1AC

Plan Text: The USFG should normalize trade relations with Cuba

1 Influence
US soft power is at a low point and in decline but smart policy can reverse trends Quinn 13 Adam Quinn - senior lecturer in international politics at the University of Birmingham in Birmingham, Britain. He is leader of a
seminar series on The Future of American power from the Economic and Social Research Council, from which Mr. Quinn also receives funding,(NSA revelations threaten Obama's soft power and America's global influence,csmonitor.com,http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2013/1029/NSA-revelations-threaten-Obama-s-soft-power-andAmerica-s-global-influence,accessed:10/30/13) The reason present

friction between the US and its allies carries greater weight, however, is that it arises in the context of a global shift in power away from the US and its established allies and toward new powers. The prospect of
American decline in terms of relative international power is the focus of a great deal of debate over both substance and semantics. But the central fact is that even the part of the USs own intelligence apparatus charged with long-term foresight regards it as established that,

within 20 years, the world will have transitioned from the unipolar American dominance of the first postcold war decades to a world in which multiple centers of power must coexist. The center of economic gravity has already shifted markedly toward Asia during the last decade. This certainly does not mean any single new power is about to rise to replace the
US as a hegemonic force. Nor does it mean the US will be going anywhere: The scale of its existing advantages across a range of fronts military, economic, institutional is sufficiently great that it is assured a prominent place at the table of whatever order may come. What it does mean is that Americans their advantages to retain the

must presently be engaged in thinking carefully about how best to leverage maximum possible influence into the future. If they cannot continue to be first among equals in m anaging the world order, they will wish at least to ensure that order is one that runs in line with their own established preferences. Soft power Many of those who are optimistic about the ability of the US to pull off this project of declining powe r without declining influence place emphasis on two things: the extent to which the US has soft power due to widespread admiration for its political and cultural values, and the extent to which it has locked in influence through the extent of its existing networks of friends and allies. Even if these advantages cannot arrest Americas decline on harder metrics, if played properly, they can mitigate its consequences and secure an acceptable future. Shoring up
support from like-minded countries such as those of Europe ought to be the low-hanging fruit of such an effort. So the current problems do harm on both fronts. It will be difficult to maintain the allure of soft power if global opinion settles on the view that American political discord has rendered its democracy dysfunctional at home, or that its surveillance practices have given rein to the mores of a police state. And it will be harder to preserve American

status through the force of its alliances if its politicians' economic irresponsibility (for example, publicly contemplating a default on American national debt) or scandals over surveillance or drone strikes alienate their public or cause their leaders to question the extent to which they really are on the
same side as the US. Obamas day-to-day foreign policy struggles should not be simplistically taken as signs of collapsing American influence. But if

the long-term plan is to carefully manage relative decline so as to preserve maximum influence, episodes such as those his country has faced since August do nothing to boost the prospects of success.

Soft powers key to conflict prevention global integration checks conflict escalation Chatterjee 13 Siddharth Chatterjee, Chief Diplomat and Head of Strategic Partnerships at the IFRC
HQ, The Spoils of War, Huffington Post, 7/12/2013, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/siddharthchatterjee/the-spoils-of-war_b_3586601.html The moral imperative during World War II has been replaced by the quest to gain control of resources and influence. Increasingly, countries declaring war have done so for political reasons. In the absence of moral
reasoning, soldiers and society find it even more difficult to embrace the idea of putting young lives at risk in war. And then there is the massive financial cost. A 2013 Harvard study notes that the combined cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars could end up costing the U.S. between 4 and 6 trillion dollars including the medical care of veterans, leading to an enormous negative impact on the global economy. No doubt war is hell -- but for reasons far beyond what we traditionally thought. War not only tears apart the people that partake in it, emotionally as well as physically, but also their families, communities, societies and even their countries. It is extremely expensive, not only in money, but also in

human capital and potential. These costs are simply too great to bear. Now more than ever,

the time is ripe to explore the

paradigm-shifting potential of 'soft power', brilliantly articulated by Professor Joseph Nye, one of the world's leading thinkers and intellectuals. Nye describes soft power as "the ability to get what you want through attraction rather than through coercion." He sees strong relations with allies, economic assistance programs, and vital cultural exchanges as examples of soft power. By using this soft power, it may be possible to stop internal conflicts in fragile states before they even begin. Soft power will allow countries to influence the world and achieve their goals through non-violent means. Even with overwhelming might, we are seeing wars aren't won any longer . Mahatma Gandhi said "victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat, for it is momentary." If the world cannot find a way out of war, then we may
well

be defeated as a civilization.

Your generic defense doesnt work we cite specific scenarios which are on the brink
Brzezinski 12 ~Zbignbiew Brzezinski, national security advisor under U.S. President Jimmy Carter, January/February 2012, "8 Geopolitically
Endangered Species", Foreign Policy, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/03/8_geopolitically_endangered_species?page=fullhttp://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/03/8_geopolitically_endangered_species?page=full,accessed:10/19/13,JW)

With the decline of America's global preeminence, weaker countries will be more susceptible to the assertive influence of major regional powers. India and China are rising, Russia is increasingly imperially minded, and the Middle East is growing ever more unstable. The potential for regional conflict in the absence of an internationally active America is real. Get ready for a global reality characterized by the survival of the strongest. 1. GEORGIA American decline would leave this tiny Caucasian state vulnerable to Russian political intimidation and military aggression. The United States has provided Georgia with $3 billion in aid since 1991 -- $1 billion of that since its 2008 war with Russia. America's decline would put new limitations on U.S. capabilities, and could by itself stir Russian desires to reclaim its old sphere of influence. What's more, once-andfuture Russian President Vladimir Putin harbors an intense personal hatred toward Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili. At stake: Russian domination of the southern energy corridor to Europe, possibly

leading to more pressure on Europe to accommodate Moscow's political agenda; a domino effect on Azerbaijan. 2. TAIWAN Since 1972, the United States has formally accepted the mainland's "one China" formula while maintaining that neither side shall alter the status quo by force. Beijing, however, reserves the right to use force, which allows Washington to justify its continued arms sales to Taiwan. In recent years, Taiwan and China have been improving their relationship. America's decline, however, would increase Taiwan's vulnerability , leaving decisionmakers in Taipei more susceptible to direct Chinese pressure and the sheer attraction of an economically successful China. That, at the least, could speed up the timetable for cross-strait reunification, but on unequal terms favoring the mainland. At stake: Risk of a serious collision with China. 3. SOUTH KOREA The United States has been the guarantor of South Korea's security since it
was attacked in 1950 by North Korea, with Soviet and Chinese collusion. Seoul's remarkable economic takeoff and democratic political system testify to the success of U.S. engagement. Over the years, however, North Korea has staged a number of provocations against South Korea, ranging from assassinations of its cabinet members to the 2010 sinking of the South Korean warship Cheonan. So

