Appeasement DA 1 - Michigan7 2013

8/13/2019 Appeasement DA 1 - Michigan7 2013

1/91

Michigan Debate Deming/WhitmoreClassic Sophomores 2013

Appeasement DADW Lab

8/13/2019 Appeasement DA 1 - Michigan7 2013

2/91

Michigan Debate Deming/WhitmoreClassic Sophomores 2013

Neg

8/13/2019 Appeasement DA 1 - Michigan7 2013

3/91

Michigan Debate Deming/WhitmoreClassic Sophomores 2013

1NC Shell (Cuba)

US is taking a firm stance against Cuba and will not lift the embargo

Kovalik and Lamrani, 6/28 - Senior Associate General Counsel of the UnitedSteelworkers, AFL-CIO (USW), Dr. Lamrani, lecturer at Paris Sorbonne Paris IVUniversity and Paris-Est Marne-la-Valle University and French journalist, specialist onrelations between Cuba and the US, (Daniel and Salmi, Trying to Destroy The Danger ofa Good Example The Unrelenting Economic War on Cuba 6/28,http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/06/28/the-unrelenting-economic-war-on-cuba/)//RGImagine then, what Cuba could do if the U.S. blockade were lifted.It is clearthat the rulers of the U.S. have imagined this, and with terror in their hearts. Indeed,Lamrani quotes former Cuban Minister of Foreign Affairs, Felipe PerezRoque,as quite rightly asserting[asserts]:Why does the U.S. governmentnot lift the blockade against Cuba? I will answer:because it is afraid. It fears

our example. It knows that if the blockade were lifted, Cubas economic andsocial development would be dizzying. It knows that we would demonstrateeven more so than now, the possibilities of Cuban socialism, all the potentialnot yet fully deployed of a country without discrimination of any kind,with social

justice and human rights for all citizens, and not just for the few. It is thegovernment of a great and powerful empire, but it fears the example of thissmall insurgent island. The next critical question is how can those of good will helpand support the good example of Cuba in the face of the U.S. blockade. Obviously, thefirst answer is to organize and agitate for an end the blockade. As a young Senator,

Barack Obama said that the blockade was obsolete and should end, and yet,

while loosening the screws just a bit, President Obama has continued to

aggressively enforce the blockade . He must be called to task on this. In addition,

Congress must be lobbied to end the legal regime which keeps the embargoin place. In addition, we must support Venezuela and its new President, NicolasMaduro, asVenezuela has been quite critical in supporting Cuba in itsinternational medical mission.And indeed, one of the first things PresidentMaduro did once elected in April was to travel to Cuba to reaffirm hissupport for these efforts. It should be noted that Maduros electoral rival, HenriqueCapriles who led an attack against the Cuban Embassy in Caracas during the 2002coup vowed to end support for, and joint work, with Cuba.

Engagement with Cuba is appeasement and solves nothing

Rubin, 2011 - Labor Law Attorney and Washington Post Journalist (Jennifer, Obamas Cuba

appeasement, Washington Post, 8/18,http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-

turn/post/obamas-cuba-appeasement/2011/03/29/gIQAjuL2tL_blog.html )//RGThe chairwoman of the foreign affairs committee, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen was equally irate:According to news reports, the Administration attempted to barter for the freedom of

wrongly imprisoned U.S. citizen Alan Gross by offering to return Rene Gonzalez, a convicted

Cuban spy who was involved in the murder of innocent American citizens.If true, such a swapwould demonstrate the outrageous willingness of the Administration to engage with the

regime in Havana, which is designated by the U.S. as a state-sponsor of terrorism. Regrettably,this comes as no surprise as this Administration has never met a dictatorship with which it didnt

8/13/2019 Appeasement DA 1 - Michigan7 2013

4/91

Michigan Debate Deming/WhitmoreClassic Sophomores 2013

try to engage. It seems that a rogue regime cannot undertake a deed so dastardly that theObama Administration would abandon engagement, even while talking tough with reporters.

Cuba is a state-sponsor of terrorism. We should not be trying to barter with them. We must

demand the unconditional release of Gross, not engage in a quid-pro-quo with tyrants.

As bad as a prisoner exchange would have been, the administration actions didnt stop there.

TheAssociated Press reported, The Gross-Gonzalez swap was raised by former New MexicoGov. Bill Richardson, as well as by senior U.S. officialsin a series of meetings with Cubanofficials. Richardson traveled to Cuba last month seeking Gross release. He also told Cuban

Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez that the U.S. would be willing to consider other areas of

interest to Cuba. Among them was removing Cuba from the U.S. list of state sponsors of

terrorism; reducing spending on Cuban democracy promotion programs like the one that led

to the hiring of Gross; authorizing U.S. companies to help Cuba clean up oil spills from planned

offshore drilling; improving postal exchanges; ending a program that makes it easier for Cuban

medical personnel to move to the United States; and licensing the French company PernodRicard to sell Havana Club rum in the United States.Former deputy national security adviserElliott Abrams explained,It is especially offensive thatwe were willing to negotiate over support for democracy in Cuba, for that would mean that theunjust imprisonment of Gross had given the Castro dictatorship a significant victory. Theimplications for those engaged in similar democracy promotion activities elsewhere are clear:

local regimes would think that imprisoning an American might be a terrific way to get into a

negotiation about ending such activities. Every American administration faces tough choices inthese situations, but the Obama administration has made a great mistake here. Our support fordemocracy should not be a subject of negotiation with the Castro regime.

The administrations conduct is all the more galling given the behavior of the Castro regime. Our

willingness to relax sanctions was not greeted with goodwill gestures, let alone systemic

reforms. To the contrary, this was the setting for Grosss imprisonment. So naturally theadministration orders up more of the same.Throughout his tenure, President Obamahas failed to comprehend the cost-benefit analysis

that despotic regimes undertake. He has offered armfuls of goodies and promised quietude onhuman rights; the despots behavior has worsened. There is simply no downside for rogue

regimes to take their shots at the United States.

Whether it is Cuba orIran, the administration reverts to engagement mode when its

engagement efforts are met with aggression and/or domestic oppression.Try to murder adiplomat on U.S. soil? Well sit down and chat. Grab an American contractor and try him in a

kangaroo court? Well trade prisoners and talk about relaxing more sanctions. Invade Georgia,

imprison political opponents and interfere with attempts to restart the peace process? Well putthe screws on our democratic ally to get you into World Trade Organization. The response ofthese thuggish regimes is entirely predictable and, from their perspective, completely logical.

What is inexplicable is the Obama administrations willingness to throw gifts to tyrants in the

expectation they will reciprocate in kind.

Appeasement ruins American credibilityencourages resistance to US policy

Rock 2kprofessor of political science @ Vassar College, Ph.D., Government, Cornell University,1985; M.A., Government, Cornell University, 1982; A.B., Political Science, Miami University, 1979(Stephen R, Appeasement in International Politics, p. 4)//BJIt does so in either (or both) or two ways. First, by ceding strategically valuable territory orabandoning certain of its defenses, the appeaser allows the military balance to shift in favor of

8/13/2019 Appeasement DA 1 - Michigan7 2013

5/91

8/13/2019 Appeasement DA 1 - Michigan7 2013

6/91

8/13/2019 Appeasement DA 1 - Michigan7 2013

7/91

Michigan Debate Deming/WhitmoreClassic Sophomores 2013

1NC Shell (Venezuela)

Obama taking hardline policy against Venezuela now

AP 11(Without ambassadors, US-Venezuela tensions grow, Associated Press/Fox News, 1/1,http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/01/01/ambassadors-venezuela-tensions-grow/)//BJThe United States and Venezuela are starting the year without ambassadors in Caracas and

Washington due to an intensifying diplomatic dispute that is likely to persist and boost

President Hugo Chavez's long-standing antagonism. Both sides have shown firmly

entrenched stances and no willingness to compromise in the past week as the U.S.

