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

DEFINITIONS: Sponsor/International Terrorism - the con has given the definition, he must stick by it until the end of this debate, that means no changes. ONE - The definition of the Con's "international terrorism"/ sponsor is flawed. On the ground that we use this definition, the Terrorism List would be more than Iran, Sudan, Syria, and Cuba. We might as well add Russia to the list because they have provided multiple countries with nukes and weapons that threat U.S. national security. TWO - The framework argument only makes sense if the Cold War existed today, because that was the original reason Cuba was on the list. That is the basis of my framework, not the idea of engaging in terrorism or justifying the literature behind it. CASE Contention one: The shipment to North Korea contained obsolete weapons The shipment contained "240 metric tons of obsolete defensive weapons" sent to North Korea "to be repaired and returned to Cuba." The equipment was manufactured in the mid-20th century...Cuba reiterates its firm and unwavering commitment with peace, disarmament, including nuclear disarmament, and respect for international law." Observation: The point I am bringing forward is that countries that actually sponsor terrorism, like Iran and Sudan, would not likely sign any denunciations of terrorism, nor would they attempt to engage in peace talks. Cuba has done both. We also need to look from a world view of what kind of country Cuba is: they are a country that is in transition, not a national security threat that we should feel the need to continue and waste our resources onto instead of actively funneling those resources towards real states sponsors of terrorism. The cons definition merits to the fact of "logistical support." The evidence of the obsolete weapons sent to Russia is not in any way a logistical form of support, but rather just something blown up for more ways to justify Cuba being on the list. Contention two: Cuba is not harboring or protecting terrorists, the FARC is in Cuba with Columbia's permission and Cuba is trying to broker a deal, not harboring terrorists While there are ELN and FARC members in Havana, they are there with the acquiescence of the Colombian government, which continues to see Cuba"s efforts to broker the peace process in Colombia as "helpful and constructive."Much was made in the Cuban exile press a couple of years ago about the arrest in Colombia of Niall Connolly and three other members of the Irish Republican Army on suspicion of providing explosives to the FARC. This was seen as significant since Connolly had been the Sinn Fein representative in Cuba some years earlier. This must, said the exiles, point to a link between Cuba and guerrilla activities in Colombia. But no. Colombian authorities found no evidence that the three were providing explosives or training to the FARC Observation: This is also something that has been misinterpreted a fair amount of times, which is the fact that FARC isn't hiding under Cuba's protection, but sent and permissed by Columbia. AND The state department admits FARC rebels are in Cuba for peace talks The language in the State Department's most recent terrorism report issue in April 2009 is much more tempered than in past versions of the annual report. The report begins by noting that "Cuba no longer actively supports armed struggle in Latin America and other parts of the world." While the report maintains that the Cuban government continued to provide safe haven to (ETA) and (FARC) and the National Liberation Army (ELN), it notes that some were in Cuba in connection with peace negotiations with the governments of Spain and Colombia. The report states that Cuba continued to publicly defend the FARC- but also notes that in July 2008 Fidel Castro called on the FARC to release the hostages they were holding without preconditions, and condemned the FARC's mistreatment of captives and their abduction of civilian politicians who had no role in the armed conflict. Observation: Once again, another peace of evidence showing that ETA and FARC's presence in Cuba is blown out of proportion. The con should not be able to say providing safe haven for rebels in other countries means they sponsor terrorism, because otherwise we should consider the U.S. a sponsor of terrorism because we provide safe haven for known terrorists who are under persecution or other rulings. The con also still looks at mere examples to keep them on the list, but never addresses how this list destroys ability to thwart real terrorism. As per the credibility argument, we are a nation that is committed to actively fight the War on Terror. It's non-existent in Cuba, only political justifications keep them there. Our fight against the WoT only gets worse when we keep them on the list because we use our resources wastefully. Contention three: Removal of Cuba from the list opens up communication lines, It doesn't magically generate terrorism in Cuba. They want to be removed because of cooperation that could exist if they were removed. Cuba"s placement on the list is widely recognized as inaccurate and dates to decades-old political dynamics that no longer exist. The most recent State Department report indicates that the Cuban government: provided no weapons or paramilitary training to terrorist groups, joined a regional group on anti-money laundering and combating the financing of terrorism, and has distanced itself from Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA) members living on the island. Furthermore, Cuba is sponsoring and hosting the Colombian-FARC guerrillas" peace talks, collaborates with the United States in counter-drug efforts, and has made international commitments to combat terrorism. Cuba"s inclusion on the list of state sponsors of terrorism undermines opportunities for the United States to use its influence to encourage continuing improvements in political freedom and human rights. AND removing Cuba from the terrorist list would advance the process of other mutually-beneficial bilateral communications between Cuba and the United States. This is of the utmost importance to the United States. The Boston marathon tragedy highlights the importance of international cooperation against terrorism. The issue must not be politicized. As proud Americans, committed to the security of our nation, we urge the State Department to conduct a serious professional evaluation of Cuba"s presence on this list. Dealing with terrorism requires policy and leadership divorced from politics and distractions. Removing Cuba from the state sponsors of terrorism list will enable the United States to look at the current challenges and opportunities posed by Cuba. The island is a country in transition, not a national security threat Observation: If Castro's government wanted to engage in acts of terrorism, nothing is stopping them right now. We STILL HAVE AN ENTIRE EMBARGO ON THEM. The terrorism list effectively blocks our communication lines and prevents bilateral cooperation, it doesn't fly a plan over Cuba and keep a team full of U.S. spies on the lookout for weapons. ALSO, the con said my use of "barely has any merit"means there is still merit, but it does NOT mean it has merit. The merit to which they use to keep Cuba on the list is 100% political, most commonly known for Alan Gross being in Cuba while we keep the Cuban 5 in the U.S. It is a game of "they started it," not a real justification. And the NK incident is a joke, but i've already covered that. sources: http://www.scarletnotes.com... http://www.cnn.com... http://fpc.state.gov... http://www.pcusa.org... http://www.havanatimes.org...