America's decline would confront South Korea with painful choices: either accept Chinese regional dominance and further reliance on China to rein in the nuclear-armed North, or seek a much stronger, though historically unpopular, relationship with Japan out of shared democratic values and fear of aggression from Pyongyang and Beijing. At stake: Military and economic security on the Korean Peninsula; a general crisis of confidence in Japan and South Korea regarding the reliability of existing American commitments. 4. BELARUS Twenty years after the fall of the Soviet Union, Europe's
last dictatorship remains politically and economically dependent on Russia. One-third of its exports go to Russia, on which it is almost entirely reliant for its energy needs. At the same time, President Aleksandr Lukashenko's 17-year dictatorship has stood in the way of any meaningful relations with the West. Consequently, a

marked American decline would give Russia a virtually risk-free opportunity to reabsorb Belarus. At stake: The security of neighboring Baltic states, especially Latvia. 5. UKRAINE Kiev's relationship with Moscow has been as prone to tension as its relationship with the West has been prone to indecision.
In 2005, 2007, and 2009, Russia either threatened to or did stop oil and natural gas from flowing to Ukraine. More recently, President Viktor Yanukovych was pressured to extend Russia's lease of a naval base at the Ukrainian Black Sea port of Sevastopol for another 25 years in exchange for preferential pricing of Russian energy deliveries to Ukraine. The Kremlin continues to press Ukraine to join a "common economic space" with Russia, while gradually stripping Ukraine of direct control over its major industrial assets through mergers and takeovers by Russian

firms. With

America in decline, Europe would be less willing and able to reach out and incorporate Ukraine into an expanding Western community, leaving Ukraine more vulnerable to Russian designs. At stake: The renewal of Russian imperial ambitions. 6. AFGHANISTAN Devastated by nine years of brutal warfare
waged by the Soviet Union, ignored by the West for a decade after the Soviet withdrawal, mismanaged by the medieval Taliban, and let down by 10 years of halfhearted U.S. military operations and sporadic economic assistance, Afghanistan is in shambles. With 40 percent unemployment and ranking 215th globally in per capita GDP, it has little economic output beyond its illegal narcotics trade. A rapid

U.S. troop disengagement brought on by war fatigue or the early effects of American decline would most likely result in internal disintegration and an external power play among nearby states for influence in Afghanistan. In the absence of an effective, stable government in Kabul, the country would be dominated by rival warlords. Pakistan and India would more assertively compete for influence in Afghanistan -- with Iran also probably involved. At stake: The re-emergence of the Taliban; a proxy war between India and Pakistan; a haven for international terrorism. 7. PAKISTAN Although Islamabad is armed with 21st-century nuclear weapons and held
together by a professional late 20th-century army, the majority of Pakistan is still pre-modern, rural, and largely defined by regional and tribal identities. Conflict with India defines Pakistan's sense of national identity, while the forcible division of Kashmir sustains a shared and profound antipathy. Pakistan's political instability is its greatest vulnerability, and a

decline in U.S. power would reduce America's ability to aid Pakistan's consolidation and development. Pakistan could then transform into a state run by the military, a radical Islamic state, a state that combined both military and Islamic rule, or a "state" with no centralized government at all. At stake: Nuclear warlordism; a militant Islamic, anti-Western, nuclear-armed government similar to Iran's; regional instability in Central Asia, with violence potentially spreading to China, India, and Russia. 8. ISRAEL and the GREATER MIDDLE EAST America's decline would set in motion tectonic shifts undermining the political stability of the entire Middle East. All
states in the region remain vulnerable to varying degrees of internal populist pressures, social unrest, and religious fundamentalism, as seen by the events of early 2011. If America's decline were to occur with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict still unresolved, the failure to implement a mutually acceptable two-state solution would further inflame the region's political atmosphere. Regional hostility to Israel would then intensify. Perceived American weakness

would at some point tempt the more powerful states in the region, notably Iran or Israel, to preempt anticipated dangers. And jockeying for tactical advantage could precipitate eruptions by Hamas or Hezbollah, which could then escalate into wider and bloodier military encounters. Weak entities such as Lebanon and Palestine
would pay an especially high price in civilian deaths. Even worse, such conflicts could rise to truly horrific levels through strikes and counterstrikes between Iran and Israel. At stake: Direct

Israeli or U.S. confrontation with Iran; a rising tide of Islamic radicalism and extremism; a worldwide energy crisis; vulnerability of America's Persian Gulf allies.

Russian resurgence causes global instability and WMD use Ariel Cohen, Ph.D, Senior Policy Analyst, Heritage Foundation Reports, 1-25-97 Much is at stake in Eurasia for the U.S. and its allies. Attempts to restore its empire will doom Russia's transition to a democracy and free-market economy. The ongoing war in Chechnya alone has
cost Russia $ 6 billion to date (equal to Russia's IMF and World Bank loans for 1995). Moreover, it has extracted a tremendous price from Russian society. The wars which would be required to restore the Russian empire would prove much more costly not just for Russia and the region, but for peace, world stability, and security. As the former Soviet arsenals are spread throughout the NIS, these conflicts may escalate to include the use of weapons of mass destruction. Scenarios including unauthorized missile launches are especially threatening. Moreover, if successful, a reconstituted Russian empire would become a major destabilizing influence both in Eurasia and throughout the world. It would endanger not only Russia's neighbors, but also the U.S. and its allies in Europe and the Middle East. And, of course, a neoimperialist Russia could imperil the oil reserves of the Persian Gulf. n15 Vladimir Zhirinovsky, mouthpiece for the most irredentist elements in the Russian security and military services, constantly articulates this threat.

