BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Intervention in fragile states is simply a new form of imperialism

The questionable foreign policy of previous U.S. administrations should not pre-empt future interventions, either by the United States or other nations genuinely intended to protect civilians in failing states, when mandated by the United Nations. The United Nations has expertise and is widely respected, which will be required considering the international reputation of the USA is now sufficiently damaged that the hostility it generates can undermine the good work it wishes to do. In partnership the USA can provide resources to enable the UN to secure the future stability of many fragile countries, while the UN's involvement can show that these operations are altruistic and pose no imperialist threat. Over time, commitment through the UN to international peace and humanitarian concerns will allow the USA to change the way it is viewed worldwide - an important aspect of the War on Terror. Regarding violations of sovereignty, former U.N. Secretary-General Boutros-Ghali dismisses objections: ‘the time of absolute and exclusive sovereignty has passed; its theory was never matched by reality’.[1] [1] Ratner, S. R., & Helman, G. B. (2010, June 21). Saving Failed States. Retrieved May 16, 2011, from Foreign Policy: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/06/21/saving_failed_states
States should act to help civilians in failing states to prevent humanitarian crises

States should act to help the people of a failing state, as once it collapses no government services will be provided, including law and order. States should work with the UN in leading attempts at conflict resolution, and should engage in subsequent peacekeeping missions and investment in nation-building initiatives (e.g. funding and organising the reintegration of non-combatants into society, organising elections, building up civil society, creating effective government institutions, etc.). The failure of the UN operation in Somalia in 1990 is telling; the country has not had a functioning central government ever since.[1] Intervention to prevent such outcomes will require both greater willingness to commit funds on the part of the powerful states and a commitment to conflict resolution which has been largely lacking in recent national policy world-wide. [1] CNN (2011, June 21) Somalia again is at top of failed states list. Retrieved June 23, 2011 from CNN Wire: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/06/21/failed.states/
Failed states are havens for drug-smugglers and terrorists

Failed states also export dangers more widely, as they often provide an opportunity for drug crops such as Opium (Afghanistan) or Coca (parts of Colombia) to be grown, processed and traded without fear of authority, with devastating effects both locally and globally. Desperate people may also take refuge in religious or political extremism, which may in time come to threaten the rest of the world. In so doing, failed states often become havens for terrorists, who can find safety in them to plot against the West, to establish training camps for future terrorists, and to build up finance, weapons and other resources with which to mount campaigns. In what was a key claim that later underpinned the 2002 US National Security Strategy and the U.S. War on Terror, Stephen Walt, a professor of international relations at Harvard University, has described failed states as ‘breeding grounds of instability, mass migration, and murder’.[1] This can be seen in Somalia, where states in recent years have ‘begun to fear al Qaeda will take advantage of the lawlessness’.[2] Other fragile states, such as Niger, Congo and Sierra Leone have radioactive and other valuable minerals which could be very dangerous in the hands of determined terrorists. The USA should work with the UN to strengthen governments so that they can more effectively maintain internal order while controlling their borders and tracking resource-flows. [1] Rotberg, R. I. (2002, July/August). Failed States in a World of Terror. Retrieved March 16, 2011, from Council on Foreign Relations: http://www.cfr.org/africa/failed-states-world-terror/p4733 [2] Dickinson, E. (2010, December 14). WikiFailed States. Retrieved May 16, 2011, from Foreign Policy: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/12/13/wikifailed
Interventions can fail and eventually cause more harm than good

