’s Companion to applied Ethics, ACC. 7/13/2013, JT//JEDIThe claim that we have a strong obligation to assist the starving takes two broad forms, reflecting one’s general theoretical framework. The first claims that we have a positive obligation to ease suffering and promote happiness; hence, we should assist the starving (Singer 1977/1972: 28). The second claims people have a right to food, and that right undergirds our obligation to assist them. Of course rights, absent compelling obligations or duties, are effectively empty (Pogge 2000). That is why even those who claim that people have rights to food will claim that the relatively affluent have a strong correlative positive obligation to assist those in need. Hence, although the distinction between these two positions is theoretically intriguing, and could well have some practical

significance, for present purposes I will collapse them and simply talk about the strong obligation to assist the starving. Those who claim the relatively affluent have this strong obligation must, among other things, show why

Hardin's projections are either morally irrelevant or mistaken. A hearty few take the former tack: they claim we have a strong obligation to aid the starving even if we would eventually become malnourished . On this view,

to survive on lifeboat earth, knowing that others were tossed overboard into the sea of starvation, would signify an indignity and callousness worse than extinction (Watson 1977). It would be morally preferable to die struggling to create a decent life for all than to continue to live at the expense of the starving.

U.S. AGRICULTURE ADV.- Internals

Lifting the embargo makes Cuba a $1 billion export market for U.S. agricultureDaniel T. Griswold, May 27, ‘2, associate director of the Cato Institute’s Center for Trade Policy Studies, “No: The Embargo Harms Cubans and Gives Castro an Excuse for the Policy Failures of His Regime,” ACC. 6-1-2013, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/no-embargo-harms-cubans-gives-castro-excuse-policy-failures-regime, JT//JEDICuban families are not the only victims of the embargo. Many of the dollars Cubans could earn from U.S. tourists would come back to the United States to buy American products, especially farm goods . The American Farm Bureau estimates that Cuba could “eventually become a $1 billion agricultural-export market for products of U.S. farmers and ranchers.” The embargo stifles another $250 million in potential annual exports of fertilizer, herbicides, pesticides and tractors. According to a study last year by the U.S. International Trade Commission, the embargo costs American firms between $684 million and $1.2 billion per year.

Market model proves lifting the embargo leads to massive ag exports to CubaCopeland and Thompson 10 Cassandra Copeland*, Henry Thompson**, [*Ph.D. Associate Professor of Economics, Oglethorpe University, **Professor of International Economics at Auburn University] “The Cuban embargo and Southeastern agricultural exports” ¶ Southern Economics and Business Journal (2010) //PBMLifting the Cuban embargo will lead to gains from trade estimated in the present ¶ paper for agricultural markets in the Southeastern US. A market model of linear ¶ excess supply and demand provides estimates of gains in exporter surplus from ¶ trade in rice, grains, soybeans, poultry, pork, and meat. This direct application of ¶ excess supply and demand focuses on the international market surplus gains from ¶ trade . The model calibrates excess supply from the US, excess demand in Cuba, ¶ and excess supply from the rest of the world to prices, outputs, exports, and¶ estimates of price elasticities of supply and demand in the literature. The paper¶ utilizes proxy demand elasticities in the literature due to the lack of data and¶ estimates for Cuba.¶ A short review of Cuban economic history stresses that the US was Cuba’s major¶ trade partner before the embargo, motivating the assumption that the US will¶ supply Cuban excess demands in these agricultural markets with a lifted¶ embargo. The largest percentage gains are for rice, grains, and soybeans with¶ moderate gains for poultry and pork. The largest absolute gains are for meat.¶ Total surplus will increase more than 3% across these markets due to lifting the ¶ embargo .

Empirics prove – massive gains for southern economy and dominant position will re-emergeCopeland and Thompson 10 Cassandra Copeland*, Henry Thompson**, [*Ph.D. Associate Professor of Economics, Oglethorpe University, **Professor of International Economics at Auburn University] “The Cuban embargo and Southeastern agricultural exports” ¶ Southern Economics and Business Journal (2010) //PBMThe relaxed humanitarian embargo in 2001 greatly increased Southeastern ¶ agricultural exports . As an example Cuba accounted for a quarter of Alabama ¶ agricultural export revenue in 2006 . Mobile is less than two day sail from¶ Havana and was the dominant port for US/Cuban trade prior to the embargo.¶ Figure 1 reports US agricultural exports of grains, poultry, soybeans, and meat to¶ Cuba in 2006. Figure 2 shows the dominant position of US trade with Cuba in¶ 1957 and that pattern promises to re-emerge with a lifted embargo.

U.S. AGRICULTURE ADV.- Internals

Lifting the Cuban embargo solves for the loss of 19 million in southern agricultural exports aloneCopeland and Thompson 10 Cassandra Copeland*, Henry Thompson**, [*Ph.D. Associate Professor of Economics, Oglethorpe University, **Professor of International Economics at Auburn University] “The Cuban embargo and Southeastern agricultural exports” ¶ Southern Economics and Business Journal (2010) //PBMLifting the Cuban embargo will generate noticeable surplus gains from trade for¶ agricultural export markets in the Southeastern US. The largest percentage ¶ surplus gains will be for pork and rice with moderate gains for poultry and¶ grains. The large meat market enjoys the largest absolute surplus gain.¶ Turning the reasoning around, the present model estimates yearly surplus loss of ¶ $19 million across these markets. The International Trade Commission (2007)¶ conservatively estimates the embargo costs the US $1.2 billion lost exports of ¶ goods and services . The present estimates focus on the underlying market ¶ surplus for fundamental agricultural commodity markets.