Domination of the Caucasus would bring Russia closer to the Balkans, the Mediterranean Sea, and the Middle East. Russian imperialists, such as radical nationalist Vladimir Zhirinovsky, have resurrected the
old dream of obtaining a warm port on the Indian Ocean. If Russia succeeds in establishing its domination in the south, the threat to Ukraine, Turkey, Iran, and Afganistan will increase. The independence of proWestern Georgia and Azerbaijan already has been undermined by pressures from the Russian armed forces and

covert actions by the intelligence and security services, in addition to which Russian hegemony would make Western political and economic efforts to stave off Islamic militancy more difficult. Eurasian oil resources are pivotal to economic development in the early 21st century. The supply of Middle Eastern oil would become precarious if Saudi Arabia became unstable, or if Iran or Iraq provoked another military conflict in the area. Eurasian oil is also key to the economic development of the southern NIS. Only with oil revenues can these countries sever their dependence on Moscow and develop modem market economies and free societies. Moreover, if these vast oil reserves were tapped and developed, tens of thousands of U.S. and Western jobs would be created. The U.S. should ensure free access to these reserves for the benefit of both Western and local economies

Extinction Helfand and Pastore 9 [Ira Helfand, M.D., and John O. Pastore, M.D., are past presidents of Physicians for
Social Responsibility. March 31, 2009, U.S.-Russia nuclear war still a threat, http://www.projo.com/opinion/contributors/content/CT_pastoreline_03-31-09_EODSCAO_v15.bbdf23.html] President Obama and Russian President Dimitri Medvedev are scheduled to Wednesday in London during the G-20 summit. They must not let the current economic crisis keep them from focusing on one of the greatest threats confronting humanity: the danger of nuclear war. Since the end of the Cold War, many have acted as though the danger of nuclear war has ended. It has not. There remain in the world more than 20,000 nuclear weapons. Alarmingly, more than 2,000 of these weapons in the U.S. and Russian arsenals remain on ready-alert status, commonly known as hair-trigger alert. They can be fired within five minutes and reach targets in the other country 30 minutes later. Just one of these weapons can destroy a city. A war involving a substantial number would cause devastation on a scale unprecedented in human history. A study conducted by Physicians for Social Responsibility in 2002 showed that if only 500 of the Russian weapons on high alert exploded over our cities, 100 million Americans would die in the first 30 minutes. An attack of this magnitude also would destroy the entire economic, communications and transportation infrastructure on which we all depend. Those who survived the initial attack would inhabit a nightmare landscape with huge swaths of the country blanketed with radioactive fallout and epidemic diseases rampant. They would have no food, no fuel, no electricity, no medicine, and certainly no organized health care. In the following months it is likely the vast majority of the U.S. population would die. Recent studies by the eminent climatologists Toon and Robock have shown that such a war would have a huge and immediate impact on climate world wide. If all of the warheads in the U.S. and Russian strategic arsenals were drawn into the conflict, the firestorms they caused would loft 180 million tons of soot and debris into the upper atmosphere blotting out the sun. Temperatures across the globe would fall an average of 18 degrees Fahrenheit to levels not seen on earth since the depth of the last ice age, 18,000 years ago. Agriculture would stop, eco-systems would collapse, and many species, including perhaps our own, would become extinct. It is common to discuss nuclear war as a low-probabillity event. But is this true?

We know of five occcasions during the last 30 years when either the U.S. or Russia believed it was under attack and prepared a counter-attack. The most recent of these near misses occurred after the
end of the Cold War on Jan. 25, 1995, when the Russians mistook a U.S. weather rocket launched from Norway for a possible attack. Jan. 25, 1995, was an ordinary day with no major crisis involving the U.S. and Russia. But, unknown to almost every inhabitant on the planet, a misunderstanding led to the potential for a nuclear war. The ready alert status of nuclear weapons that existed in 1995 remains in place today.

Plan solves - recovers US influence and soft power. Perez, JD from Yale Law School, 2010
(David, Americas Cuba Policy: The Way Forward: A Policy Recommendation for the US State Department, Harvard Latino Law Review, Lexis Nexis)

In order to effectively employ soft power in Latin America, the U.S. must repair its image by going on a diplomatic offensive and reminding, not just Latin America's leaders, but also the Latin American people, of the important relationship between the U.S. and Latin America. Many of the problems facing Latin America today cannot be addressed in the absence of U.S. leadership and cooperation. Working with other nations to address these challenges is the best way to shore up legitimacy, earn respect, and repair America's image. Although this proposal focuses heavily on Cuba, every country in Latin America is a potential friend. Washington will have to not only strengthen its existing relationships in the region, but also win over new allies, who look to us for "ideas and solutions, not lectures." n5 When analyzing ecosystems, environmental scientists seek out "keystone species." These are organisms that, despite their small size, function as lynchpins for, or barometers of, the entire system's stability. Cuba, despite its size and isolation, is a keystone nation in Latin America, having disproportionately dominated Washington's policy toward the region for decades. n6 As a result of its continuing tensions with Havana, America's reputation [*192] in the region has suffered, as has its ability to deal with other countries. n7 For fifty years, Latin American governments that hoped to endear themselves to the U.S. had to pass the Cuba "litmus test." But now the tables have turned, and the Obama Administration, if it wants to repair America's image in the region, will have to pass a Cuba litmus test of its own. n8 In short, America must once again be admired if we are going to expect other countries to follow our example. To that end, warming relations with Cuba would have a reverberating effect throughout Latin America, and would go a long way toward creating goodwill.

