TOPICALITY

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase

its economic engagement toward Cuba, Mexico or Venezuela.

Economic Engagement ................................................................................................................................. 2
Economic Engagement = QPQ 1NC (Long 1/3) ......................................................................................... 3
Economic Engagement = QPQ 1NC (Short 1/2) ........................................................................................ 6
Economic Engagement = G2G 1NC (1/3) .................................................................................................. 8
EE = QPQ Ext............................................................................................................................................ 11
EE Diplomatic or Military Engagement ................................................................................................ 13
Economic = Trade .................................................................................................................................... 15
EE = Aid.................................................................................................................................................... 16
EE = Dialogue ........................................................................................................................................... 18
EE = Energy Cooperation ......................................................................................................................... 19
EE = Various ............................................................................................................................................. 20
EE Sanctions ......................................................................................................................................... 21
EE = Conditional AND Unconditional ...................................................................................................... 22
Resolved ...................................................................................................................................................... 23
The .............................................................................................................................................................. 24
United States federal government ............................................................................................................. 25
Should ......................................................................................................................................................... 26
Substantially ................................................................................................................................................ 27
Substantial = Qualitative ......................................................................................................................... 28
Increase ....................................................................................................................................................... 30
Its ................................................................................................................................................................ 31
Toward ........................................................................................................................................................ 32
Cuba ............................................................................................................................................................ 33
Cuba Government ............................................................................................................................. 34
Cuba = Government ............................................................................................................................. 35
Mexico......................................................................................................................................................... 36
Mexico Government ......................................................................................................................... 37
Mexico = Government ......................................................................................................................... 38
Venezuela .................................................................................................................................................... 39
Venezuela Government .................................................................................................................... 40
Venezuela = Government .................................................................................................................... 41
Or ................................................................................................................................................................ 42
Economic Engagement
Economic Engagement = QPQ 1NC (Long 1/3)
A. INTERPRETATION:
Economic engagement requires a Quid Pro Quothe topic demands the plan must
expand economic ties with an adversary to directly change target behavior

Kahler and Kastner 06
Miles, Graduate School of International Relations and Pacific Studies at University of California, San
Diego, and Scott, Department of Government and Politics at University of Maryland, STRATEGIC USES
OF ECONOMIC INTERDEPENDENCE: ENGAGEMENT POLICIES IN SOUTH KOREA, SINGAPORE, AND
TAIWAN, Journal of Peace Research, Sage.

Economic engagement a policy of deliberately expanding economic ties with an adversary in order
to change the behavior of the target state and improve bilateral political relations is a subject of
growing interest in international relations. Most research on economic statecraft emphasizes coercive
policies such as economic sanctions. This emphasis on negative forms of economic statecraft is not
without justification: the use of economic sanctions is widespread and well documented, and several
quantitative studies have shown that adversarial relations between countries tend to correspond to
reduced, rather than enhanced, levels of trade (Gowa, 1994; Pollins, 1989). At the same time, however,
relatively little is known about how often strategies of economic engagement are deployed: scholars
disagree on this point, in part because no database cataloging instances of positive economic statecraft
exists (Mastanduno, 2003). Beginning with the classic work of Hirschman (1945), most studies of
economic engagement have been limited to the policies of great powers (Mastanduno, 1992; Davis,
1999; Skalnes, 2000; Papayoanou & Kastner, 1999/2000; Copeland, 1999/2000; Abdelal & Kirshner,
1999/2000). However, engagement policies adopted by South Korea and one other state examined in
this study, Taiwan, demonstrate that engagement is not a strategy limited to the domain of great power
politics and that it may be more widespread than previously recognized. We begin by developing a
theoretical approach to strategies of economic engagement. Based on the existing literature, our
framework distinguishes different forms of economic engagement and identifies the factors likely to
facilitate or undermine the implementation of these strategies. We then evaluate our hypotheses by
examining the use of economic engagement on the Korean Peninsula and across the Taiwan Strait.
Because our conclusions are derived from a small number of cases, we are cautious in making claims
that our findings can be generalized. The narratives that we provide and the conclusions that we draw
from them may, however, spur further research on this interesting and important feature of security
policy and international politics.