government revoked the Venezuelan ambassador's visa in response to Chavez's refusal to

accept the chosen U.S. envoy. "They thought we were going to back down. Anything negativethat happens will be the responsibility of the United States," veteran Venezuelan diplomat RoyChaderton told the Caracas-based television channel Telesur on Thursday. Chaderton, a closeChavez ally and former foreign minister, said the Venezuelan government is "studying the case

with sensitivity ... and will make the respective decisions." Chavez skipped an opportunity torespond during a three-hour speech Thursday night, saying nothing about the U.S. government'sdecision to revoke the visa of his ambassador, Bernardo Alvarez. President Barack Obama'sadministration took that step in response to Chavez's rejection of Larry Palmer, the White Housenominee for ambassador who has been awaiting Senate confirmation. It is unclear whatconcrete effects those actions could have on U.S.-Venezuela relations. Diplomats from the twocountries have already long had reduced contacts due to tensions fed both by Chavez's

condemnations of the U.S. and also by the State Department's criticisms of deteriorating

democracy in Venezuela. "Much of the cooperation between the United States and Venezuelain recent years has involved lower-level and lower-profile individuals and agencies than theambassadors, so the immediate fallout will be limited," said Shannon O'Neil, a fellow for LatinAmerican studies at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. "But this latest round of

escalating tensions ends any hope for calmer relations or more expansive cooperation.Demonizing the United States remains too important a political foil for Chavez," O'Neil said.Palmer angered Chavez by suggesting earlier this yearin written responses to questionsfrom Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana that morale is low in Venezuela's military andthat he is concerned Colombian rebels are finding refuge in Venezuela. Chavez has accusedPalmer of dishonoring the Venezuelan government by expressing concerns on several sensitivesubjects including 2008 accusations by the U.S. Treasury Department that three members ofChavez's inner circle helped Colombian rebels by supplying arms and aiding drug-traffickingoperations. "This outcome was predictable from the moment Palmer's comments were madepublic by Senator Lugar in July," said Miguel Tinker Salas, a Latin American studies professor atPomona College in Claremont, California. "For the State Department to allow this predictable

outcome to develop shows that they had no interest in improving relations with Venezuela."Chavez had vowed not to back down in his opposition to Palmer and dared the U.S.

government to expel Alvarez before diplomats confirmed on Wednesday that his visa was

revoked. Alvarez was outside the United States when the action was taken, preventing hisreturn. U.S. State Department spokesman Mark Toner said earlier this week that the UnitedStates hopes to improve strained relations with Venezuela. "We believe it is precisely becausethere are tensions in the relationship that it is important to maintain diplomaticcommunications at the highest level," Toner said. The U.S. Embassy has been without an

8/13/2019 Appeasement DA 1 - Michigan7 2013

8/91

Michigan Debate Deming/WhitmoreClassic Sophomores 2013

ambassador since Patrick Duddy finished his assignment and left in July. A previous disputeprompted similar expulsions of ambassadors at the end of President George W. Bush'sadministration. In September 2008, Chavez expelled Duddy and withdrew his own envoy, sayingit was in solidarity with Bolivia after President Evo Morales ordered out the U.S. ambassador andaccused him of helping the opposition incite violence. The Bush administration denied it andreacted by expelling the envoys of Venezuela and Bolivia. After more than nine months, in June2009, the Obama administration and Chavez's government announced they were restoring

their ambassadors. Since then, the relationship has again grown more hostile. In the past

month, the U.S. State Department has strongly criticized decree powers granted to Chavez inthe waning days of an outgoing congress firmly controlled by his allies.A new NationalAssembly takes office Jan. 5 with a bigger opposition contingent, and the decree powers willallow Chavez to bypass congress and enact laws in a range of areas for the next year and a half.Despite such friction, the two countries are linked by deep trade ties. Chavez's economy reliesheavily on oil sales to the U.S., and also imports large quantities of consumer goods from theUnited States. Oil sales to the U.S. have declined in recent years as Chavez has sought todiversify his oil market, selling more to allied countries such as China. Chavez, whose anti-U.S.position has been a defining feature of his 12-year presidency, is likely to use the latest disputeto step up his criticism and rally supporters. Larry Birns, director of the Washington-basedCouncil on Hemispheric Affairs, said the stances of both sides make for a volatile situation,

and that if their "rhetoric becomes more shrill, the situation can deteriorate faster than either

side originally intended." Some in the U.S. Congress, meanwhile, are calling for the U.S. totake a hard line against Chavez. Republican Rep. Connie Mack of Florida said this week that theUnited States "has looked the other way for far too long as Hugo Chavez destroyed democraticinstitutions." Mack accused the Obama administration of taking a passive approach towardVenezuela. "Chavez is harming the future of his country and breeding insecurity in the regionand he will have to face direct consequences for his decisions," Mack said. "One day the UnitedStates and Venezuela will once again have a strong, mutually beneficial diplomatic relationship,but unfortunately, it does not appear that this will be possible under the leadership of Hugo

Chavez."

Engaging with Venezuela is appeasement

Harper, 10a journalist for Americas Quarterly (Liz, Venezuelas Formal Rejection ofAmbassador-Designate Larry Palmer, Americas Quarterly, 12/21,http://americasquarterly.org/taxonomy/term/2741)//RG

On one side,you have those espousing "strategic engagement," keeping in line with the Obamaadministration's stated foreign policy and national security objectives. In short and broadlyspeaking, these proponents might argue, with an irrational state, you shouldn't turn yourback. Look where that got us with North Korea, Iran and Syria.Instead you want a seat at thetable to start a dialogue based on mutual respect and to build on areas of mutual interest. Youraise concerns discretely and express disapproval quietly or through third parties. As one personsaid, engagement should be subversive," because you seek to assert positive influence by being

present and through cooperation on areas such as business development, financialopportunities, or culture and sports. Indeed, Palmer was the right guy to carry out this mission.

But, the engagement policy, as it is practiced with Venezuela, is more like "appeasement ,"

say people clamoring for a tougher approach. After all, for years now, we have witnessed ademocracy's death by a thousand cuts. This past week, Hugo Chvez got one of his Christmas

8/13/2019 Appeasement DA 1 - Michigan7 2013

9/91

Michigan Debate Deming/WhitmoreClassic Sophomores 2013

wishes with the approval of new decree powers, thereby further eroding the country's oncewell-established institutional checks and balances. Chvez threatens more than human rightsand democratic norms; the U.S. has legitimate national security concerns, such as nuclear

proliferation, terrorism and narcotrafficking. Yet, as Chvez runs roughshod over international

norms, is the U.S. working to halt the downward spiral?

Appeasement ruins American credibilityencourages resistance to US policyRock 2kprofessor of political science @ Vassar College, Ph.D., Government, Cornell University,1985; M.A., Government, Cornell University, 1982; A.B., Political Science, Miami University, 1979(Stephen R, Appeasement in International Politics, p. 4)//BJIt does so in either (or both) or two ways. First, by ceding strategically valuable territory orabandoning certain of its defenses, the appeaser allows the military balance to shift in favor of

the potential aggressor,eroding the formers deterrent capacity. This might be called thematerial effect of appeasement. Thus, for example, the abandonment of formidable Czech

defenses in 1938 at Munich and the loss of the Czech Army in March of 1939 shifted the

military balance toward Germany and rendered her attack on Poland more likely to succeed. Second, and much more critical, is what one can term the psychological effect of

appeasement. Specifically, it is argued that appeasement gravely weakens the credibility ofdeterrent threats. Once it has received inducements, the adversary refuses to accept the

possibility that the government of the conciliatory state will later stand firm. It thus advances

new and more far-reaching demands. When the government of the appeasing state responds

to these demands by issuing a deterrent threat, it is not believe. Ultimately, deterrence fails,

and the appeasing state must go to war if it wishes to defend its interests.The real tragedy ofMunich, from this perspective, was not that Anglo-French concessions failed to satisfy Hitler inSeptember of 1938although that was bad enoughbut that they encouraged him to attackPoland a year later, in blatant disregard of warnings from London and Paris that they wouldintervene.

Decline in U.S. Credibility Undermines U.S. Hegemony

APSA 09 (American Political Science Association, U.S. Standing in the World: Causes,Consequences, and the Future, Task Force Report, September 2009)

As at the regional level, U.S. standing on the global stage appears susceptible to bothvicious and virtuous cycles resulting in valleys and peaks, declines and advances. Ascredibility and esteem decline, the United States may be less able to lead and accomplish its

policy goals. Others will be less willing to follow a U.S. lead or defer to U.S. opinions because

they no longer believe the United States will get the job done, honor promises, or offer a

desirable model to emulate.This, in turn, may further diminish U.S. standing. We see someevidence of this in the most recent period of diminished U.S. standing in global institutions.Logically, however, the converse ought to be true as well. As the United States is perceivedto honor promises and show interest in multilateral leadership, its standing may be expected

to increase, which may make expanded leadership, increased authority and cooperation

possible.We suspect, however, that is harder to recover standing than to lose it.