Latin America is uniquely key to revitalized soft power location and political relationships Grandin, Professor of History at New York University, 2010
(Greg, Empires Senescence: US Policy in Latin America, New Labor Forum, 19:1, Winter, pp. 14-23) It is easy to imagine an improved U.S. diplomacy toward Latin America, designed not to advance a set of altruistic ideals but merely to defend its interestsbroadly defined to mean stable politics and economies that are open to U.S. capital and commoditiesand to achieve what those in the liberal wing of the foreign policy establishment have long advocated: a maximization of U.S. soft power. Harvards Joseph S. Nye defines soft power as the ability to get what you want through attraction rather than coercion, through an enhanced understanding and utilization of multilateral institutions, mutually beneficial policies, cultural exchanges, and commercial relations.1 There are no immediate threats to the U.S. in Latin America. A majority of the regions political eliteeven most of its current governing leftistsshare many of the same values the United States claims to embody, even more so following the election of the first African-American president, who is wildly popular in Latin America. As a result, there is no other place in the world that offers U.S. president Barack Obama the opportunity to put into place the kind of intelligent foreign policy that he and his closest advisors, such as United Nations (U.N.) ambassador Susan Rice, believe is necessary to stop the hemorrhaging of U.S. prestigeone that would both improve Washingtons ability to deploy its many competitive advantages, while removing key points of friction.

Biotech
Cuban biotech is high now their sector is booming NTI, World Relations Institute, 2013 (2/13, NTI, Cuba: Biological, http://www.nti.org/country-profiles/cuba/biological/, 6/27/13, MK)
Cuban scientists pursue many research interests as they attempt to address the technological needs and desires of those both within and outside of Cuba. In the past two decades, Cuba has successfully developed a meningitis B vaccine, hepatitis B vaccine,[13] cattle tick "vaccine," and monoclonal antibodies for kidney transplants. Cuba has also developed products through CIGB including vaccines for pneumonia, diphtheria, anemia, and various other diseases.[14] Scientific institutions also have conducted trials involving epidermal growth factor; cancer, AIDS, and hepatitis C vaccines; and pestresistant sugar cane. These activities clearly demonstrate Cuba's versatility in biotechnology research and production.[15] As of February 2009, CIGB is "currently working on 20 new projects that include the development of 40 products to treat several diseases." [16] As the Cuban biotechnology industry has expanded over the past decade, the nation has become a major source of both medicine and scientific technology to the developing world. Cuba currently has technology trade agreements with at least 14 countries, with negotiations for trade underway with several other states. In the past decade, Iran, China, India, Algeria, Brazil, and Venezuela have become the main recipients of Cuban technology.[17] Cuba has also helped to initiate joint biotechnology enterprises within developing countries, specifically Iran, China, and India, transferring technology from several different scientific institutions, including the CIGB and the Center for Molecular Immunology.[18] Cuba has attempted to repay parts of its debt to Brazil, Columbia, and Venezuela by exporting pharmaceutical products to these countries.

The embargo makes cooperation and access to Cuba biotech impossible plan solves CPAG, Center for National Policy, 2003 (U.S. Cuba Relations, Time for a New Approach, pg. 12)
While internal failings and external pressures have kept Cubas economic system from reaching even a fraction of its potential, the country does offer opportunities for U.S. exports and investment. Since November 2001, Cuba has purchased $125 million in food from U.S. producers and recently signed contracts for an additional $95 million. Total food imports are currently estimated at $1 billion per year. As Cuba moves inevitablyalbeit slowly and fitfullytoward a more market-based economy, the size of that market is likely to increase. Cuba also exports a number of products that are otherwise unavailable in the U.S. market or whose substitutes are lower in quality. Cubas biotechnology industry, for example, has developed effective meningitis and hepatitis vaccines to which Americans have no legal access, while some of Cubas more traditional exports, which have always enjoyed a reputation for superior quality, also cannot legally be imported. Current policy excludes U.S. businesses and individuals from virtually all export and investment opportunities and gives other countries a head start in positioning themselves to take advantage of future ones. It prevents U.S. consumers from purchasing products from Cuba. And it does not provide an effective mechanism for the resolution of intellectual property disputes or expropriated property claims.

A new super-disease is inevitable and intrinsic evolvability renders status quo biotechnology ineffective absent adaption this causes extinction Quammen 13 DAVID QUAMMEN - author of Spillover: Animal Infections and the Next Human Pandemic.,(Disease: The Next Big
One,nytimes.com,10/14/13,http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/15/opinion/disease-the-next-bigone.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0,accessed:1/28/13,JW) BOZEMAN, Montana Grim

prognostications of pestilence are as old as the Book of Revelation, but they have not gone out of style or been rendered moot. Plague is a tribulation that science, technology and social engineering havent fixed. In the mid-1960s,
some public health officials imagined that antibiotics and other modern therapies would enable us to close the book on infectious diseases and so make it possible to focus on noncommunicable afflictions, like heart attack, diabetes and stroke. But that optimism was mistaken. By one account, published in Nature in 2008, more

than 300 instances of emerging infectious diseases occurred

between 1940 and 2004 . These included both the first appearance of scary new viral diseases (like SARS), with the potential to cause global pandemics, and the re-emergence of older bacterial infections in new forms (like antibiotic-resistant
tuberculosis and Staphylococcus aureus), which are less dramatic but also capable of causing illness and death on a large scale. The authors of that study warned that global