B. VIOLATION:
The affirmative engages [Cuba, Mexico, or Venezuela] without attempting to directly
manipulate the country. This is economic appeasement, not engagement.
-And EE literature is at preliminary stage: prefer the best interpretation for debate, not shaky academic
definitions

Mastanduno 03
Michael, Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Nelson A. Rockefeller Professor of Government, B.A.,
Economics and Political Science, and Ph.D., Political Science, Princeton University, The Strategy of
Economic Engagement: Theory and Practice, Economic Interdependence and International Conflict:
New Perspectives on an Enduring Debate

Our knowledge of the workings of economic engagement is still at a fairly preliminary stage. What we
do know thus far leads, at best, to an assessment of cautious optimism. A recent series of case studies
suggests that economic engagement can be effective as in instrument of statecraft. States have
managed in certain situations to use economic relations to influence the foreign policies even of
potential adversaries. Economic engagement is not simply synonymous with economic appeasement .

Yet we must also appreciate the difficult conditions that must be met for economic-engagement
strategist to succeed. Success requires the precise manipulation of domestic political forces in the
target state. It requires some ability to control the effects of interdependence. It requires that domestic
politics and foreign policy of a target state be linked in predictable and desirable ways. And the success
of this strategy requires the effective management of domestic political constraints in the sanctioning
state. These conditions, outlined subsequently, are difficult to meet individually and all the more so
cumulatively.
C. STANDARDS:
1) Limits: The methods of economic engagement are functionally limitless.
Without forcing affirmatives to defend conditions, negatives will not even be
able to rely on generics. This mechanism is necessary for fair debate, especially
because the plan could simply be written to include a QPQ.

2) Education: Only our interpretation gives meaning to engagement and
cultivates educational debatethe term requires use of positive incentives

Haass and OSullivan 00
Richard, formerly a senior aide to President George Bush and is Vice President and Director of Foreign
Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution, Washington DC, Meghan, Fellow with the Foreign Policy
Studies Program at the Brookings Institution, Terms of Engagement: Alternatives to Punitive Policies,
Summer 2000,
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/articles/2000/6/summer%20haass/2000survival.pdf

The term engagement was popularised in the early 1980s amid controversy about the Reagan
administrations policy of constructive engagement towards South Africa. However, the term itself
remains a source of confusion. Except in the few instances where the US has sought to isolate a regime
or country, America arguably engages states and actors all the time simply by interacting with them.
To be a meaningful subject of analysis, the term engagement must refer to something more specific
than a policy of non-isolation . As used in this article, engagement refers to a foreign-policy strategy
which depends to a significant degree on positive incentives to achieve its objectives. Certainly, it does
not preclude the simultaneous use of other foreign-policy instruments such as sanctions or military
force: in practice, there is often considerable overlap of strategies, particularly when the termination or
lifting of sanctions is used as a positive inducement. Yet the distinguishing feature of American
engagement strategies is their reliance on the extension or provision of incentives to shape the
behaviour of countries with which the US has important disagreements.
D. Topicality is a VOTING ISSUE for fairness and education.
Economic Engagement = QPQ 1NC (Short 1/2)
A. INTERPRETATION:
Economic engagement requires a Quid Pro Quothe topic demands the plan must
expand economic ties with an adversary to directly change target behavior

Kahler and Kastner 06
Miles, Graduate School of International Relations and Pacific Studies at University of California, San
Diego, and Scott, Department of Government and Politics at University of Maryland, STRATEGIC USES
OF ECONOMIC INTERDEPENDENCE: ENGAGEMENT POLICIES IN SOUTH KOREA, SINGAPORE, AND
TAIWAN, Journal of Peace Research, Sage.