Interventions are not a panacea for failing states; they do not ensure the success of either the military offensive or subsequent reconstruction efforts on the ground during the occupation. If the intervention fails to overcome local forces, civilians are powerless to overcome a political hierarchy boosted by military victory and reliant on violence. Furthermore, even if the military offensive is successful, the underlying causes of the failure of the state are still present and may be exacerbated by the presence of an intervening force. As such, intervening forces must be aware that the decision is not simply whether intervention is necessary, but whether it will do more harm than good. Coyne describes this fallacy as the ‘Nirvana Fallacy’, whereby states assume that the ‘grass is always greener on the other side’. ‘It is assumed that the foreign governments can generate, via occupation and reconstruction, an outcome preferable to that which would occur absent of these interventions’. The reality challenges these assumptions, for Minxim Pei calculates just a 26% success rate for U.S.-led reconstruction efforts since the late nineteenth century.[1] If an intervening force can’t be certain, even remotely, of the benefit to the state concerned, it has little justification in deploying and risking the exacerbation of an already-precarious problem. [1] Coyne, C. (2006). Reconstructing weak and failed states: Foreign intervention and the Nirvana Fallacy. Retrieved June 24, 2011 from Foreign Policy Analysis, 2006 (Vol. 2, p.343-360) p.344
Sanctions are illegal

Sanctions on Cuba are illegal and damage America’s International standing. They violate the UN Charter, laws on the freedom of navigation, and repeated United Nations resolutions since 1992 (passed with only the US and Israel in opposition).[1] Furthermore, some parts of the Helms-Burton Act are extra-territorial in their effects on businessmen from third nations and therefore cause significant protest around the world. This makes a mockery of the US claim to be a guardian of International Law, not only in its dealings with Cuba but also in the negotiations over the future of Iraq. America could achieve its goals internationally more easily if it was not marked with evidence of its lack of respect for International Law. [1] CNN, ‘U.N. again condemns U.S. embargo against Cuba’, 2009. http://edition.cnn.com/2009/US/10/28/un.cuba.vote/
Foreign policy should follow the will of the people

Sanctions are not the will of the American people but of a small minority of embittered Cuban Americans in Florida who are being pandered to due to their importance in elections in a swing state.[1] Congressman Charles Rangel argues that the only success of the sanctions policy has been to “appease the Republican constituency in Florida”.[2] National opinion generally expresses no preference or opposes the ban, in a 2009 CBS poll asking "Do you think the United States should or should not re-establish diplomatic and trade relations with Cuba?" 67% said should.[3] Sanctions remaining in place is electioneering government at its worst, domestic interest groups controlling government foreign policy. As Karl Rove has admitted "When people mention Cuba to me, it makes me think of three things: Florida, Florida, and Florida."[4] [1] Griswold, Daniel, ‘Four Decades of Failure: The U.S. Embargo against Cuba’, 2005. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10921 [2] DeYoung, Karen, ‘Sanctions Against Cuba Are Excessive, GAO Says’, 2007. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/19/AR2007121902291.html [3] Pollingreport.com, ‘Cuba’. http://www.pollingreport.com/cuba.htm [4] Rosenthal, Joel H., ‘The Cuba Wars: Fidel Castro, the United States and the Next Revolution’, 2009. http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/resources/transcripts/0113.html
Protecting human rights

America is attempting to protect the rights of its own citizens and of the Cubans enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[1] Something the Castro who considers democratic pluralism to be ‘pluralistic garbage’[2] will never live up to without coercion. Indeed Cuba undermines the guarantees made in its own constitution and invokes sovereignty as a justification for not complying with international rights agreements and further restricting human rights.[3] The USA’s status as a guardian of human rights and an enemy of terror is enhanced by its moral refusal to compromise with a repressive government just off its own shores. [1] 104th Congress, ‘H.R.927 -- Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)’, 1996. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c104:H.R.927.ENR [2] 104th Congress, ‘H.R.927 -- Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)’, 1996. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c104:H.R.927.ENR [3] Human Rights Watch, ‘Impediments to Human Rights in Cuban Law’, 1999. http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/cuba/Cuba996-03.htm
Sanctions are necessary for national security