Heg solves nuclear warempirics prove

Lewis 09Senior Fellow, Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2009,(James, Theblessings of Pax Americana,

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/09/the_blessings_of_pax_americana.html)//BJ

8/13/2019 Appeasement DA 1 - Michigan7 2013

10/91

Michigan Debate Deming/WhitmoreClassic Sophomores 2013

The American Non-Empire--- what kind of "empire" is this, anyway? --- is far and away the best

cop in world history,bringing the longest period of world peace(since 1948), the widestspread of freedom and democracy, the freest economies ever known, and as a direct result, thegreatest world-wide prosperity from China to Brazil. Yes, we've seen horrific tyrannies and wars

since1948 --- but they have been local.No repeat of the Thirty Year War, of the Napoleonicmass wars, 1848, 1878, 1914, 1932, and in spite of decades of Cold War, no imperial expansionby Stalin and Mao Zedong. The Cold War stayed cold, a damned good thing. The Europeanshave turnedtheir armies into welfare programs.We were invited to rescue them when theBalkans blew up during the Clinton years. The Middle East is always on a low boil, but it neverblows up.(So far.) The same goes for Asia. Koreans still hate Japanbecause of the horrificactions of the Japanese armies in World War Two. So do the Chinese. But they haven't come toblows. They understandthat they are benefiting from the Good Cop of Pax Americana.Just letthe USNavy withdrawfrom Asia and watch the Japanese getting a nuclear bomb, the Chineseinvading Taiwan, and a new age of armed alliancesemerging. Democratic governance onlyspread in Asia after the US victory over Japan. Before that it was tried by Sun Yat Sen and

failed.Who would you like to be guarding the world instead of the United States? The UN?

China or Russia? Europe?Well, let them call the UN Human Rights Commission the next timethey have a problem. (That would be Iran, the Sudan, and Libya.) For sixty years the troubleshave been kept local and regional. That isan unprecedentedachievement for the UnitedStates. Those facts are all around us. Everybody knows it -- our allies, fake allies, enemies andfriends. It's hard to tell who's who, but every time they get a choice between Americanleadership and anything else, they choose us. Then they go home and bitch about it. It's eitherPax Americana, nuclear war, or tyranny.

8/13/2019 Appeasement DA 1 - Michigan7 2013

11/91

Michigan Debate Deming/WhitmoreClassic Sophomores 2013

1NC Shell (Generic)

The United States is taking a firm stance against appeasement in Latin AmericaBenner, 09 - Assistant Director of the Managing Global Insecurity Project at the BrookingsInstitution, Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization at the Department of State, and theOffice of Conflict Management and Mitigation at USAID, and U.S. Embassy Kathmandu. (Holly,President Obamas first 100 days, Brookings Institution Managing Global Insecurity, 5/1,http://www.brookings.edu/media/Research/Files/Reports/2009/5/01%20obama%20mgi/obama_mgi.PDF)//RG

Management and Mitigation at USAID, and U.S. Embassy Kathmandu.Obama faces an unenviable set of foreign policy challenges, including a global financial crisisandtwo ongoing wars, as well as obstacles in building domestic constituencies for a globalist

agenda in a dismal budgetary environment. It is also premature to evaluate success on issuesand policies that will take months and years to achieve. However, high-level appointments,speeches, diplomatic visits, and early policies provide an indication of the new

administrations priorities and strategies.Despite these challenges, the new administrationhas changed the tone of U.S. engagement with the international community and arguably

made progress towards re-establishing U.S. leadership in certain areas specifically in Latin

America. The administration has taken a firm stance in regard to these countries, contrary

to what right-wing activists are saying. The Obama administration has demonstrated progress

in articulating a new vision for global engagement. However, the test will come in implementingthis visiondeveloping polices on complex and interrelated issues and ensuring domesticpolitics are aligned to support the global agenda.

Appeasement ruins American credibilityencourages resistance to US policy

Rock 2kprofessor of political science @ Vassar College, Ph.D., Government, Cornell University,1985; M.A., Government, Cornell University, 1982; A.B., Political Science, Miami University, 1979(Stephen R, Appeasement in International Politics, p. 4)//BJIt does so in either (or both) or two ways. First, by ceding strategically valuable territory orabandoning certain of its defenses, the appeaser allows the military balance to shift in favor of

the potential aggressor,eroding the formers deterrent capacity. This might be called thematerial effect of appeasement. Thus, for example, the abandonment of formidable Czech

defenses in 1938 at Munich and the loss of the Czech Army in March of 1939 shifted the

military balance toward Germany and rendered her attack on Poland more likely to succeed. Second, and much more critical, is what one can term the psychological effect ofappeasement. Specifically, it is argued that appeasement gravely weakens the credibility of

deterrent threats. Once it has received inducements, the adversary refuses to accept the

possibility that the government of the conciliatory state will later stand firm. It thus advances

new and more far-reaching demands. When the government of the appeasing state responds

to these demands by issuing a deterrent threat, it is not believe. Ultimately, deterrence fails,

and the appeasing state must go to war if it wishes to defend its interests.The real tragedy of

8/13/2019 Appeasement DA 1 - Michigan7 2013

12/91

Michigan Debate Deming/WhitmoreClassic Sophomores 2013

Munich, from this perspective, was not that Anglo-French concessions failed to satisfy Hitler inSeptember of 1938although that was bad enoughbut that they encouraged him to attackPoland a year later, in blatant disregard of warnings from London and Paris that they wouldintervene.

Decline in U.S. Credibility Undermines U.S. Hegemony

APSA 09 (American Political Science Association, U.S. Standing in the World: Causes,Consequences, and the Future, Task Force Report, September 2009)

As at the regional level, U.S. standing on the global stage appears susceptible to bothvicious and virtuous cycles resulting in valleys and peaks, declines and advances. Ascredibility and esteem decline, the United States may be less able to lead and accomplish its

policy goals. Others will be less willing to follow a U.S. lead or defer to U.S. opinions because

they no longer believe the United States will get the job done, honor promises, or offer a

desirable model to emulate.This, in turn, may further diminish U.S. standing. We see someevidence of this in the most recent period of diminished U.S. standing in global institutions.Logically, however, the converse ought to be true as well. As the United States is perceivedto honor promises and show interest in multilateral leadership, its standing may be expected

to increase, which may make expanded leadership, increased authority and cooperation

possible.We suspect, however, that is harder to recover standing than to lose it.

Heg solves nuclear warempirics prove

Lewis 09Senior Fellow, Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2009,(James, Theblessings of Pax Americana,

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/09/the_blessings_of_pax_americana.html)//BJ

The American Non-Empire--- what kind of "empire" is this, anyway? --- is far and away the best

cop in world history,bringing the longest period of world peace(since 1948), the widestspread of freedom and democracy, the freest economies ever known, and as a direct result, thegreatest world-wide prosperity from China to Brazil. Yes, we've seen horrific tyrannies and warssince1948 --- but they have been local.No repeat of the Thirty Year War, of the Napoleonicmass wars, 1848, 1878, 1914, 1932, and in spite of decades of Cold War, no imperial expansion

by Stalin and Mao Zedong. The Cold War stayed cold, a damned good thing. The Europeanshave turnedtheir armies into welfare programs.We were invited to rescue them when theBalkans blew up during the Clinton years. The Middle East is always on a low boil, but it neverblows up.(So far.) The same goes for Asia. Koreans still hate Japanbecause of the horrificactions of the Japanese armies in World War Two. So do the Chinese. But they haven't come toblows. They understandthat they are benefiting from the Good Cop of Pax Americana.Just letthe USNavy withdrawfrom Asia and watch the Japanese getting a nuclear bomb, the Chineseinvading Taiwan, and a new age of armed alliancesemerging. Democratic governance only

spread in Asia after the US victory over Japan. Before that it was tried by Sun Yat Sen andfailed.Who would you like to be guarding the world instead of the United States? The UN?China or Russia? Europe?Well, let them call the UN Human Rights Commission the next timethey have a problem. (That would be Iran, the Sudan, and Libya.) For sixty years the troubleshave been kept local and regional. That isan unprecedentedachievement for the UnitedStates. Those facts are all around us. Everybody knows it -- our allies, fake allies, enemies andfriends. It's hard to tell who's who, but every time they get a choice between American

8/13/2019 Appeasement DA 1 - Michigan7 2013

13/91

Michigan Debate Deming/WhitmoreClassic Sophomores 2013

leadership and anything else, they choose us. Then they go home and bitch about it. It's eitherPax Americana, nuclear war, or tyranny.