Economic engagement a policy of deliberately expanding economic ties with an adversary in order
to change the behavior of the target state and improve bilateral political relations is a subject of
growing interest in international relations. Most research on economic statecraft emphasizes coercive
policies such as economic sanctions. This emphasis on negative forms of economic statecraft is not
without justification: the use of economic sanctions is widespread and well documented, and several
quantitative studies have shown that adversarial relations between countries tend to correspond to
reduced, rather than enhanced, levels of trade (Gowa, 1994; Pollins, 1989). At the same time, however,
relatively little is known about how often strategies of economic engagement are deployed: scholars
disagree on this point, in part because no database cataloging instances of positive economic statecraft
exists (Mastanduno, 2003). Beginning with the classic work of Hirschman (1945), most studies of
economic engagement have been limited to the policies of great powers (Mastanduno, 1992; Davis,
1999; Skalnes, 2000; Papayoanou & Kastner, 1999/2000; Copeland, 1999/2000; Abdelal & Kirshner,
1999/2000). However, engagement policies adopted by South Korea and one other state examined in
this study, Taiwan, demonstrate that engagement is not a strategy limited to the domain of great power
politics and that it may be more widespread than previously recognized. We begin by developing a
theoretical approach to strategies of economic engagement. Based on the existing literature, our
framework distinguishes different forms of economic engagement and identifies the factors likely to
facilitate or undermine the implementation of these strategies. We then evaluate our hypotheses by
examining the use of economic engagement on the Korean Peninsula and across the Taiwan Strait.
Because our conclusions are derived from a small number of cases, we are cautious in making claims
that our findings can be generalized. The narratives that we provide and the conclusions that we draw
from them may, however, spur further research on this interesting and important feature of security
policy and international politics.
B. VIOLATION: The affirmative engages [Cuba, Mexico, or Venezuela] without
attempting to directly manipulate the country.
C. STANDARDS:
1) Limits: The methods of economic engagement are functionally limitless.
Without forcing affirmatives to defend conditions, negatives will not even be
able to rely on generics. This mechanism is necessary for fair debate, especially
because the plan could simply be written to include a QPQ.
2) Education: Only our interpretation gives meaning to engagement and
cultivates educational debatethe term requires use of positive incentives.
Instead of letting affs race to the bottom of unconditional engagement, no
QPQ should be negative ground.
D. Topicality is a VOTING ISSUE for fairness and education.
Economic Engagement = G2G 1NC (1/3)
A. INTERPRETATION:
Economic engagement requires the plan to engage with the GOVERNMENT of [Cuba,
Mexico, or Venezuela], not simply private contacts

Kahler and Kastner 06
Miles, Graduate School of International Relations and Pacific Studies at University of California, San
Diego, and Scott, Department of Government and Politics at University of Maryland, STRATEGIC USES
OF ECONOMIC INTERDEPENDENCE: ENGAGEMENT POLICIES IN SOUTH KOREA, SINGAPORE, AND
TAIWAN, Journal of Peace Research, Sage.

Economic engagement a policy of deliberately expanding economic ties with an adversary in order
to change the behavior of the target state and improve bilateral political relations is a subject of
growing interest in international relations. Most research on economic statecraft emphasizes coercive
policies such as economic sanctions. This emphasis on negative forms of economic statecraft is not
without justification: the use of economic sanctions is widespread and well documented, and several
quantitative studies have shown that adversarial relations between countries tend to correspond to
reduced, rather than enhanced, levels of trade (Gowa, 1994; Pollins, 1989). At the same time, however,
relatively little is known about how often strategies of economic engagement are deployed: scholars
disagree on this point, in part because no database cataloging instances of positive economic statecraft
exists (Mastanduno, 2003). Beginning with the classic work of Hirschman (1945), most studies of
economic engagement have been limited to the policies of great powers (Mastanduno, 1992; Davis,
1999; Skalnes, 2000; Papayoanou & Kastner, 1999/2000; Copeland, 1999/2000; Abdelal & Kirshner,
1999/2000). However, engagement policies adopted by South Korea and one other state examined in
this study, Taiwan, demonstrate that engagement is not a strategy limited to the domain of great
power politics and that it may be more widespread than previously recognized. We begin by developing
a theoretical approach to strategies of economic engagement. Based on the existing literature, our
framework distinguishes different forms of economic engagement and identifies the factors likely to
facilitate or undermine the implementation of these strategies. We then evaluate our hypotheses by
examining the use of economic engagement on the Korean Peninsula and across the Taiwan Strait.
Because our conclusions are derived from a small number of cases, we are cautious in making claims
that our findings can be generalized. The narratives that we provide and the conclusions that we draw
from them may, however, spur further research on this interesting and important feature of security
policy and international politics.

