Should Cuba be removed from the State's Sponsor of Terrorism List

I would first like to establish some definitional parameters for the round, followed by my own case, and concluding with a rebuttal of Pro's case. I would like to thank Pro for instigating this debate--I had not really thought much on this issue until I saw this debate being offered. I always enjoy things that are thought-provoking, and I look forward to an excellent discourse. DEFINTIONS: Sponsor - to provide material or logistical support in for an event, activity, or individual. International Terrorism - "activities that: (a) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce civilian populations, influence government policy by intimidation or coercion, or affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum." [1] This definition can be simplified to: "The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property in order to coerce or intimidate a government or the civilian population in furtherance of political or social objectives." [2] Note 1: Under this framework, a State can engage in acts of terrorism as well. For example, North Korea could use its nuclear arsenal to attempt to coerce the South Korean nation into doing something. Note 2: Terrorism does not imply success. This means that if you use coercion to obtain some objective, you are engaging in terrorism, whether or not you succeed in obtaining that objective. CON's CASE Contention One: Cuba has recently engaged in acts constituting "State-sponsored terrorism." Cuba attempt to ship to North Korea "two anti-aircraft missile systems, nine missiles in parts and spares, two MiG-21 jets and 15 motors for this type of airplane." [3] While old, these are still weapons of war. A terrorist is a terrorist whether he is holding a revolver or a rocket launcher. In this case, North Korea is the terrorist. Their constant brinksmanship and use of coercion to gain concession from the West matches the definition of terrorism, and by providing them arms--regardless of those arms' utility--Cuba was abetting them in their efforts to bolster their military capacity. Contention Two: Cuba is protecting terrorists. "The Cuban Government did not extradite nor request the extradition of suspected terrorists in 2003. Cuba continued to provide support to designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations, as well as to host several terrorists and dozens of fugitives...The Government refuses to return suspected terrorists to countries when it alleges that a receiving government could not provide a fair trial because the charges against the accused are 'political.'" [4] Pro also acknowledges Cuba's detention of these terrorists. By doing so, Cuba is providing support for individuals engaged in terroristic acts, and is thus sponsoring terrorism. Contention Three: If removed from this list, Cuba would be far more able and willing to increase its support for terrorists. Cuba engages in hardline rhetoric in support of left-wing militant groups. It, as a Communist State, urges the proletariat to rise up against so-called oppressors. In light of its own propaganda, as well as its intransigence and unwillingness sot yield even under stiff sanctions, it would seem highly unlikely that Cuba will improve if removed from the list. In fact, alleviating sanctions could ENABLE Cuba to sponsor terrorism more actively. REBUTTAL OF PRO 1st Observation: Cross-apply my contention one here. Yes, Cuba still sponsors terrorism. And, Cuba does not recognize "revolutions" to be terrorism; hence, Cuba supports militant Basque extremists. So, while Cuba may sign a UN document to the effect, Cuba still supports terrorist groups. 2nd Observation: Cuba has incredibly close links to North Korea and Iran--to look at the latter two is to look at the former. If you acknowledge that North Korea is such a threat, then the fact that Cuba supports NK seems to bolster my own assertions. Yet, as to our credibility, we nations openly support violent rebel groups, and call for "revolutions" [4], it does not seem to be contrary to our principles to sanction them. Thus, it doesn't actually undermine our credibility. 3rd Observation: You say that the third reason "barely has any merit," imply, in fact, that it does have SOME merit for keeping them on the list. It would seem that, definitionally, Cuba is harboring terrorists and so is sponsoring terror. Moreover, the North Korea incident is justification in itself. Sources: 1 - http://www.law.cornell.edu... 2 - http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... 3 - http://www.cnn.com... 4 - http://www.state.gov...