8/13/2019 Appeasement DA 1 - Michigan7 2013

14/91

Michigan Debate Deming/WhitmoreClassic Sophomores 2013

Uniqueness

8/13/2019 Appeasement DA 1 - Michigan7 2013

15/91

Michigan Debate Deming/WhitmoreClassic Sophomores 2013

General

Obama is currently is taking an offensive stance against rogue states

Boyle, 13 - professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law (Francis,Obama Prepares to Wage Offensive, First-strike Strategic Nuclear Warfare against Russia,China, Iran, North Korea and Syria, Global Research, 6/24,

http://www.globalresearch.ca/obama-prepares-to-wage-offensive-first-strike-strategic-nuclear-warfare-against-russia-china-iran-north-korea-and-syria/5340299)

Since nuclear deterrence is not now and has never been the Obama administrations nuclear

weapons policy from the get-go, then by default this means that offensive first-strike strategicnuclear war fighting is now and has always been the Obama administrationsnuclearweapons policy.This policy will also be pursued and augmented by means of integrated non-nuclear strikeoptions. (Ibid).Therefore the entire 2013 NPR andObamas recent nuclear arms reduction proposals must

be understood within this context of the United States pursuing an offensive, strategic first-strike nuclear war-fighting capability as augmented by non-nuclear strike forces:

After a comprehensive review of our nuclearforces, the President has determined that we canensure the security of the United States and our Allies and partners and maintain a strong and

credible strategic deterrent while safely pursuing a one-third reduction in deployed nuclear

weapons from the level established in the New START Treaty. Id. at 6.And we know now for sure that all the Ballistic Missile Defense(BMD) systems that Obama iscurrently in the process of deploying in Europe, Asia, and the United States, on land, at seaand perhaps in Outer Space are designed to provide the United States with a strategic,offensive, first strike nuclear war fighting capability against Russia and China and Iran and

North Korea and Syria for starters. The latter three because the United States has taken the

position that they are not in compliance with their obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty: the United States has relied increasingly on non-nuclear elements tostrengthen regional security architectures, including a forward U.S. conventional presence andeffective theater ballistic missile defenses Id. at 9.So the United States government is currently preparing to launch, wage and win an

offensive, first-strike strategic nuclear war against Russia, China, Iran, North Korea and Syria.

All the rest is just palaver. Including by our Dissembler-in-Chief. An honors graduate ofHarvard Law School.

8/13/2019 Appeasement DA 1 - Michigan7 2013

16/91

Michigan Debate Deming/WhitmoreClassic Sophomores 2013

Latin America

The United States is taking a firm stance in establishing US leadership in Latin America

Benner, 09 - Assistant Director of the Managing Global Insecurity Project at the BrookingsInstitution, Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization at the Department of State, and theOffice of Conflict Management and Mitigation at USAID, and U.S. Embassy Kathmandu. (Holly,President Obamas first 100 days, Brookings Institution Managing Global Insecurity, 5/1,http://www.brookings.edu/media/Research/Files/Reports/2009/5/01%20obama%20mgi/obama_mgi.PDF)//RG

Management and Mitigation at USAID, and U.S. Embassy Kathmandu.Obama faces an unenviable set of foreign policy challenges, including a global financial crisisandtwo ongoing wars, as well as obstacles in building domestic constituencies for a globalistagenda in a dismal budgetary environment. It is also premature to evaluate success on issuesand policies that will take months and years to achieve. However, high-level appointments,speeches, diplomatic visits, and early policies provide an indication of the new

administrations priorities and strategies.Despite these challenges, the new administrationhas changed the tone of U.S. engagement with the international community and arguably

made progress towards re-establishing U.S. leadership in certain areas specifically in Latin

America. The administration has taken a firm stance in regard to these countries, contrary

to what right-wing activists are saying. The Obama administration has demonstrated progress

in articulating a new vision for global engagement. However, the test will come in implementingthis visiondeveloping polices on complex and interrelated issues and ensuring domesticpolitics are aligned to support the global agenda.

8/13/2019 Appeasement DA 1 - Michigan7 2013

17/91

Michigan Debate Deming/WhitmoreClassic Sophomores 2013

Cuba

US is taking a firm stance against Cuba and will not lift the embargoKovalik and Lamrani, 6/28 - Senior Associate General Counsel of the UnitedSteelworkers, AFL-CIO (USW), Dr. Lamrani, lecturer at Paris Sorbonne Paris IV

University and Paris-Est Marne-la-Valle University and French journalist, specialist onrelations between Cuba and the US, (Daniel and Salmi, Trying to Destroy The Danger ofa Good Example The Unrelenting Economic War on Cuba 6/28,http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/06/28/the-unrelenting-economic-war-on-cuba/)//RGImagine then, what Cuba could do if the U.S. blockade were lifted.It is clearthat the rulers of the U.S. have imagined this, and with terror in their hearts. Indeed,Lamrani quotes former Cuban Minister of Foreign Affairs, Felipe PerezRoque,as quite rightly asserting[asserts]:Why does the U.S. governmentnot lift the blockade against Cuba? I will answer:because it is afraid. It fearsour example. It knows that if the blockade were lifted, Cubas economic andsocial development would be dizzying. It knows that we would demonstrate

even more so than now, the possibilities of Cuban socialism, all the potentialnot yet fully deployed of a country without discrimination of any kind,with social

justice and human rights for all citizens, and not just for the few. It is thegovernment of a great and powerful empire, but it fears the example of thissmall insurgent island. The next critical question is how can those of good will helpand support the good example of Cuba in the face of the U.S. blockade. Obviously, thefirst answer is to organize and agitate for an end the blockade. As a young Senator,

Barack Obama said that the blockade was obsolete and should end, and yet,

while loosening the screws just a bit, President Obama has continued to

aggressively enforce the blockade . He must be called to task on this. In addition,

Congress must be lobbied to end the legal regime which keeps the embargo

in place. In addition, we must support Venezuela and its new President, NicolasMaduro, asVenezuela has been quite critical in supporting Cuba in itsinternational medical mission.And indeed, one of the first things PresidentMaduro did once elected in April was to travel to Cuba to reaffirm hissupport for these efforts. It should be noted that Maduros electoral rival, HenriqueCapriles who led an attack against the Cuban Embassy in Caracas during the 2002coup vowed to end support for, and joint work, with Cuba.

8/13/2019 Appeasement DA 1 - Michigan7 2013

18/91

Michigan Debate Deming/WhitmoreClassic Sophomores 2013

Venezuela

Obama taking hardline policy against Venezuela now

AP 11(Without ambassadors, US-Venezuela tensions grow, Associated Press/Fox News, 1/1,http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/01/01/ambassadors-venezuela-tensions-grow/)//BJThe United States and Venezuela are starting the year without ambassadors in Caracas and

Washington due to an intensifying diplomatic dispute that is likely to persist and boost

President Hugo Chavez's long-standing antagonism. Both sides have shown firmly

entrenched stances and no willingness to compromise in the past week as the U.S.

government revoked the Venezuelan ambassador's visa in response to Chavez's refusal to

accept the chosen U.S. envoy. "They thought we were going to back down. Anything negativethat happens will be the responsibility of the United States," veteran Venezuelan diplomat RoyChaderton told the Caracas-based television channel Telesur on Thursday. Chaderton, a closeChavez ally and former foreign minister, said the Venezuelan government is "studying the casewith sensitivity ... and will make the respective decisions." Chavez skipped an opportunity to

respond during a three-hour speech Thursday night, saying nothing about the U.S. government'sdecision to revoke the visa of his ambassador, Bernardo Alvarez. President Barack Obama'sadministration took that step in response to Chavez's rejection of Larry Palmer, the White Housenominee for ambassador who has been awaiting Senate confirmation. It is unclear whatconcrete effects those actions could have on U.S.-Venezuela relations. Diplomats from the twocountries have already long had reduced contacts due to tensions fed both by Chavez's

condemnations of the U.S. and also by the State Department's criticisms of deteriorating

democracy in Venezuela. "Much of the cooperation between the United States and Venezuelain recent years has involved lower-level and lower-profile individuals and agencies than theambassadors, so the immediate fallout will be limited," said Shannon O'Neil, a fellow for LatinAmerican studies at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. "But this latest round of

escalating tensions ends any hope for calmer relations or more expansive cooperation.Demonizing the United States remains too important a political foil for Chavez," O'Neil said.Palmer angered Chavez by suggesting earlier this yearin written responses to questionsfrom Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana that morale is low in Venezuela's military andthat he is concerned Colombian rebels are finding refuge in Venezuela. Chavez has accusedPalmer of dishonoring the Venezuelan government by expressing concerns on several sensitivesubjects including 2008 accusations by the U.S. Treasury Department that three members ofChavez's inner circle helped Colombian rebels by supplying arms and aiding drug-traffickingoperations. "This outcome was predictable from the moment Palmer's comments were madepublic by Senator Lugar in July," said Miguel Tinker Salas, a Latin American studies professor atPomona College in Claremont, California. "For the State Department to allow this predictableoutcome to develop shows that they had no interest in improving relations with Venezuela."Chavez had vowed not to back down in his opposition to Palmer and dared the U.S.