Economic engagement involves government-to-government interactionprivate
engagement is cultural

Haass and OSullivan 00
Richard, formerly a senior aide to President George Bush and is Vice President and Director of Foreign
Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution, Washington DC, Meghan, Fellow with the Foreign Policy
Studies Program at the Brookings Institution, Terms of Engagement: Alternatives to Punitive Policies,
Summer 2000,
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/articles/2000/6/summer%20haass/2000survival.pdf

Architects of engagement strategies can choose from a wide variety of incentives. Economic
engagement might offer tangible incentives such as export credits, investment insurance or
promotion, access to technology, loans and economic aid. Other equally useful economic incentives
involve the removal of penalties such as trade embargoes, investment bans or high tariffs, which have
impeded economic relations between the United States and the target country. Facilitated entry into
the economic global arena and the institutions that govern it rank among the most potent incentives
in todays global market. Similarly, political engagement can involve the lure of diplomatic recognition,
access to regional or international institutions, the scheduling of summits between leaders or the
termination of these benefits. Military engagement could involve the extension of international military
educational training in order both to strengthen respect for civilian authority and human rights among a
countrys armed forces and, more feasibly, to establish relationships between Americans and young
foreign military officers. While these areas of engagement are likely to involve working with state
institutions, cultural or civil-society engagement entails building people-to-people contacts . Funding
nongovernmental organisations, facilitating the flow of remittances and promoting the exchange of
students, tourists and other non-governmental people between countries are just some of the possible
incentives used in the form of engagement.
B. VIOLATION: The aff engages with private groups in [Cuba, Mexico, or
Venezuela], not the target countrys government.
C. STANDARDS:
1) Limits: Engaging with private contacts submarines the topic. This interpretation
would allow affs to work with any group tangentially related to American
relations and the target country. Forcing plans to engage the government
provides a predictable mechanism for negative ground.

2) Education: The topic must be focused to encourage in-depth debate and the
best focus is on government-to-government interaction.
This best captures the emphasis of US foreign policy in Latin Americathe USFG
engages countries, not individuals
Duddy, 13
Patrick, senior lecturer at Duke and former US Ambassador to Venezuela, Latin America: Is U.S.
Influence Waning?, Miami Herald, May 1, http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/05/01/3375160/latin-
america-is-us-influence.html