Sanctions are a better alternative to military action. The most recent set of sanctions were imposed in 1996 in response to two US civilian planes belonging to the group of exiles ‘brothers of peace’ being shot down by the Cuban Air Force near Cuba.[1] The United States would have been justified in reacting proportionally with some military action but instead reinforced sanctions through the Helms-Burton Act.[2] This shows that the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of support for Cuba in 1991 did not mean an end to the threat posed by Cuba. Cuba has remained communist and the Castro regime has shown it is still willing to antagonize the United States. As Cuba is situated in a strategic location close to the United States the US government cannot be precipitate in removing sanctions at least until Cuba proves it is a good neighbour. [1] University of Minnesota Human Rights Library, ‘Armando Alejandre Jr., Carlos Costa, Mario de la Pena y Pablo Morales v. Republica de Cuba’, 1999. http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/cases/86-99.html [2] 104th Congress, ‘H.R.927 -- Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)’, 1996. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c104:H.R.927.ENR
Sanctions are not working

Sanctions are a proven policy tool and can pressure a regime that is extremely repressive into reforms. Aggressive U.S. engagement and pressure contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Bloc and it can work again. As in the Cold war there are radio stations that are effective at providing news and information about the outside world to Cuba.[1] Sanctions are also, according to Colin Powell, a ‘moral statement’ of America’s disapproval for the Castro regime. Blaming America for all economic woes didn’t trick ordinary Russians and it won’t trick the Cubans. Now is exactly the time that the United States should be tightening down the screws so that Castro’s successor is forced to make real changes. [1] 104th Congress, ‘H.R.927 -- Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)’, 1996. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c104:H.R.927.ENR
Cuba deserves sanctions

There are no legitimate grounds for Cuba to be sanctioned as opposed to many other states. There is no evidence that Cuba is a sponsor of terror, and even if it is the U.S. does not place all the restrictions it places on other designated sponsors of terror that it does on Cuba.[1] Cuba has no biological, chemical or nuclear weapons and any allegations about Cuba developing such weapons have never been substantiated. Cuba holds fewer prisoners of conscience than China, Vietnam or Iran and has recently been releasing many of them.[2] To maintain sanctions in order to change the form of government, as the United States claims it does, is totally illegitimate under International Law and, moreover, Cuba is in no sense the only undemocratic country in the world. Cuba has gone so far as to offer to compensate the U.S. citizens whose property was nationalised in 1959. America has never explained the threat posed by Cuba that requires these sanctions. [1] DeYoung, Karen, ‘Sanctions Against Cuba Are Excessive, GAO Says’, 2007. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/19/AR2007121902291.html [2] Amnesty International, ‘Cuba frees prisoners of conscience’, 2011. http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/cuba-frees-prisoners-conscience-2011-03-23
Sanctions provide leverage

There is no reason to believe that yet more years of sanctions will make a difference. Cuba has been defiant in the face of much worse and continued on the same course. The sanctions cannot provide leverage while other states do not have sanctions; Cuba can get anything it requires from elsewhere without recourse to the United States so why would Cuba be willing to ever make concessions before sanctions are dropped.[1] [1] Reeson, Greg, ‘Time to Drop Sanctions Against Cuba’, 2006. http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/15758
Sanctions are not working

Sanctions are pointless and counterproductive. They’ve made no political difference in the last 43 years, why would they now? They mean that the US can be blamed for all the failures of the Cuban economy and to justify repressive measures for security,[1] and therefore encourage the retrenchment of both. In times when the Cuban economy is booming, as in 2005 when the economy grew by 8%, the impotence of the sanctions becomes clear.[2] President Bush claimed to want to empower civil society in Cuba but he also argued that the best way to achieve this in China was to trade and spread ‘American values.’[3] Cuba’s geographical and cultural proximity makes it very likely to change quickly when they are able to freely interact with the United States through travel and trade.[4][5] [1] Griswold, Daniel, ‘Four Decades of Failure: The U.S. Embargo against Cuba’, 2005. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10921 [2] Peters, Philip, ‘U.S. Sanctions against Cuba: A Just War Perspective’, p.392. http://www.ascecuba.org/publications/proceedings/volume16/pdfs/peters.pdf [3] Griswold, Daniel, ‘Four Decades of Failure: The U.S. Embargo against Cuba’, 2005. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10921 [4] Meet the Press, ‘John Kerry’,31 August 2004. http://www.ffrd.org/election04/kerryinterview.html [5] Griswold, Daniel, ‘Four Decades of Failure: The U.S. Embargo against Cuba’, 2005. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10921
Economic benefits of ending sanctions