resources to counter disease emergence were poorly allocated, with most new outbreaks occurring in tropical countries, and most scientific and surveillance efforts concentrated elsewhere. The most gruesome emergent diseases like those caused by Ebola virus in Africa or Nipah virus in Asia affect relatively
few. The most devastating, AIDS, is caused by a devious, patient virus that wages slow-motion war against the human body, with mortal consequences for millions. The most explosive SARS in 2002, or some recent strains of influenza had the potential, but for prompt action and good luck, to claim many more victims than they did. AIDS, SARS, Ebola virus and many other new diseases have one thing in common: they are zoonotic. This means they came from nonhuman animals and made the leap to humans. The infectious agent might be a virus, or a bacterium, or another sort of parasitic microbe, or a worm; the animal in which it resides inconspicuously, before spilling over into humans, is known as its reservoir host. The reservoir host might be a bat (as with the SARS virus), or a rodent (the various hantaviruses), or a chimpanzee (H.I.V.-1). The reservoir host of Ebola virus is still unidentified a lingering mystery though bats again are suspected. And all of our influenzas (even the so-called swine flus) originate in wild aquatic birds. We now know from molecular evidence (published by Beatrice H. Hahn, Michael Worobey and their collaborators) that the pandemic strain of H.I.V. went from a single chimpanzee into a single person (presumably by blood-to-blood contact when the chimp was slaughtered for food) around 1908 or earlier, in southeastern Cameroon. The virus then must have passed slowly downriver, human to human, into the large population centers of the Congo basin before spreading worldwide. Sixty percent of human infectious diseases, including the worst of the old ones and the scariest of the new, are zoonotic. Now disease experts wonder about the next big one: when will it come, what will it look like, from which reservoir host will it spill over, and how many people will it kill? Prediction is difficult. But we can be reasonably confident on a few points. The worst new diseases of the future, like those of the recent past, will be zoonotic. Unfamiliar pathogens come to people from wildlife or livestock. The probably be

scariest of the new bugs will viruses. Formidable, hardy, opportunistic and impervious to antibiotics, viruses replicate and evolve quickly. They exist in extraordinary diversity and seem ever ready to colonize new hosts. Experts believe that the next global pandemic is likely to be caused by a virus with high intrinsic evolvability, meaning that it mutates especially quickly or recombines elements of its genetic material during the process of replication. It crackles and snaps with accidental variation. Darwin told us that variation is the raw material of adaptive change; and adaptive change is what enables an organism to thrive in unfamiliar conditions including human hosts. In 1997, Dr. Donald S. Burke cautioned that the watch list of candidate viruses for the next
global pandemic the ones with high intrinsic evolvability should include the influenzas, the retroviruses (like H.I.V.-1 and H.I.V.-2), and the coronavirus family (including SARS). His warning was validated when SARS emerged. Precise prediction may not be possible, but informed vigilance is. Intrepid disease ecologists are hiking into forests, climbing through caves, visiting remote communities to investigate small outbreaks, gathering evidence of novel infections, and sleuthing the mysteries of reservoir host and spillover. In labs, other scientists are developing sophisticated new molecular tools for quickly identifying and characterizing new viruses. Private, governmental and international health institutions support scientific efforts and public-health planning to limit the scope of coming pandemics. There are issues of civil liberties and privacy, as well as issues of public health, to be faced as we prepare for the next big one. Consider the matter of travel. When Dr. Burke issued his warning, you could get on an airplane just about anywhere carrying a pocketknife. You cant do that anymore. But you can still board a plane carrying a virus. This may change. Soon, it will be possible to identify quickly who is or is not infected with a dangerous new virus, and the carriers may be excluded from certain activities or worse. During smallpox outbreaks of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, some American communities instituted compulsory vaccination and forcible confinement in pesthouses. A 21st-century version, based on similar fears about a new zoonotic virus, might involve cheek-swabbing and speedy molecular diagnostics at airport security checkpoints, followed by ... who knows what sort of quarantine for those carrying the bug. Well need to balance between individual liberties and the health of the human herd. Field research in areas of high biological diversity, careful scrutiny of the interactions of humans and wildlife, control of the killing and transport of wild animals for food, attention to the disease threats inherent in factory-scale livestock husbandry,

efficient sampling and diagnostic tools, global monitoring networks, better vaccines, better antiviral drugs, and contingency plans for confining and controlling outbreaks these represent our best defenses against the

next big one. We cant prevent another malign bug from entering the human population. But will it kill a few thousand people, or tens
of millions? The answer may depend not just on the nature of the virus, and on the density and abundance of Homo sapiens on this planet, but also on the particulars of how we respond. Viruses

are adaptable and heedless. Humans are adaptable and

smart.

2013 CDC reports say we need to act fast Falco 13 Miriam Falco CNN,(CDC sets threat levels for drug-resistant
'superbugs',cnn.com,9/16/13,http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/health/antibiotic-resistant-infections-cdc/,accessed:10/30/13,JW) Health officials have been warning us about antibiotic overuse and drug-resistant "superbugs" for a long time. But today the

C enters for

D isease C ontrol and Prevention is sounding the alarm in a new way. For the first time, the CDC is categorizing drugresistant superbugs by threat level. That's because, in their conservative estimates, more than 2 million people get antibiotic-resistant infections each year, and at least 23,000 die because current drugs no longer stop their infections. Antibiotics are designed to kill bacteria that cause infection. However, in the process they can also kill so-called good
bacteria (the human body hosts about 100 trillion). The Missouri Department of Health explains it this way: "Every time a person takes antibiotics, sensitive bacteria are killed, but resistant

germs may be left to grow and multiply. Repeated and improper uses of antibiotic s are primary causes of the increase in drug-resistant bacteria." Some bad bacteria are naturally resistant to
certain types of antibiotics, according to Tufts University. Others can become resistant by spontaneous genetic mutation or by swapping genes with other bugs. So the CDC is ranking the worst drug-resistant bacteria according to how many people get sick, the number of hospitalizations and the number of deaths caused by each. They also took into account how many, if any, existing antibiotics still work on the bacteria. Instead of red, orange or yellow -- the levels once used to describe terrorism threats -- the CDC is using "urgent," "serious" and "concerning." Knowing the specific names of the deadly bacteria may not be essential for the average person, but CDC Director Dr. Thomas Frieden said Monday that the CDC is warning the public about these health threats before they get out of control. "For the first time," said Frieden, " we

have a snapshot of antimicrobial threats that have the most impact on human health." According to the CDC, the following bacteria are the most "Urgent Threats": CRE bacteria -- a family of germs called carbapenem-resistant
Enterobacteriaceae, which includes E. Coli. Some CRE bacteria are resistant to all existing antibiotics. The CDC reports more than 9,000 infections are contracted in hospitals and other health care settings from these bacteria. As many as 50% of the patients who are infected with CRE end up dying because there is nothing to help them fight the infections. Clostridium Difficile ( C-Diff for short) -- a bacteria that can cause life-threatening diarrhea. It kills up to 14,000 people and causes a quarter million hospitalizations each year. Most patients who get this potentially deadly infection are on antibiotics for other infections. The problem is that while antibiotics kill bad bugs, they also kill good bacteria in your gastrointestinal system that help fight off bad bacteria, C-Diff included.