The reality is a lot more complicated. Forty-two percent of all U.S. exports flow to the Western
Hemisphere. In many ways, U.S. engagement in the Americas is more pervasive than ever, even if more
diffused. That is in part because the peoples of the Western Hemisphere are not waiting for
governments to choreograph their interactions. A more-nuanced assessment inevitably will highlight
the complex, multidimensional ties between the United States and the rest of the hemisphere. In fact, it
may be that we need to change the way we think and talk about the countries of Latin America and the
Caribbean. We also need to resist the temptation to embrace overly reductive yardsticks for judging our
standing in the hemisphere. As Moises Naim notes in his recent book, The End of Power, there has
been an important change in power distribution in the world away from states toward an expanding
and increasingly mobile set of actors that are dramatically shaping the nature and scope of global
relationships. In Latin America, many of the most substantive and dynamic forms of engagement are
occurring in a web of cross-national relationships involving small and large companies, people-to-
people contact through student exchanges and social media, travel and migration. Trade and investment
remain the most enduring and measurable dimensions of U.S. relations with the region. It is certainly the case that our economic interests
alone would justify more U.S. attention to the region. Many observers who worry about declining U.S. influence in this area point to the rise of
trade with China and the presence of European companies and investors. While it is true that other countries are important to the economies
of Latin America and the Caribbean, it is also still true that the United States is by far the largest and most important economic partner of the
region and trade is growing even with those countries with which we do not have free trade agreements. An area of immense importance to
regional economies that we often overlook is the exponential growth in travel, tourism and migration. It is commonplace to note the enormous
presence of foreign students in the United States but in 2011, according to the Institute of International Education, after Europe, Latin America
was the second most popular destination for U.S. university students. Hundreds of thousands of U.S. tourists travel every year to Latin America
and the Caribbean helping to support thousands of jobs. From 2006-2011 U.S. non-government organizations, such as churches, think tanks
and universities increased the number of partnerships with their regional cohorts by a factor of four. Remittances to Latin America and the
Caribbean from the United States totaled $64 billion in 2012. Particularly for the smaller economies of Central America and the Caribbean these
flows can sometimes constitute more than 10 percent of gross domestic product. Finally, one should not underestimate the resiliency of U.S.
soft power in the region. The power of national reputation, popular culture, values and institutions continues to contribute to U.S. influence in
ways that are difficult to measure and impossible to quantify. Example: Despite 14 years of strident anti-American rhetoric during the Chvez
government, tens of thousand of Venezuelans apply for U.S. nonimmigrant visas every year, including many thousands of Chvez loyalists.
Does this mean we can feel comfortable relegating U.S. relations with the hemisphere to the second
or third tier of our international concerns? Certainly not. We have real and proliferating interests in
the region. As the president and his team head to Mexico and Costa Rica, it is important to recognize
the importance of our ties to the region. We have many individual national partners in the Americas .
We dont need a new template for relations with the hemisphere as a whole or another grand U.S.-Latin
America strategy. A greater commitment to work more intensely with the individual countries on the
issues most relevant to them would be appropriate. The United States still has the economic and
cultural heft in the region to play a fundamental role and to advance its own interests.
D. Topicality is a VOTING ISSUE for fairness and education.


EE = QPQ Ext.

Economic Engagement includes a wide mix of incentives, including sanctionsNorth
Korea shows engagement must impose conditions on a target country

Babson, 11
Bradley O., consultant on Asian affairs with a focus on Korea and Northeast Asia economic cooperation.
He is retired from a career at the World Bank, with a concentration in East Asia, Rethinking Economic
Engagement with North Korea, 38 North, Mar. 11, http://38north.org/2011/03/rethinking-economic-
engagement-with-north-korea/

