The Instigator
davidmgreen
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
JamesChance
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

The United States Federal Government should remove sanctions against Cuba.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/10/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 765 times Debate No: 52199
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

davidmgreen

Con

I would prefer to debate someone from NFL policy to debate with about this topic, but anyone who thinks they have good arguments on the AFF can debate me.

AFF, arguing starts in your first speech. Good luck!
JamesChance

Pro

The tyranny of Fidel Castro, his association with Communism, is without question WAS a terrible presence for the citizens and multiple generations that endured such regime. Upon his death, and making a positive step forward internationally, it is an important step towards the prosperity of Cuban citizens to lift the current embargo. Generations of families in Cuba have been forced into an embargo created by a dictator not by the potential of the benefits both countries citizenry could garner from it lifting.

U.S. Congress 1992 Cuban Democracy Act, one of the most stringent embargoes of its kind, prohibiting the sale of food and sharply restricting the sale of medicines and medical equipment-was further tightened by this 24 year standing Act. An Act, out-dated and raised during a time when the political atmosphere and rising numbers of illegal immigrants were causing a national media circle. Four major factors have directly impacted more than just Cuba itself. (Read the impacts here: http://www.cubasolidarity.net...)

The international factor that was most telling of this has prohibited ships from loading or unloading cargo in U.S. ports for 180 days after delivering cargo to Cuba. This provision has strongly discouraged shippers from delivering medical equipment to Cuba. Consequently shipping costs have risen dramatically and further constricted the flow of food, medicines, medical supplies and even gasoline for ambulances. From 1993 to 1996, Cuban companies spent an additional $8.7 million on shipping medical imports from Asia, Europe and South America rather than from the neighboring United States.

The National Security Council staffer, Jose Cardenas, under President George W. Bush shared "We have a hemispheric commitment to freedom and democracy and respect for human rights, I still think that those are worthy aspirations." Cuba is free to trade with other nations, but the U.S. threatens sanctions against foreign companies that don't abide by its restrictions. A stark example arrived off the coast of Havana January 2012. A massive oil exploration rig built with less than 10 percent U.S. parts to qualify under the embargo was brought all the way from Singapore at great expense, while comparable platforms sat idle in U.S. waters just across the Gulf of Mexico. (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...)

Under the Free Trade Agreement the United States has Singapore, Vietnam, China, Russia, and many Central & South American countries fall on that list. Isn't it unbelievably irresponsible and bitter to not reconsider the impact we impose upon the country of Cuba, the citizens, and the international community? (http://trade.gov...)

Furthermore, how can the United States hold free trade agreements with other countries, and when it comes to our inability to let go of 52 years of an embargo, develop policy 30 years later in 1992 still based around Cold War mentality? Do politicians govern based off their feelings and their personal patriotism as did their predecessors? By the standard of our constitution, the ideal of democratic law, and even the conduct in which we project world-wide this embargo is hypocritical to all in which our nation stands for.
Debate Round No. 1
davidmgreen

Con

According to the Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic freedom, Cuba is ranked 177th, out of 178. The only country that is less free economically is North Korea. That being said, Venezuela, Iran, and Zimbabwe are more free economically than Cuba. The country of Cuba is still most definitely communist. Why? My opponent argues that Cuba is not becoming more free because of the Embargo. I agree, because the only reason the Embargo is not working is because it is not being enforced. My opponent stated that "Cuban companies spent an additional $8.7 million on shipping medical imports from Asia, Europe, and South America rather from the neighboring United States." However, according to the Cuban medical firm MEDICUBA, they import $200 million dollars worth of medicine from the United States annually, and according to directorio.org the United States is Cuba's main food supplier. Coincidence? Well it is true that the embargo prevents U.S. companies from selling foods and medicines to Cuba, however, it is more profitable for large companies to sell their products and pay the fines than to refrain from selling to Cuba. My opponent states that the embargo has failed for 60 years, when the reality is that we have failed the Cuban people by not enforcing the embargo. If we actually enforced the embargo, by preventing all goods from entering Cuba, the Cuban people will be free in no time.