Neisseria gonorrhoeae

-- the drug-resistant form of

this bacteria causes gonorrhea, the second most commonly reported infection in the United States. Gonorrhea can cause a variety of illnesses in men and women, including infertility. The CDC estimates there are 820,000 infections each year. In nearly a third of the cases, treatment of the sexually-transmitted disease, is hampered by growing antibiotic resistance. Frieden said if

the current trends continue, "the medicine cabinet may be empty for patients who need them in the coming months and years." To avoid what Frieden calls a "post-antibiotic" era, where none of the existing drugs work anymore and new ones haven't been approved, the CDC has created a four-step plan to stem the tide of antibiotic resistance.

Solvency is a time-frame issue Cuba collapse is coming now and will render the biotech industry useless Snchez 13 (Yoani Snchez is the Havana-based author of the blog Generation Y and the recently published book Havana Real. This article was translated by Mary Jo Porter.
January 02, 2013, "Midnight in Havana: Will the Cuban government fall in 2013?", http://blog.syracuse.com/opinion/2013/01/midnight_in_havana_will_the_cu.htmlhttp://blog.syracuse.com/opinion/2013/01/midnight_in_havana_will_the_cu.html,accessed:10/21/13,JW)

It's increasingly obvious that the biological clock of the Cuban government -- a slow and agonizing journey of the hands that has lasted 54 years -- is closing in on midnight. Every minute that passes brings obsolescence a little nearer. The existence of a political system should not be so closely linked to the youth or decrepitude of its leaders, but in the case of our island, both ages have come to be the same thing. Like a creature made in the image and likeness of a man -- who believes himself to be God -Cuba's current political model will not outlive its creators. Every decision made over the past five

decades, every step taken in one direction or another, has been marked by the personalities and decisions of a handful of human beings -- two of them in particular. One, Fidel Castro, 86, has been convalescing for six long years in a place few Cubans could find on a map. Although in the last five years Fidel's brother Ral, 81, has installed some younger faces in the administrative and governmental apparatus, the most important decisions remain concentrated in the hands of octogenarians. (Ral's successor, Jose Ramon Machado, is 82.) Like a voracious Saturn devouring his children, the principal leaders of the revolution have not allowed any favored sons to overshadow them. The last to be ousted due to the paranoia of the Castro brothers were Vice President Carlos Lage, a figure who enjoyed popular sympathy, and the foreign minister Felipe Perez Roque. Both might have made promising successors, but were accused by Fidel Castro himself as having been "addicted to the honey of power" and removed from their positions in 2009. Their own selfishness has left Cuban leaders without a plan for succession and time has run out to develop it, at least one not sincerely committed to continuing along the path set by old men dressed in olive green. For Ral, the picture is worrisome, and he has declared that "time is short" to ready the generation that will replace him and his comrades. In 2013, he will be forced to accelerate this process, and his obvious desperation about the future is contributing to the ideological weakening and the loss of whatever popular support the Castro regime still enjoys. Meanwhile, Castro's tentative economic reforms are also contributing to the loss of control over the population. Together, the expansion of the private sector, the imposition of taxes, the distribution of land leases to farmers, and the authorization of cooperatives in businesses other than agriculture, are gradually reducing the state's influence in the daily life of Cubans. Ral may see these as a desperation move to jumpstart the Cuban economy, but one consequence will be the diminished ideological commitment of the people to a government that provides fewer and fewer subsidies and benefits. Every step the authorities take in the direction of greater flexibility is like pointing a loaded gun at their own temples. A system based on keeping every tiny aspect of our national life under tight control cannot maintain itself when some of these bonds are loosened. Reform is the death of the status quo and maneuvers to guarantee financial survival by opening the system to private capital are a death sentence written in advance. The year 2013 will be a decisive one in Cuba's move from economic centralism to the fragmentation of production, from absolute verticality to its dismantling. Those who cease to receive their salaries from a state institution and come to support their families through selfemployment will undoubtedly gain more political autonomy. Despite the best efforts of the political police, the opposition today is more energized than it has been since the so-called Black Spring of 2003 - when 75 regime opponents were rounded up, most sentenced to long prison terms. Although 2012 closed with the unfortunate loss of Oswaldo Paya, the leading figure of the Christian Liberation Movement, other faces are beginning to gain prominence. The number of activists is increasing -- and they are bringing fresh, modern ideas to the struggle. An emerging community of alternative bloggers and performance artists is blending social criticism into its creations, and increasingly bold musicians are using the lyrics of hip hop and reggaeton to narrate a reality far removed from the official discourse. Meanwhile, alternative information networks, including Twitter and other social networks via mobile phones, are helping to break the state's monopoly on opinion and to communicate the truth about what is happening on our island to the rest of the world. The aging of the nomenklatura, the growing opposition, and the expansion of the private sector are not the only influences that will weaken the system in 2013. The worsening health of Venezuelan leader Hugo Chvez is a catalyst for collapse. In the absence of his great patron -- and provider of subsidized petroleum -- in Caracas, Ral will have to speed up economic reforms even more quickly to spur growth, further weakening the Communist Party's authority. The emergence of their Venezuelan acolyte was a godsend to the Castros, who lost their original benefactor with the collapse of Soviet communism. But there doesn't appear to be another country on the horizon willing to shoulder the burden of 42,000 square miles and its 11 million inhabitants. U.S. President Barack Obama will also have a part to play. If the United States finally lifts --

or softens -- its decades-long embargo, it may give the government a temporary financial respite. But on the other hand, such a move would also take away the Castro regime's favorite political excuse for its economic failures. The country's sad state could no longer be blamed on our neighbor to the north. It would be a hard ideological blow. Given all these factors, it's difficult to see how The System can survive the coming year, much less ensure its long-term viability. But it's worth noting that the regime in Havana has long demonstrated its skill in surviving even the most unfavorable predictions. After all, the Cuban economy has been in a state of crisis for the last 20 years. One could even say that our leaders find tension soothing and perform better under emergency conditions than under prosperity. Material needs can also serve to paralyze people who must spend hours waiting for a bus or standing on line to buy a couple of pounds of chicken instead of organizing.