Contradictions between what North Korea wants and what it needs pose a fundamental challenge
for economic engagement . Beyond the issue of food security, transformation of the North Korean economy is hampered by a regressive mindset that seeks to
maintain a state-directed system that emphasizes self-reliance and import substitution. But this system also requires foreign exchange and trade to meet critical requirements not just for food,
but for the imported energy and investment capital needed to stimulate economic growth. Past negotiations over North Koreas nuclear
program and expanded relations under South Koreas Sunshine Policy tended to give North Korea
financial and economic inducements that corresponded to what North Korea wanted to satisfy its
internal political perceptions of valuable rewards. However, these had little to do with benefitting the economy as a whole, modernizing the
economic system, or meeting North Koreas own longer-term interests in economic viability. In negotiations on North Koreas nuclear program, the economic incentives that were accepted
under the Agreed Frameworklight water reactors and heavy fuel oildid nothing to advance the transformation of the North Korean economic system and, in fact, diverted resources from
more beneficial investments.[2] The economic incentives adopted under phase two of the Six Party Talks process were only a slight improvement, providing the equipment needed to begin
rehabilitation of conventional power plants and continuing shipments of heavy fuel oil. But there was no technical collaboration, no impact on the energy system as a whole, and no
improvement in North Koreas ability to purchase the imports necessary for its own energy security. This approach to economic incentives for denuclearization was not a successful recipe for
improving the economy in any meaningful way. It is hard to believe that North Korea would willingly give up its nuclear deterrent without confidence in its economic as well as security future.
Any negotiations related to the nuclear program should be approached with the objective of increasing the economic rationality of incentives offered for progress on denuclearization, while
reinforcing the motivation and capacity to pursue economic policies that are consistent with building up the role of market mechanisms and an outward-oriented economic development
strategy. Energy assistance is a reasonable area for continued priority attention, especially in demonstrating how partnerships in planning and implementing economically-sound projects can
be done successfully. Rehabilitation of conventional power production capacity, phased upgrading of the grid, and attention to energy efficiency would all fit within this paradigm. The future
of nuclear power in North Korea should be determined by economic and technical considerations linked to an overall energy sector development plan, and not treated as a political given. Part
of the future agenda should also be to encourage North Korea to develop a transparent, rules-based financial system and to realign sanctions to give positive incentives for North Korea to do
business in the right way. Recent changes within the North make such a strategy more feasible than earlier rounds of negotiations. The push back by the North Korean people to the policy of
repressing markets has put the government in a new situation where public expectations about the value of markets and their unwillingness to accept at least some policy directives cannot be
ignored. Cabinet changes meant to streamline economic development planning and approval of foreign investment projects also signal a new openness to more businesslike practices in
dealing with foreigners. While expanded trade and investment from China is already reinforcing this trend, it is not in North Koreas interest to rely solely on China for its future economic
security. The South Korean economic policies towards the North that underpinned the Sunshine Policy era also erred on the side of giving North Korea what it wanted, not what it needed.
Cash for concessions served to fill the coffers of the North Korean leadership and reinforced the status quo system rather than facilitating systemic reform. Wage payments for workers in the
Kaesong industrial zone and payments under the processing-on-commission trade also served to prop up the existing system, channeling payments through intermediaries rather than directly
to employees and contracted suppliers. While South Korean economic engagement has produced jobs and income for North Korea, it has not helped stimulate the market economy; instead, it
continues to feed the centralized money management system. There needs to be a renegotiation of business practices in the inter-Korean relationship. If the Chinese can establish joint
ventures in North Korea and engage in direct enterprise-to-enterprise commercial relations, then why should we assume that South Korea cannot do the same? It is also noteworthy that the
UNDP recently renegotiated arrangements for hiring and paying North Korean local staff, under which, direct payments are made to such employees. This sets an important precedent. Thus,
as the two Koreas seek to repair their bruised relations following the events of 2010, one area for attention should be adopting more normal business practices in enterprise relationships
across the border. New business models for the Kaesong industrial zone, for example, could include joint ventures and opportunities for North Korean companies to manufacture and trade
with South Korea. Also, encouraging manufacturers in the Kaesong industrial zone to procure inputs and services from small and medium-sized North Korean enterprises could help expand
opportunities for local businesses and stimulate the adoption of commercial practices. Unfortunately, U.S., South Korean, and Chinese economic engagement
policies with North Korea have been guided by very different national interests and objectives. Taken
together they produce conflicting dynamics that distort incentives for managed change in the
economic system. Giveaways, sanctions, and commerce are all in this mix , with results that are not satisfying for any of the
countries involved and are no doubt confusing for the North Koreans. Dealing with North Koreas nuclear program with its global implications for nonproliferation, and dealing with North
Koreas economic and political future in Northeast Asia, are two very different sets of challenges that must be addressed at the same time.

**Babson Continues**


**Babson Continues**

A more coherent policy of economic engagement that can be pursued both bilaterally and
multilaterally is necessary, and must be based on a shared vision for the future of the North Korean
economy and requirements for political stability. Debating what that shared vision should be and aligning economic engagement
policies should be given much higher priority for the multilateral diplomacy now underway. Increased informal contact and exchanges among economic experts
would help improve the environment for discussing economic issues in a more rational way. Efforts by the Nautilus Institute to pursue such engagement in the
energy sector are a good example. There are also signs of increased North Korean openness to expanding opportunities for knowledge sharing in economic
management, not only with China, but also with other countries as well, including the United States. Another step could be commissioning the IMF, World Bank, and
UNDP to undertake a comprehensive and independent economic assessment that can serve as the foundation for a different kind of discussion of issues related to
North Koreas economic future than has been possible up until now. Also, if multilateral negotiations are resumed to address North Koreas nuclear program and
other topics, teams assigned to explore economic cooperation possibilities should include economic and financial experts. Now is a good time to
rethink strategies for economic engagement to help transform and modernize the North Korean
system and to encourage the changes in behavior that are widely seen as essential to making progress
on the whole range of issues of concern with North Korea.