government to expel Alvarez before diplomats confirmed on Wednesday that his visa was

revoked. Alvarez was outside the United States when the action was taken, preventing hisreturn. U.S. State Department spokesman Mark Toner said earlier this week that the UnitedStates hopes to improve strained relations with Venezuela. "We believe it is precisely becausethere are tensions in the relationship that it is important to maintain diplomaticcommunications at the highest level," Toner said. The U.S. Embassy has been without anambassador since Patrick Duddy finished his assignment and left in July. A previous dispute

8/13/2019 Appeasement DA 1 - Michigan7 2013

19/91

Michigan Debate Deming/WhitmoreClassic Sophomores 2013

prompted similar expulsions of ambassadors at the end of President George W. Bush'sadministration. In September 2008, Chavez expelled Duddy and withdrew his own envoy, sayingit was in solidarity with Bolivia after President Evo Morales ordered out the U.S. ambassador andaccused him of helping the opposition incite violence. The Bush administration denied it andreacted by expelling the envoys of Venezuela and Bolivia. After more than nine months, in June2009, the Obama administration and Chavez's government announced they were restoring

their ambassadors. Since then, the relationship has again grown more hostile. In the past

month, the U.S. State Department has strongly criticized decree powers granted to Chavez inthe waning days of an outgoing congress firmly controlled by his allies.A new NationalAssembly takes office Jan. 5 with a bigger opposition contingent, and the decree powers willallow Chavez to bypass congress and enact laws in a range of areas for the next year and a half.Despite such friction, the two countries are linked by deep trade ties. Chavez's economy reliesheavily on oil sales to the U.S., and also imports large quantities of consumer goods from theUnited States. Oil sales to the U.S. have declined in recent years as Chavez has sought todiversify his oil market, selling more to allied countries such as China. Chavez, whose anti-U.S.position has been a defining feature of his 12-year presidency, is likely to use the latest disputeto step up his criticism and rally supporters. Larry Birns, director of the Washington-basedCouncil on Hemispheric Affairs, said the stances of both sides make for a volatile situation,

and that if their "rhetoric becomes more shrill, the situation can deteriorate faster than either

side originally intended." Some in the U.S. Congress, meanwhile, are calling for the U.S. totake a hard line against Chavez. Republican Rep. Connie Mack of Florida said this week that theUnited States "has looked the other way for far too long as Hugo Chavez destroyed democraticinstitutions." Mack accused the Obama administration of taking a passive approach towardVenezuela. "Chavez is harming the future of his country and breeding insecurity in the regionand he will have to face direct consequences for his decisions," Mack said. "One day the UnitedStates and Venezuela will once again have a strong, mutually beneficial diplomatic relationship,but unfortunately, it does not appear that this will be possible under the leadership of HugoChavez."

8/13/2019 Appeasement DA 1 - Michigan7 2013

20/91

Michigan Debate Deming/WhitmoreClassic Sophomores 2013

North Korea (Impact)

US bargaining power is preventing North Korean conflict

Carpenter 06--senior fellow for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute; servedas Catos director of foreign policy studies from 1986 to 1995 and as vice president for defenseand foreign policy studies from 1995 to 2011 (Ted Galen, A Nuisance, Not a Threat, CATO

Institute, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/nuisance-not-threat)//BJ

Even if North Korea conducts additional tests of the Taepodong-2 and other missiles, it is a

manageable problem, not amortal threat toU.S. or regional security. Granted, no sensibleperson wants the weird hermit kingdom to have nuclear weapons or missile systems. But theUnited States has thousands of nuclear warheads and the means to deliver them with pinpointaccuracy. We have deterred other strange and ruthless regimes in the past, most notably theSoviet Union under Josef Stalin and China under Mao Tse-tung.Both countries had far morenuclear weapons and missiles than North Korea ever can hope to build. We should be able todeter the likes of Kim Jong Il. The North Korean regime, while bizarre and brutally repressive,

has never shown signs of suicidal behavior. And attacking the United States would definitely besuicidal.Even attacking a U.S. treaty ally, such as Japan or South Korea, would be extraordinarilyrisky.

No North Korea war nowTalmadge 13-- Tokyo News Editor for The Associated Press, with a special focus on Asiansecurity/defense issues (Eric, A Look At North Korea's Artillery Shows Why No One Wants War,

Business Insider, 4/7, http://www.businessinsider.com/why-no-one-in-korea-wants-war-2013-4)//BJ

TOKYO (AP) As tensions rise on the Korean Peninsula, one thing remains certain:All sideshave good reason to avoid an all-out war. The last one, six decades ago, killed an estimated 4

million people.North Korea's leaders know that war would be suicidal. In the long run, they cannot expect todefeat the United States and successfully overrun South Korea. War would be horrific for the

other side as well. South Korea could suffer staggering casualties. The U.S. would face a

destabilized major ally, possible but unlikely nuclear or chemical weapons attacks on itsforward-positioned bases, and dramatically increased tensions with North Korea's neighborand Korean War ally, China.Here's a look at the precarious balance of power that has kept the Korean Peninsula so close toconflict since the three-year war ended in 1953, and some of the strategic calculus behind why,despite the shrill rhetoric and seemingly reckless saber-rattling, leaders on both sides of theDemilitarized Zone have carefully avoided going back over the brink.

8/13/2019 Appeasement DA 1 - Michigan7 2013

21/91

Michigan Debate Deming/WhitmoreClassic Sophomores 2013

Links (General)

8/13/2019 Appeasement DA 1 - Michigan7 2013

22/91

Michigan Debate Deming/WhitmoreClassic Sophomores 2013

Generic

Appeasement ruins American credibilityencourages resistance to US policy

Rock 2kprofessor of political science @ Vassar College, Ph.D., Government, Cornell University,1985; M.A., Government, Cornell University, 1982; A.B., Political Science, Miami University, 1979(Stephen R, Appeasement in International Politics, p. 4)//BJIt does so in either (or both) or two ways. First, by ceding strategically valuable territory orabandoning certain of its defenses, the appeaser allows the military balance to shift in favor of

the potential aggressor,eroding the formers deterrent capacity. This might be called thematerial effect of appeasement. Thus, for example, the abandonment of formidable Czechdefenses in 1938 at Munich and the loss of the Czech Army in March of 1939 shifted the

military balance toward Germany and rendered her attack on Poland more likely to succeed.

Second, and much more critical, is what one can term the psychological effect of

appeasement. Specifically, it is argued that appeasement gravely weakens the credibility of

deterrent threats. Once it has received inducements, the adversary refuses to accept the

possibility that the government of the conciliatory state will later stand firm. It thus advancesnew and more far-reaching demands. When the government of the appeasing state responds

to these demands by issuing a deterrent threat, it is not believe. Ultimately, deterrence fails,

and the appeasing state must go to war if it wishes to defend its interests. The real tragedy of

Munich, from this perspective, was not that Anglo-French concessions failed to satisfy Hitler inSeptember of 1938although that was bad enoughbut that they encouraged him to attackPoland a year later, in blatant disregard of warnings from London and Paris that they wouldintervene.

8/13/2019 Appeasement DA 1 - Michigan7 2013

23/91

Michigan Debate Deming/WhitmoreClassic Sophomores 2013

Cuba

Engagement with Cuba could have serious consequences to the United Stateshistory proves

Rubin, 2011 - Labor Law Attorney and Washington Post Journalist (Jennifer, Obamas Cubaappeasement, Washington Post, 8/18,http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/obamas-cuba-appeasement/2011/03/29/gIQAjuL2tL_blog.html )//RG

The chairwoman of the foreign affairs committee, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen was equally irate:According to news reports, the Administration attempted to barter for the freedom of

wrongly imprisoned U.S. citizen Alan Gross by offering to return Rene Gonzalez, a convicted

Cuban spy who was involved in the murder of innocent American citizens.If true, such a swapwould demonstrate the outrageous willingness of the Administration to engage with the

regime in Havana, which is designated by the U.S. as a state-sponsor of terrorism. Regrettably,this comes as no surprise as this Administration has never met a dictatorship with which it didnt

try to engage. It seems that a rogue regime cannot undertake a deed so dastardly that the

Obama Administration would abandon engagement, even while talking tough with reporters.Cuba is a state-sponsor of terrorism. We should not be trying to barter with them. We must

demand the unconditional release of Gross, not engage in a quid-pro-quo with tyrants.

As bad as a prisoner exchange would have been, the administration actions didnt stop there.