Plan prevents collapse Piccone 13 (Joseph, Brookings Institute Senior Fellow and Deputy Director, Foreign Policy, Opening to Havana, 1/17/13,
http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2013/01/opening-to-havana,accessed:10/21/13,JW)

Under Raul Castro, the Cuban government has continued to undertake a number of important reforms to modernize its economy, lessen its dependence on Hugo Chavezs Venezuela, and allow citizens to make their own decisions about their economic futures. The process of reform, however, is gradual, highly controlled and short on yielding game-changing results that would ignite the economy. Failure to tap new offshore oil and gas fields and agricultural damage from Hurricane Sandy dealt further setbacks. Independent civil society remains confined, repressed and harassed, and strict media and internet controls severely restrict the
flow of information. The Castro generation is slowly handing power over to the next generation of party and military leaders who will determine the pace and scope of the reform process. These

trends suggest that an inflection point is approaching and that now is the time to try a new paradigm for de-icing the frozen conflict. The embargo the most complex and strictest embargo against any country in the world has handcuffed the U nited S tates and has prevented it from having any positive influence on the islands developments. It will serve American interests better to learn how to work with the emerging Cuban leaders while simultaneously ramping up direct U.S. outreach to the Cuban people. I recommend that your
administration, led by a special envoy appointed by you and reporting to the secretary of state and the national security advisor, open a discreet dialogue with Havana on a wide range of issues, without preconditions. The aim of the direct bilateral talks would be to resolve outstanding issues around migration, travel, counterterrorism and counternarcotics, the environment, and trade and investment that are important to protecting U.S. national interests. Outcomes of these talks could include provisions that normalize migration flows, strengthen border security, break down the walls of communication that hinder U.S. ability to understand how Cuba is changing, and help U.S. businesses create new jobs. In the context of such talks your special envoy would be authorized to signal your administrations willingness to remove Cuba from the list of state sponsors of terrorism, pointing t o its assistance to the Colombian peace talks as fresh evidence for the decision.

4 Solvency
Resolving the Cuba conflict restores U.S. soft power credibility David A. Perez, Spring, 10, JD Yale Law School, currently serving as The Legal Advisor to the State Department, America's
Cuba Policy: The Way Forward: A Policy Recommendation for the U.S. State Department, Harvard Latino Law Review, 13 Harv. Latino L. Rev. 187, JT//JEDI

There is no doubt that America's diminished image in Latin America means that it will face additional difficulty when trying to accomplish its regional goals. n21 To address the issues confronting the United States vis-a-vis Latin America (i.e., drugs, the environment, trade, labor and human rights), Washington must restore its heavily damaged image and regain its place as the region's trendsetter and leader. Resolving America's "Cuba problem" is a low-cost/high-reward strategy that would inject new energy and credibility into America's image. The Eight Recommendations found in this proposal are suggestions that the Obama Administration should consider as it moves to reengage Latin America. Part of America's greatness is its ability to inspire practical solutions in people. Any new U.S.-Cuban policy should embrace not only America's uncanny ability to reinvent itself, but also the pragmatism that has made America so great to begin with.

Removing Sanctions now allows free flow of information which will create change for the better in Cuba. Huddleston, 08. former co-director of the Brookings Project on U.S. Policy Toward a Cuba in Transition, (Vicki, 3-10-08, Brookings, Cuba Embargos Usefulness has Run its Course, http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2008/03/10-cuba-huddleston, 6/23/13, ND)
There can no longer be any doubt that our

isolation of Cuba did not and cannot bring about the end of the revolution. What will bring about the revolution's demise are old age, illness and death. More important, the revolution will evolve as it loses its founding fathers and becomes increasingly less isolated from its neighbors though the Internet, television, travelers and the flow of information. But how fast and how far the revolution evolves depends upon U.S. policy. If we remove the barriers to communication, we will speed the forces of change. Just as was the case in Eastern Europe as a result of the Helsinki agreements, the Cuban people will be empowered by human contact, the free flow of information, and the support and encouragement of Americans and Cuban Americans from Florida to California. If U.S. policy can deal with Cuba -- not as a domestic political issue -- but as one sovereign state to another, then we will resume official diplomatic relations with the exchange of ambassadors and begin -- once again -- to talk about matters that affect the well being and security of both our countries, namely migration, anti-narcotics, health and the environment. Starting a dialogue will allow us to press Cuba's leaders to respect the principles that we and the region hold dear: human rights, rule of law and freedom. Removing the barriers to communications and to normal diplomatic relations are not concessions as some would claim. Rather, they are practical initiatives that will reduce the dependence of the Cuban people on the Cuban state by providing them with alternative sources of information and resources to improve their daily lives. More critically, a policy based on helping the Cuban people succeed would enable them to build civil society and begin a process of growing democracy from the bottom up. But the Bush administration is standing by its policy that Cuba must
change first, tying any modification in our unilateral embargo to the end of the Castro regime. This does us and the Cuban people a disservice

because it ties our policy to that of Ral Castro's. By waiting for the Cuban regime to act, we make policy initiatives that would bring about change, dependent on the actions of the Cuban government. The

longer we wait the more likely that Cuba's new leaders will manage without us. In three to five years, Cuba, with help from foreign investors, will have exploited deep-sea oil and its sugar cane ethanol, adding billions to its annual revenues and making the island a net exporter of energy. Worse, the longer we wait, the slower the process of change. If we want to play a role in Cuba's future, we must act now to encourage change in Cuba, by the Cuban people.