The United States will also benefit from the opening of trade with Cuba economically. Mid-Western Republicans have all voted to drop the embargo because of the potential for profits in their farming states. Even the modest opening of the embargo in 2000 has increased sales of farm products immensely having gone from nothing[1] to $344 million in 2010.[2] This is a market for American products as well as a local producer. Further, if sanctions end Americans will be able to stop pretending that they prefer Bolivian cigars! [1] Griswold, Daniel, ‘Four Decades of Failure: The U.S. Embargo against Cuba’, 2005. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10921 [2] Reuters, ‘U.S. food sales to Cuba fall further in 2010’, 2011. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/14/us-cuba-usa-idUSTRE70D5H520110114
Cuba deserves sanctions

Cuba is a repressive regime which operates one party rule, holds political prisoners and stifles opposition and economic freedom through constant harassment. The Cuban administration is on the U.S. list of sponsors of terror,[1] not least because it provides a safe haven to many American fugitives,[2] and has refused to give help with the search for Al-Qaeda suspects. Cuba is known to have a developmental biological weapons ‘effort’[3] and is recorded as breaking international sanctions to export dual use technologies to other rogue states.[4] Finally, Cuba has failed to stop drug shipments through its waters[5] and its government profits directly from resources stolen from United States citizens in 1959. [1] U.S. Department of State, ‘State Sponsors of Terrorism’. http://www.state.gov/s/ct/c14151.htm [2] 104th Congress, ‘H.R.927 -- Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)’, 1996. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c104:H.R.927.ENR [3] NTI, ‘Cuba Profile Biological’, 2009. http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Cuba/Biological/index.html [4] Bolton, John, ‘Beyond the Axis of Evil: Additional Threats from Weapons of Mass Destruction’, 2002. http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/beyond-the-axis-of-evil [5] Adams, Nathan M., ‘Havana’s Drug-Smuggling Connection’, 1982. http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/beyond-the-axis-of-evil
Sanctions provide leverage

In 2003 Senator John McCain argued "freedom for the Cuban people is not yet at hand, and the Castro brothers clearly intend to maintain their grip on power",[1] and this situation is likely to continue if sanctions are dropped unilaterally and the pressure is taken off Cuba. The United States however might be able to help the Cuban people gain more freedom in return for being willing to reduce and eventually drop sanctions when the Cuban people are free. Barak Obama while supporting improved relations with Cuba and an eventual dropping of sanctions argues that they provide leverage to encourage steps towards democracy.[2] [1] McCain, John, quoted in AFP, ‘White House runners: Castro’s exit not enough’, 2008. http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5j6EanfM3AufEOBR3qb0vER7iNsFw [2] Omestad, Thomas, ‘Cuban Official Rules Out Any Obama Preconditions for Improved Relations’, 2009. http://www.usnews.com/news/obama/articles/2009/03/10/cuban-official-rules-out-any-obama-preconditions-for-improved-relations
Sanctions harm the Cuban people.

Sanctions didn’t cause the economic failure in Cuba. The communist political and economic system has been shown to lead to economic collapse all over the world, whether sanctions are in place or not. Centralization, collectivism, state control, bureaucracy, and restrictions on private initiative totalitarian style economic policies are what are to blame for the Cuban people’s economic suffering.[1] Even if sanctions were lifted, lack of private ownership, foreign exchange and tradable commodities would hold Cuba back. The International Trade Commission found a ‘minimal effect on the Cuban economy’ from sanctions.[2] In fact, it is by using sanctions to pressure Cuba into economic and political reform that the US can best contribute to an economic recovery there. [1] Peters, Philip, ‘U.S. Sanctions against Cuba: A Just War Perspective’. http://www.ascecuba.org/publications/proceedings/volume16/pdfs/peters.pdf [2] U.S. International Trade Commission, ‘ITC Releases Report on the Economic Impact of U.S. Sanctions with respect to Cuba’, 2001. http://www.usitc.gov/er/nl2001/ER0216Y1.htm
Sanctions are illegal