TheAssociated Press reported, The Gross-Gonzalez swap was raised by former New MexicoGov. Bill Richardson, as well as by senior U.S. officialsin a series of meetings with Cubanofficials. Richardson traveled to Cuba last month seeking Gross release. He also told CubanForeign Minister Bruno Rodriguez that the U.S. would be willing to consider other areas of

interest to Cuba. Among them was removing Cuba from the U.S. list of state sponsors of

terrorism; reducing spending on Cuban democracy promotion programs like the one that led

to the hiring of Gross; authorizing U.S. companies to help Cuba clean up oil spills from planned

offshore drilling; improving postal exchanges; ending a program that makes it easier for Cubanmedical personnel to move to the United States; and licensing the French company PernodRicard to sell Havana Club rum in the United States.Former deputy national security adviserElliott Abrams explained,It is especially offensive thatwe were willing to negotiate over support for democracy in Cuba, for that would mean that theunjust imprisonment of Gross had given the Castro dictatorship a significant victory. Theimplications for those engaged in similar democracy promotion activities elsewhere are clear:

local regimes would think that imprisoning an American might be a terrific way to get into a

negotiation about ending such activities. Every American administration faces tough choices inthese situations, but the Obama administration has made a great mistake here. Our support fordemocracy should not be a subject of negotiation with the Castro regime.

The administrations conduct is all the more galling given the behavior of the Castro regime. Ourwillingness to relax sanctions was not greeted with goodwill gestures, let alone systemicreforms. To the contrary, this was the setting for Grosss imprisonment. So naturally theadministration orders up more of the same.Throughout his tenure, President Obamahas failed to comprehend the cost-benefit analysisthat despotic regimes undertake. He has offered armfuls of goodies and promised quietude on

human rights; the despots behavior has worsened. There is simply no downside for rogue

regimes to take their shots at the United States.

8/13/2019 Appeasement DA 1 - Michigan7 2013

24/91

Michigan Debate Deming/WhitmoreClassic Sophomores 2013

Whether it is Cuba orIran, the administration reverts to engagement mode when its

engagement efforts are met with aggression and/or domestic oppression.Try to murder adiplomat on U.S. soil? Well sit down and chat. Grab an American contractor and try him in a

kangaroo court? Well trade prisoners and talk about relaxing more sanctions. Invade Georgia,imprison political opponents and interfere with attempts to restart the peace process? Well put

the screws on our democratic ally to get you into World Trade Organization. The response ofthese thuggish regimes is entirely predictable and, from their perspective, completely logical.

What is inexplicable is the Obama administrations willingness to throw gifts to tyrants in the

expectation they will reciprocate in kind.

Unilateral concessions to Cuba promotes socialism and anti-Americanism in Latin America

Brookes 9-- a Heritage Foundation senior fellow and a former deputy assistant secretary ofdefense (Peter, Keep the Embargo, O, New York Post,

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/item_Oul9gWKYCFsACA0D6IVpvL,4/15)//BJ

IN another outreach to rogu ish regimes, the Obama ad ministration on Monday announced theeasing of some restrictions on Cuba. Team Bam hopes that a new face in the White House willheal old wounds. Fat chance. Sure, it's fine to allow separated families to see each other morethan once every three years -- even though Cubanosaren't allowed to visit America. Andpermitting gifts to Cuban relatives could ease unnecessary poverty -- even though the regimewill siphon off an estimated 20 percent of the money sent there. In the end, though, it's stillFidel Castro and his brother Raul who'll decide whether there'll be a thaw in ties with the UnitedStates -- or not. And in usual Castro-style, Fidel himself stood defiant in response to the WhiteHouse proclamation, barely recognizing the US policy shift. Instead, and predictably, Fideldemanded an end to el bloqueo (the blockade) -- without any promises of change for the

people who labor under the regime's hard-line policies. So much for the theory that if we'renice to them, they'll be nice to us. Many are concerned that the lack of love from Havana willlead Washington to make even more unilateral concessions to create an opening with Fidel

and the gang. Of course, the big empanada is the US economic embargo against Cuba, in placesince 1962, which undoubtedly is the thing Havana most wants done away with -- without anyconcessions on Cuba's part, of course. Lifting the embargo won't normalize relations, butinstead legitimize -- and wave the white flag to -- Fidel's 50-year fight against the Yanquis,

further lionizing the dictator and encouraging the Latin American Left. Because the economy

is nationalized, trade will pour plenty of cash into the Cuban national coffers -- allowing

Havana to suppress dissent at home and bolster its communist agenda abroad. The last thing

we should do is to fill the pockets of a regime that'll use those profits to keep a jackboot on

the neck of the Cuban people. The political and human-rights situation in Cuba is grim enough

already. The police state controls the lives of 11 million Cubans in what has become an island

prison. The people enjoy noneof the basic civil liberties -- no freedom of speech, press,assembly or association.Security types monitor foreign journalists, restrict Internet access andforeign news and censor the domestic media. The regime holds more than 200 politicaldissidents in jails that rats won't live in.We also don't need a pumped-up Cuba that couldbecome a serious menace to US interests in Latin America, the Caribbean -- or beyond. (The

likes of China, Russia and Iran might also look to partner with a revitalized Cuba.) With an

influx of resources, the Cuban regime would surely team up with the rulers of nations like

Venezuela, Nicaragua and Bolivia to advance socialism and anti-Americanism in the Western

8/13/2019 Appeasement DA 1 - Michigan7 2013

25/91

Michigan Debate Deming/WhitmoreClassic Sophomores 2013

Hemisphere. The embargo has stifled Havana's ambitions ever since the Castros lost their

Soviet sponsorship in the early 1990s. Anyone noticed the lack of trouble Cuba has caused

internationally since then?Contrast that with the 1980s some time.Regrettably, 110 years afterindependence from Spain (courtesy of Uncle Sam), Cuba still isn't free. Instead of utopia, it hasbecome a dystopia at the hands of the Castro brothers.The US embargo remains a matter ofprinciple -- and an appropriate response to Cuba's brutal repression of its people. Giving in toevil only begets more of it.Haven't we learned that yet?Until we see progress in loosing theCuban people from the yoke of the communist regime, we should hold firm onto the leveragethe embargo provides.

Appeasement policies embolden the Castro regimeleads to acts of aggression

Claver-Carone, 13 -- the Executive Director of Cuba Democracy Advocates in Washington, D.C., on the Board of Directors of the U.S.-CubaDemocracy PAC, host of "From Washington al Mundo" on Sirius-XM's Cristina Radio (Mauricio, Why Obama's 'extended hand' is counter -productive,The Hill, 1/22, http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/278543-why-obamas-extended-hand-is-counter-productive)//BJ

In the 19th century, U.S. abolitionist leader William Lloyd Garrison astutely observed, With

reasonable men, I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter,

nor waste arguments where they will certainly be lost. Garrison recognized something in thepsyche of tyrants that withstands the test of time. In the last century, Western leaders failed toheed Garrisons advice and, as a result, opened the flood-gates of two of the greatest tragediesin modern history -- fascism and communism -- at tremendous human cost and suffering: In1938, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain conceded the Sudetenland region ofCzechoslovakia to Germany in hopes of appeasing Adolf Hitlers aggression. Then in 1945, U.S.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Chamberlains successor, Winston Churchill, conceded to aSoviet Union sphere of political influence in Eastern and Central Europe believing Joseph Stalincould be reasoned with. At the time Churchill even remarked, "Poor Neville Chamberlainbelieved he could trust Hitler. He was wrong, but I don't think I'm wrong about Stalin." He livedto regret his serious miscalculation. Unfortunately, U.S. President Barack Obama began his 21stCentury presidency,also failing to heed Garrisons advice, offering an extended hand to therogue regimes of our time. During his inaugural speech in 2009, Obama famously stated, "Tothose who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know thatyou are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing tounclench your fist." The results have been counter-productive; the more so because thepresident prematurely extends his hand before tyrants give the slightest indication of

unclenching their fists. In Iran, Obama ignored the calls for freedom by the Green Movementin 2009, when thousands risked (and many lost) their lives to protest that countrys brutal

regime, and sent a letter to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei seeking to improve relations. The result hasbeen a more belligerent Iranone intent on fomenting terrorism and building nuclear weapons.In Syria, the president bet that tyrant Bashar al-Assad was something of a reformer. In 2011,as Syrians in their quest for freedom took to street demonstrations, Secretary of State Hillary

Clinton doubled down on Obamas bet apparently thinking we could reason with Assad. Theresult has been 50,000 civilian deaths and a threat to unleash chemical weapons on his ownpeople and, perhaps, even his neighbors. In Cuba, Obama eased travel and remittancesanctions almost immediately upon taking office as a good-faith gesture. The response has

been the taking of an American hostage, Alan P. Gross, who recently began his fourth year in

one of Castros prisons, and the sharpest spike in repression since the 1960s . Last year alone

there were over 6,250 documented political arrests by the Castro regime against peaceful

democracy activists. Finally, in North Korea, Obama continued the path of his predecessor,