Secondly, the Embargo is more important now than ever. The Government in Cuba is very unstable right now. Recently Raul Castro made a statement that he is going to resign from office, and we do not know who is usurper will be. We need to keep the embargo in place in case a Cuban hardliner takes office and happens to be worse than the Castros, and removing an embargo and putting it back on again two months later is not attractive for foreign relations.

Thirdly, the original purpose of the embargo was to prevent U.S. businesses from being nationalized by the Cuban government. According to Richard Feinberg, former secretary of state and professor at University of California, Brookings, if the Americans were to allow business to move to Cuba, we would fall right into the trap that their trying to catch us in. American business will flock to Cuba, and once we develop the island of Cuba, the Cuban government will re-nationalize its economy and steal all of the capital from American companies.

For all of the reasons stated above: that the Embargo will not work until we enforce it, that the Embargo is important for keeping security interests insured in Cuba, and that the Embargo is necessary to protect American businesses from the threat of nationalization, the only ballot that could possibly be cast is Neg.
JamesChance

Pro

The Con, a true Capitalist, would like you to think that his knowledge is keen and sound on the this topic, but before I further challenge some of the economic wisdom he self-proclaims I would like to know at what point did I state that the embargo was 60 years running? Additionally, where in the history of this United States did Richard Feinberg serve as the Secretary of State? Feinberg served under President Clinton in 1995 as the Senior Director for Inter-American Affairs of the National Security Council and currently writes material on the Cuban economy from the comforts of his home.

The Con is seemingly foreshadowing his intent to use Feinberg as a source for his primary point, so I will oblige and share an excerpt that paints Feinberg with the proper ideology he is pointing at. Feinberg writes:

December 2012 - "Today’s ailing Cuban economy, whose 11.2 million people yield the modest GNP reported officially at $64 billion3 (and possibly much less at realistic exchange rates), badly need additional external cooperation—notwithstanding heavily-subsidized oil imports from Venezuela. As with any economy, domestic choices made at home and by Cubans will largely determine the country’s fate. Yet, as Cubans have been well aware since the arrival of Christopher Columbus, the encroaching international economy matters greatly; it can be a source of not only harsh punishments but also great benefits." - http://www.brookings.edu... -

I do hope the Con doesn't plan to lecture us simply on Feinberg's research after he can't completely identify to us all his proper credentials. This effort to paste economic ledger amounts doesn't change the poor conditions that non-profits and outside entities aid Cuba. Feinberg in November 2011 would emphasize:

"The main constraint slowing the Cuban economy is not U.S. sanctions (even as they have hit hard). Rather, it is Cuba’s own outdated economic model, inherited from the Soviet Union, of central planning. Cuba’s many commercial partners would like to invest more in Cuba and would prefer to purchase more Cuban exports to correct the imbalances in their bilateral trade accounts, but are frustrated by Cuba’s scant economic offerings."
- http://www.brookings.edu... -

Please enlighten us some more on Former Secretary of State Feinberg's economic prophecies?

In the mean time, since the Con doesn't wish to discuss humanitarian issues, unless he is misrepresenting information such as the Con stating:

"according to the Cuban medical firm MEDICUBA, they import $200 million dollars worth of medicine from the United States annually..." Import?

Since the Con didn't provide a source, I fact checked this piece of evidence, and I found a wikipedia statement that he hacked apart to fit his Bill O'Reilly monologue:
"The US government states that since 1992, 36 out of 39 license requests from U.S. companies and their subsidiaries for sales of medical items to Cuba have been approved. The dollar amount of these sales is over $1,600,000. Furthermore, the U.S. government licensed more than $227 million in humanitarian donations of medicines and medical supplies to Cuba between 1993 and 1997. There are other factors beside the embargo explaining the lack of imports, in particular Cuba's lack of hard currency. Those with dollars can easily buy medicines and food in Cuba from Latin America and Canada. Cuba defaulted on its debt to Western banks in 1986 and lacks access to the international credit system in order to get foreign currency. In addition, the collapse of the Soviet Union caused the loss of several billions of dollars in yearly subsidies and overnight required hard currency for all imports.[50]" - http://en.wikipedia.org... -

That [50] I left behind, well that comes from a larger comprehensive report you can skim through and read at your leisure, but I assure you not much shows that the Embargo is benefiting the country in the 1990's. The quote pulled from wikipedia is from this source: - http://www.unc.edu... -