The United Nations Resolutions condemning the sanctions have never passed through the Security Council and therefore lack any authority. The Cubans themselves are also violating international agreements in particular the 1928 Inter-American Convention on Asylum and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by surrounding “embassies in its capital by armed forces to thwart the right of its citizens to seek asylum and systematically denies that right to the Cuban people.”[1] [1] 104th Congress, ‘H.R.927 -- Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)’, 1996. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c104:H.R.927.ENR
Foreign policy should follow the will of the people

The people who care most about the Cuban question thoroughly oppose dropping sanctions. The Mid-Western Republicans who voted to drop the travel ban are no less blinkered than the Cuban Americans who vote to keep it. Opinion on sanctions wavers; the separation of powers is specifically in place to allow the White House to maintain a stable policy on issues of national security rather than responding to every change in public opinion. It would not be right for the United States to change its foreign policy when the population is apathetic and has very little opinion on an issue.
Protecting human rights

Opening to trade is the way to human rights rather than cutting of contact. Trade and development encourage communications that help to undermine oppression.[1] Far from engaging in sanctions the United States should be encouraging Cubans to use mobile phones and the internet; technologies that can be vital in undermining authoritarian regimes as shown by the Arab Spring. [1] Griswold, Daniel, ‘Four Decades of Failure: The U.S. Embargo against Cuba’, 2005. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10921
Sanctions are necessary for national security

The national security rationale for sanctions on Cuba has long since disappeared. The embargo was originally imposed in 1960 when Castro seized US property in Cuba and was tightened in 1962 in response to Cuban alignment to the Soviet Union. These sanctions were in order to neutralize Cuba as a potential threat through it being a proxy of the Soviet Union. Since the Soviet Union has collapsed this is no longer a problem. Instead Cuba is left with no powerful friends and by itself its military power is negligible and is certainly in no position to threaten the world’s preeminent power.[1] [1] Defense Intelligence Agency, ‘The Cuban Threat to U.S. National Security’, 1997. http://www.fas.org/irp/dia/product/980507-dia-cubarpt.htm
Sanctions harm the Cuban people.

The sanctions cause real and unacceptable harm to the Cuban people. Sanctions deprive Cuba of low cost food that the United States could provide so hitting the poorest yet they do not affect the ruling elite.[1] In the 1990’s Cuba lost $70 billion in trade[2] and $1.2 billion in international loans because of U.S. sanctions. Cuba is too poor a country not to suffer from these losses. The dominance of America in the pharmaceuticals industry, moreover, means that it is actually impossible for Cubans to gain access to many drugs and other medical equipment, including the only curative treatment for some pediatric leukemias.[3] America would be the natural market for most Cuban products, and its refusal to accept goods with even the tiniest Cuban inputs from third nations damages Cuba’s ability to trade with others. Other South American countries have shown their reliance on the types of loans that Cuba is denied in the last few years to keep their economies on track. [1] Griswold, Daniel, ‘Four Decades of Failure: The U.S. Embargo against Cuba’, 2005. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10921 [2] United Nations Secretary General, ‘Necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States of America against Cuba’, United Nations General Assembly, Fifty-seventh session, 26 July 2002, http://www.cubaminrex.cu/bloqueo/Eng/Anexos/A%2057%20264.pdf P.11 [3] Garfield, Richard, ‘The Impact of the Economic Crisis and the US Embargo on Health in Cuba’, American Journal of Public Health, Vol.87, No. 1, January 1997, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1380757/pdf/amjph00500-0017.pdf P.18