8/13/2019 Appeasement DA 1 - Michigan7 2013

26/91

Michigan Debate Deming/WhitmoreClassic Sophomores 2013

George W. Bush, in seeking fruitless aid-for-moratorium deals, with the boyish new dictator KimJong Un. These were answered with two dangerous rocket launches in 2012 -- a failed one inApril and a successful one in December. Obama is now trying to correct his positions issuingstronger sanctions toward Iran, granting diplomatic recognition of Assads opposition and

warning North Korea of serious "consequences" if it fires another missile. Not as regards Cuba.Obamas Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communication, Ben Rhodes,

reiterated again this month that Obama is still willing to extend a hand to Castros brutal

regime. Thats not very strategic. Why is Obamas extended hand so counter -productive in

dealing with these tyrants? Advocates for normalizing relations with these regimes can't

deny these policies fail, instead they say brutal regimes need an enemy abroad to blame for

their failures.It is a pompous rationale, which assumes residents of these countries are ignorantor impervious to who is beating, torturing, imprisoning and executing them. Hint: It is not theUnited States. The reason why the extended hand policy is so counter-productive is -- asGarrison warned long ago -- tyrants are not reasonable and view an extended hand as a sign

of weakness and, seeing no risk of consequences, ratchet up their criminal behavior. Obamaunderstands this in dealing with Al Qaeda, which happens to be his greatest foreign policysuccess. The President should apply a similar rationale to dealing with the Ahmadinejads,

Assads, Castros and Kims of the world.

Appeasement policies strengthen the Castro regime and weakens US influence

Rubin 11--an American neoconservative columnist and a blogger for the Washington Post. (Jennifer, " Obamas Cuba appeasement, TheWashington Post, 10/18, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/obamas-cuba-appeasement/2011/03/29/gIQAjuL2tL_blog.html)//BJ

As bad as a prisoner exchange would have been, the administration actions didnt stop there.

TheAssociated Press reported, The Gross-Gonzalez swap was raised by former New MexicoGov. Bill Richardson, as well as by senior U.S. officials in a series of meetings with Cuban officials.Richardson traveled to Cuba last month seeking Gross release. He also told Cuban Foreign

Minister Bruno Rodriguez that the U.S. would be willing to consider other areas of interest to

Cuba. Among them was removing Cuba from the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism;reducing spending on Cuban democracy promotion programs like the one that led to the hiringof Gross; authorizing U.S. companies to help Cuba clean up oil spills from planned offshoredrilling; improving postal exchanges; ending a program that makes it easier for Cuban medicalpersonnel to move to the United States; and licensing the French company Pernod Ricard to sellHavana Club rum in the United States. Former deputy national security adviserElliott Abramsexplained,It is especially offensive that we were willing to negotiate over support fordemocracy in Cuba, for that would mean that the unjust imprisonment of Gross had given theCastro dictatorship a significant victory. The implications for those engaged in similar democracypromotion activities elsewhere are clear: local regimes would think that imprisoning anAmerican might be a terrific way to get into a negotiation about ending such activities. Every

American administration faces tough choices in these situations, but the Obama administrationhas made a great mistake here. Our support for democracy should not be a subject ofnegotiation with the Castro regime. The administrations conduct is all the more galling giventhe behavior of the Castro regime. Our willingness to relax sanctions was not greeted withgoodwill gestures, let alone systemic reforms. To the contrary, this was the setting for Grosss

imprisonment. So naturally the administration orders up more of the same. Throughout histenure, President Obama has failed to comprehend the cost-benefit analysis that despoticregimes undertake. He has offered armfuls of goodies and promised quietude on human rights;

8/13/2019 Appeasement DA 1 - Michigan7 2013

27/91

Michigan Debate Deming/WhitmoreClassic Sophomores 2013

the despots behavior has worsened.There is simply no downside for rogue regimes to taketheir shots at the United States. Whether it is Cuba orIran, the administration reverts toengagement mode when its engagement efforts are met with aggression and/or domestic

oppression. Try to murder a diplomat on U.S. soil? Well sit down and chat. Grab an Americancontractor and try him in a kangaroo court? Well trade prisoners and talk about relaxing moresanctions. Invade Georgia, imprison political opponents and interfere with attempts to restartthe peace process? Well put the screws on our democratic ally to get you into World Trade

Organization. The response of these thuggish regimes is entirely predictable and, from theirperspective, completely logical. What is inexplicable is the Obama administrations willingness

to throw gifts to tyrants in the expectation they will reciprocate in kind.

8/13/2019 Appeasement DA 1 - Michigan7 2013

28/91

Michigan Debate Deming/WhitmoreClassic Sophomores 2013

Venezuela

Appeasement worsens relations with Venezuela

Christy 13- Patrick served as Senior Policy Analyst for the Republican National Committee(RNC), focusing on energy, foreign affairs, and national security issues. (Patrick, Obama Must

Stand Up for Democracy in Post-Chavez Venezuela.http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2013/03/15/after-chavez-us-must-encourage-democratic-venezuela.March 15, 2013)cy Washington must realize that astrategy of engagement alone will not ensure a renewed and improved partnership withCaracas. Failure to realize this will not only undermine whatever influence America has in themonths ahead, but also send a troubling signal to Venezuela's increasingly united politicalopposition. The Obama administration should instead pursue a more principled policy towards apost-Chavez Venezuela. In particular, it should: Pressure Caracas to implement key electionreforms. Venezuela's opposition faces formidable obstacles. Interim President Maduro will usethe government's near-monopoly control of public airwaves, its established networks of politicalpatronage and last-minute public spending programs to bolster his populist agenda.

Washington should stress publicly and privately that any attempts to suppress or intimidate theopposition runs contrary to Venezuela's constitution and the principles defined in the Inter-American Democratic Charter, which was adopted by Venezuela in 2001. To this point, JosCrdenas, a former USAID acting assistant administrator for Latin America, writes, TheVenezuelan opposition continues to insist that the constitution (which is of Chavez's ownwriting) be followed and have drawn up a list of simple electoral reforms that would level theplaying field and better allow the Venezuelan people to chart their own future free of chavistaand foreign interference. Demand free, fair and verifiable elections. Although Venezuelaannounced that a special election to replace Chavez will be held next month, it is important toremember that elections alone do not make a democracy. Indeed, Chavez long embraced therhetoric of democracy as he, in reality, consolidated executive power, undermined Venezuela's

previously democratic political system and altered the outcomes of election through corruption,fraud and intimidation. The Obama administration should make clear that free and fairelections, properly monitored by respected international election observers, are essential toVenezuela's future standing in the hemisphere and the world. Likewise, Secretary of State JohnKerry should work with regional partnersincluding (but not limited to) Brazil, Canada,Colombia and Mexicoto firmly encourage Maduro's interim government. A unified regionalvoice would send a powerful signal to Chavez's cronies in Caracas and longtime enablers inChina, Iran and Russia. Condition future diplomatic and economic relations. Corruption andcriminality were widespread under the Chavez regime, as high-level government and militaryofficials benefited from close ties to corrupt businesses and international drug traffickers. Yet todate, the Obama administration has done little to hold Venezuela's leaders accountable.Washington should make clear that full diplomatic relations with the United States will be

contingent upon Venezuela ending ties to international terrorist groups and rogue regimes likeIran. If Venezuela takes meaningful steps to end these ties and ensure future elections, theUnited States should work with Caracas and the private sector to reform Venezuela's energyindustry and identify key development projects and reforms to improve the country's economicfuture. The United States can play an important role in shaping Venezuela's post-Chavezfuture. But to do so, the Obama administration will need to stand with the people of Venezuelaby publicly defending democratic principles and the impartial rule of law in Latin America.

8/13/2019 Appeasement DA 1 - Michigan7 2013

29/91

Michigan Debate Deming/WhitmoreClassic Sophomores 2013

Engaging with Venezuela is appeasement

Harper, 10a journalist for Americas Quarterly (Liz, Venezuelas Formal Rejection ofAmbassador-Designate Larry Palmer, Americas Quarterly, 12/21,http://americasquarterly.org/taxonomy/term/2741)//RG

On one side,you have those espousing "strategic engagement," keeping in line with the Obamaadministration's stated foreign policy and national security objectives. In short and broadlyspeaking, these proponents might argue, with an irrational state, you shouldn't turn yourback. Look where that got us with North Korea, Iran and Syria.Instead you want a seat at thetable to start a dialogue based on mutual respect and to build on areas of mutual interest. Youraise concerns discretely and express disapproval quietly or through third parties. As one personsaid, engagement should be subversive," because you seek to assert positive influence by beingpresent and through cooperation on areas such as business development, financialopportunities, or culture and sports. Indeed, Palmer was the right guy to carry out this mission.