The Con repeatedly has chosen to make his argument based solely on dollar amounts. It is littered throughout and with no source defined from Feinberg on his claim to American businesses to be threatened I have found in the contrary two sources that claim the embargo is not only fiscally irresponsible, but from national/international business perspective economically irresponsible:

"The U.S. embargo on Cuba is one of the biggest foreign policy failures of the past half century and should come to an end," said Rothkopf in testimony before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection. "Rather than encouraging Cuba to democratize, the embargo has helped prop up the Communist regime." Adrean Rothkopf, vice president of Western Hemisphere Affairs for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
- https://www.uschamber.com... -

Furthermore, my second evidence of fiscal irresponsibility is in a article that is sourced by multiple respectable authorities. The key excerpt stating:

"Today (article written in 2009), U.S. public opinion is turning against the embargo. A majority—52%—wants the embargo to be lifted, with 67% favoring an immediate end to the travel restrictions, according to the Cuba Policy Foundation (CPF), a nonprofit run by a former U.S. ambassador. Recent polls have even shown that a majority of Miami Cubans now support lifting the embargo.

These percentages might be even higher if the U.S. public were aware that the blockade is actually costing them more than the Cubans, something that is finally beginning to dawn on the U.S. business community. Representatives of a dozen leading U.S. business organizations, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, signed a letter in December urging Barack Obama to scrap the embargo. The letter pegs the cost to the U.S. economy at $1.2 billion per year. The CPF’s estimates are much higher: up to $4.84 billion annually in lost sales and exports. The Cuban government estimates the loss to Cuba at about $685 million annually. Thus the blockade costs the United States up to $4.155 billion more a year than it costs Cuba." - http://www.dollarsandsense.org... -

I await my opponent response, though I would like to critically stress, that falsifying your argument and using the same rhetoric used in 2006 when Fidel Castro's health was in question and applying this same theory to the next 'usurper' as justification...is not equal to the stress the country is under. With that logic, we could continue to say such a thing for any dictatorship for the next 50 years.



Debate Round No. 2
davidmgreen

Con

davidmgreen forfeited this round.
JamesChance

Pro

JamesChance forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
davidmgreen

Con

davidmgreen forfeited this round.
JamesChance

Pro

JamesChance forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
davidmgreen

Con

davidmgreen forfeited this round.
JamesChance

Pro

JamesChance forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by anynomunis 3 years ago
anynomunis
Yes, we nedd to remove thoes stuped sanctions from Cuba. The reasion why is we cant buy stuff over there and Cuba, armed with nukes or not should not be held for a sanction that wall street cats decided in the 1960
Posted by mmadderom 3 years ago
mmadderom
You said nothing of substance, only rhetoric and theory. Problem is, theory rarely works in the real world and politics involved assures it won't.

Sanctions are imposed in order to get a nation to behave in a manner consistent with what we want. That is their sole purpose. You don't LIFT sanctions in HOPE that will result in said country changing direction. They change direction FIRST, THEN you lift sanctions. That's how the process works.

As far as 'free trade', uh, with Cuba? Please. What exactly to they produce that we want? And what do we produce that they can afford?
Posted by jordankennedy 3 years ago
jordankennedy
Raul Castro has already started liberalization of Cuba. It is pushing for peaceful resolutions to what is happening in Venezuela for example, which I believe shows a shift in the regimes thinking. Lifting sanctions may indeed improve the lives of people, if contact between the US Government and the Cuban regime becomes a constant. It won't bring an end to communism in Cuba, but it may change the paradigm of the regime and lay the foundations for a long term progression of Cuba. Examples of this happening exist throughout history to different oppressive regimes. Free trade breeds libertarianism.
Posted by mmadderom 3 years ago
mmadderom
Cuba has done nothing to warrant lifting sanctions. Period. It is a hard line communist regime that treats it's people horribly and is aligned with Russia, Venezuela, Iran, and other anti-USA nations. Lifting sanctions benefits nobody but the regime. It does nothing to help the people of Cuba.
Posted by davidmgreen 3 years ago
davidmgreen
Haha, then try me! I know my stuff when it comes to Cuba!
Posted by Jifpop09 3 years ago
Jifpop09
I'm sick of beating people in this topic
No votes have been placed for this debate.