Unilateral action is the ONLY method of solving

AP 9 (Cuba Says U.S. Should Lift Embargo Unconditionally, Fox News, Sep 16, 2009, http://www.foxnews.com/world/2009/09/16/cuba-says-lift-embargounconditionally/?intcmp=related)||DK Cuba will not make any political or policy concessions to improve relations with the U.S. no matter how small, Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez said Wednesday, snubbing Washington's suggestions that some reforms could lead to better ties. He told a news conference that the United States must lift its 47-year-old trade embargo without waiting for anything in return. Rodriguez said U.S. trade sanctions have cost the island $96 billion in economic damage since they took their current form in February 1962 as part of the Trading with the Enemy Act. "The policy is unilateral and should be lifted unilaterally," Rodriguez said. He called President Obama "well-intentioned and intelligent" and said that his administration has adopted a "modern, less aggressive" stance toward the island. But Rodriguez shrugged off the White House's April decision to lift restrictions on Cuban-Americans who want to visit or send money to relatives in this country, saying those changes simply undid a tightening of the embargo imposed by President George W. Bush." Obama was a president elected on a platform of change. Where are the changes in the blockade against Cuba?" Rodriguez asked. Cuban officials have for decades characterized American trade sanctions as a blockade. Obama has suggested it may be time for a new era in relations with Cuba, but has also said he will not consider lifting the embargo. On Monday, he signed a measure formally extending the policy for one year.

Empirics prove successful business cooperation with Cuba is impossible without complete embargo removal Creager 12 Ellen Creager Detroit Free Press travel writer Michigan State University BA, Journalism 8-24-2012 Cuba US People to
People Partnership http://cubapeopletopeople.blogspot.com/2012/08/people-to-people-in-bureaucratic-danger.html Why it is happening, nobody is sure. But the 2011 is

Cuba "People to People" travel program touted so highly by President Obama in coming to a screeching halt, drowning in paperwork and non-renewed licenses for travel organizations. Almost no organizations that got licenses from the U.S. Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) last year to sponsor trips to Cuba have received renewals. Trips that were advertised have been scrapped. Organizations are left to wait without any updates or information. We work with about 30 different non-profit organizations that have programs to
Cuba in next 12 months, and 100% of them have not received renewals of licenses, said Jim Friedlander, president of Academic Arrangements Abroad in New York, a travel service provider, late Tuesday. He said that the practical effect of OFACs lack of activity is that it disrupts the entire People to People program. To me, this is contrary to the whole purpose of the president's 2011 loosening of travel for Americans to Cuba. Because of the outdated U.S. embargo against Cuba that makes it illegal for Americans to travel there, most Americans have never been to Cuba unless on a family or religious visa. The People to People cultural travel program finally allowed thousands of regular travelers to visit last year and early this year, interacting with Cubans in a meaningful way. But in May, the OFAC application for a license to operate trips to Cuba under People to People grew from 6 pages to essentially hundreds of pages. Organizations

seeking renewal had to document every minute of every day for every single trip they had done in the past year to prove that they were doing People to People activities and not tourism. Then, most of them heard nothing. Weeks and months passed. Licenses lapsed. Since OFAC is notoriously closed-mouth about its work and does not make public its list
of licences, applicants have been able to get little information. But gradually they realized they were all in the same predicament. The U.S. Treasury press office on Tuesday did email me a comment from Jeff Braunger, program manager for Cuba Travel Licensing: We have issued approximately 140 people-to-people licenses. We are doing our best to process both first-time applications and requests to renew existing licenses. We receive numerous such requests which are being handled in turn. It is our goal to respond in a timely matter. I think this is

approximately one paragraph more information than all the organizations waiting for their renewals have gotten from his office. The thing that alarms me most is that the groups Ive talked to seem

intimidated and scared. They are afraid of going public with their concern, worried that if they seem to be complaining about months of delays that have caused them to cancel trips, lose money and lay off staff, that OFAC will punish them by stowing their application on the bottom of a giant pile. I dont think thats true, but the very fact that companies are so skittish concerns me greatly. These are not fly-by-night groups. Typical groups that have -- or had -- Cuba People to People licenses include Harvard Alumni, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, National Geographic, Insight Cuba and the National Trust for Historic Preservation, all reputable groups that ran ethical and very good culturally-rich trips. Now, a look at their
websites tells the story. Harvard has one trip planned for Dec. 27 but with this caveat: Pending People to People license renewal. The Met wiped Cuba off its itinerary for now. National Geographic, which has run 29 trips taking 703 people total in the past year, is taking only preliminary waiting-list reservations for fall trips with no deposit. (A deposit, according to OFAC rules, is engaging in financial transaction with Cuba and illegal if you have no license) Insight Cuba has suspended all trips for the past two months and is on hold, waiting for its renewal that expired in June. National Trust has 4 Cuba trips still on its 2012 itinerary, but with an asterisk: "Pending People to People License Renewal." Whether you are pro-Cuba travel or anti-Cuba travel, this whole thing should concern you a lot. There is something sinister to me about preventing citizens from traveling, then allowing them to do so, then throwing giant roadblocks to prevent them from going after all. So why is it happening? It could be election year politics, with OFAC personnel covering their bases in case Democrats are out in November and Republicans take over. It

could be undue influence from the small but mighty faction of anti-Cuba types in Congress. It could be the White House consciously deciding to slow down the program for political reasons in exchange for something it
wants from Cuba. Or it could just be bureaucratic overload, with hapless workers struggling under an avalanche of paperwork it thought it needed and no deadline, and meanwhile these worthy groups that have done so much work to run People to People trips to Cuba lose money, customers and confidence in their government.