But, the engagement policy, as it is practiced with Venezuela, is more like "appeasement ,"

say people clamoring for a tougher approach. After all, for years now, we have witnessed ademocracy's death by a thousand cuts. This past week, Hugo Chvez got one of his Christmaswishes with the approval of new decree powers, thereby further eroding the country's oncewell-established institutional checks and balances. Chvez threatens more than human rightsand democratic norms; the U.S. has legitimate national security concerns, such as nuclear

proliferation, terrorism and narcotrafficking. Yet, as Chvez runs roughshod over international

norms, is the U.S. working to halt the downward spiral?

Venezuelan appeasement strengthens rogue states and terror groups

Diaz-Balart 12,--House representative for the 25th District of Florida, Republican (Lincoln,Obama's Policies Toward Cuba and Venezuela: Ignorance is NOT Bliss, Congressional

Documents and Publications, July 11,

http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/docview/1024545504/13F53479E415C249851/6?accountid=14667)//BJ"As to Venezuela, President Obama said that Chavez 'has not had a serious national securityimpact' on the United States. His willful ignorance on this matter is shocking from a U.S.

president. The President must have forgotten that his own State Department expelled the

Venezuelan consul general in Miami for plotting against U.S. security interests, andthatChavez fiercely supports the State Sponsors of Terrorism Iran, Syria, and Cuba, and the

terrorist organizations, the FARC and Hezbollah, with his vast petroleum resources, safe harbor,and access to credit."It is dangerous that President Obama is utterly blind tothe brutal nature of the Castrodictatorship, and to the grave threats posed by Hugo Chavez's committed support for terroriststates and organizations. The Castro dictatorship and Chavez actively work against U.S.interests and in coordination with other U.S. foes. In our dangerous world, it is appalling that

the United States has a President who completely fails to appreciate serious threats within

our own hemisphere."

8/13/2019 Appeasement DA 1 - Michigan7 2013

30/91

Michigan Debate Deming/WhitmoreClassic Sophomores 2013

Weak US foreign policy towards Venezuelan allows Chavez to assist Iran in developing nuclear

weapons and support terrorist groups.

Bolton 10--American lawyer and diplomat who has served in several Republicanadministrations, a senior fellow at theAmerican Enterprise Institute (John R, The ChavezThreat, Los Angeles Times, 9/16,

http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/docview/751110281/13F536D93DA49CD2483/17?accountid=14667)//BJ

Beyond enhancing his own swaggering reputation, Chavez's growing closeness with Russia andIran on nuclear matters should be our greatest concern.For decades, after militarygovernments fell in Brazil and Argentina, Latin America prided itself on avoiding the dangers ofnuclear proliferation. The 1967 Treaty of Tlatelolco symbolized this perceived immunity, but theregion's nuclear-free status is today gravely threatened. Now, Venezuela is openly helping Iranevade international sanctions imposed because of Tehran's nuclear weapons program. Along

with the refined petroleum products it supplies Tehran, Chavez allows Iranian banks and other

sanctioned enterprises to use Caracas as a base for conducting business internationally and,

reportedly, to facilitate Hezbollah's activity in the hemisphere. Even more alarming, Venezuela

claims Iran is helping develop its uranium reserves, reportedly among the largest in the world.Indeed, the formal agreement between them signed two years ago for cooperation in the

nuclear field could easily result in a uranium-for-nuclear-knowhow trade. In addition, Chavez

has a deal with Russia to build a reactor in Venezuela. All of which may signal a dangerous

clandestine nuclear weapons effort, perhaps as a surrogate for Iran, as has been true

elsewhere, such as in Syria. President Obama and other freely elected Western Hemisphere

leaders at a minimum need to tell Chavez clearly that his disassembling of Venezuela's

democracy is unacceptable. This is very nearly the exact opposite of current White House

policy, which attempts to appease Chavez,Castro and other leftists, as it did by joining themagainst the democratic forces in Honduras.

Appeasement policies towards Venezuela leads to North Korean aggressionconflict spills

over and leads to regional war

Grey 10-- CFO and co-founder ofCapLinked,founded Crestridge Investments and Third WavePartners, and was managing director of Emigrant Bank (Christopher, BLAME APPEASEMENTFOR NORTH KOREA'S ANTICS, WND Commentary, 11/29,

http://www.wnd.com/2010/11/234213/)//BJ

The appeasement policy of the Obama administration, including his endless apologies for

America and his coddling of dictators such as Hugo Chavez and Ahmedinejad are the

diplomatic equivalent of throwing red meat in front of North Koreas wild, carnivorous beast

of a regime and daring them to eat it. They have not disappointed. Conventional wisdom is

that this attack was caused by the inevitable turmoil resulting from the ongoing transfer ofpower from longstanding dictator Kim Jong-il to his young son, Kim Jong-un. Some havesuggested the attack was intended to give the appearance inside heavily controlled North Koreathat Kim Jong-un was responsible for a great military victory against the South. This may be true,but why do something so extreme and risk creating a real war, as well as angering theirbenefactors in China, just for internal public relations reasons? People say the North Koreansare crazy and their behavior cant be explained with reason, but I think their behavior shows a

rational mind at work. They have calculated that the current American administration is so

8/13/2019 Appeasement DA 1 - Michigan7 2013

31/91

Michigan Debate Deming/WhitmoreClassic Sophomores 2013

weak, so willing to surrender and appease an aggressor, that they really dont have any

significant risk of paying the price for this attack. The North Koreans may have miscalculatedthough. South Korea was shaken to its core by what happened. Up until this attack, the SouthKoreans have been moving away from a close alliance with Americas military. They have been

pushing for U.S. troops to leave. They have been objecting to the economic and political costs ofa perceived military and diplomatic dependency on America. They generally have beenconciliatory with North Korea and have bent over backwards to avoid confrontation andhostility. They have supported the Chinese approach to engaging North Korea, which basicallyinvolves treating them as equals. Even after the incident earlier this year in which North Koreasank a South Korean ship, killing 46 sailors, the South exercised restraint.This time is different. South Koreas people and government are enraged by this attack. Therhetoric coming from South Korea towards the North is now the most hostile that it has been

since the two countries were at war nearly 60 years ago.For South Korea, this attack seems tofeel like Pearl Harbor. Their national identity has been violated. Any kinship they have felt withthe North seems to be gone. High level government officials in the South are calling formilitary retaliation and not ruling out the possibility of war with the North. Suddenly, SouthKorea is begging to get closer to Americas military. They requested one of our carrier groups be

sent immediately to conduct war games with them. Of course, we have accommodated them.We have no choice but to help them not only by treaty but also because we cannot afford toturn our back on an ally. If we dont support our allies, especially those allies of over 60 years,we wont have any allies in the world. China is in a similar mess. They cannot back down from

their support of North Korea even as this situation is exactly what they dont want for both

diplomatic and economic reasons. There is no upside for the Chinese to get dragged into a waron the Korean Peninsula. They want to keep North Korea, which is basically their violentstepchild, in a controlled box. Unfortunately, North Korea is making it clear that they wantmore. They want to flex their muscles. Thats what this attack was really trying to demonstrate.North Korea wanted to show that they could blatantly attack the South at will, kill civilians, andget away with it because both the South Koreans and the Americans dont have the guts to do

anything about it. North Korea further has threatened to use nuclear weapons both on SouthKorea and even on the United States, Japan or any country supporting South Korea if war doesoccur. They have moved surface to surface missiles into position. This provocation cannot be

taken lightly.We know that North Korea has nuclear warheads as well as the necessary longrange surface to surface missiles on which to send them. They probably dont have the

technology to reach the mainland of the United States, but they could possibly reach Hawaii.Defense analysts have feared something like this for years. Of course, any such attack logicallywould be suicide. The United States easily could annihilate the entire country of North Korea. Inall likelihood, these are empty threats. However, the risk of a severe and disastrousmiscalculation by the North Koreans grows with every sign of weakness by the United States.During the Cuban missile crisis decades ago, the only way we prevailed was by convincing the

Soviets that we would annihilate them if they attacked us. We and our allies need similar

resolve, rather than half measures and conciliation, right now. North Korea is a bully. Theyview any attempts to help them as weak. They view negotiation and diplomacy as weak. Theyview civilized behavior as weak. The only thing they understand is strength. They need to believethat we will destroy them if they do not stop their agg