EE Diplomatic or Military Engagement
Economic engagement is distinct from diplomatic and military engagement
distinction is critical to any hope of limiting the topic

Derrick, 98
Lt. Colonel Robert, Engagement: The Nations Premier Grand Strategy, Whos In Charge?, Strategy
Research Project, Apr. 1,
http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA342695

We have seen that engagement is the use of our national power to maintain this status quo while, at
the same time, advancing programs that are aimed at curtailing drug traffic, promoting human rights,
encouraging democracy, and expanding US markets. These programs are implemented through
economic, diplomatic, and military instruments of US national power. Economic engagement covers
a wide range of programs. Financial incentives are an effective engagement tool since countries
usually interact with the US when money is involved. Whether it is obtaining funding for a national
program; acquiring materiel, food or medicine; or maintaining Most Favored Nation Status, financial
aide has always been a preferred way for the US to affect the behavior of others. Diplomatic
engagement ranges from recognition of sovereign states and foreign governments, to presidential
visits, to all aspects of the embassy itself. The mere existence of an embassy is an engagement tool.
Through official diplomatic ceremonies, informal meetings, and embassy employees living among the
locals, the Department of State's presence is engagement in and of itself. Similarly, "...overseas...forces
embody global military engagement. They serve as role models for militaries in emerging democracies;
contribute uniquely to the stability, continuity, and flexibility that protects US interests; and are crucial
to continued democratic and economic development."14 In addition to our presence overseas, our
military engagement consists of a variety of military to military and political to military events. U.S.
and host nation defense forces conduct combined exercises to improve cooperation and strengthen ties.

Economic engagement is unique and involves tangible incentives and working with
target state governments

Haass and OSullivan 00
Richard, formerly a senior aide to President George Bush and is Vice President and Director of Foreign
Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution, Washington DC, Meghan, Fellow with the Foreign Policy
Studies Program at the Brookings Institution, Terms of Engagement: Alternatives to Punitive Policies,
Summer 2000,
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/articles/2000/6/summer%20haass/2000survival.pdf

Architects of engagement strategies can choose from a wide variety of incentives. Economic
engagement might offer tangible incentives such as export credits, investment insurance or
promotion, access to technology, loans and economic aid. Other equally useful economic incentives
involve the removal of penalties such as trade embargoes, investment bans or high tariffs, which have
impeded economic relations between the United States and the target country. Facilitated entry into
the economic global arena and the institutions that govern it rank among the most potent incentives in
todays global market. Similarly, political engagement can involve the lure of diplomatic recognition,
access to regional or international institutions, the scheduling of summits between leaders or the
termination of these benefits. Military engagement could involve the extension of international
military educational training in order both to strengthen respect for civilian authority and human
rights among a countrys armed forces and, more feasibly, to establish relationships between
Americans and young foreign military officers. While these areas of engagement are likely to involve
working with state institutions , cultural or civil-society engagement entails building people-to-people
contacts. Funding nongovernmental organisations, facilitating the flow of remittances and promoting
the exchange of students, tourists and other non-governmental people between countries are just
some of the possible incentives used in the form of engagement.

Economic = Trade
The modifier economic requires engagement to involve trade

Rose and Spiegel 08
Andrew, Mark. The National Bureau of Economic Research Non-Economic Engagement and
International Exchange NBER Working Paper No. 13988. Issued in May 2008.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w13988.

Countries, like people, interact with each other on a number of different dimensions. Some
interactions are strictly economic; for instance, countries engage in international trade of goods,
services, capital, and labor. But many are not economic, at least not in any narrow sense. For instance,
the United States seeks to promote human rights and democracy, deter nuclear proliferation, stop
the spread of narcotics, and so forth. Accordingly America, like other countries, participates in a
number of international institutions to further its foreign policy objectives; it has joined security
alliances like NATO, and international organizations such as the International Atomic Energy Agency.

EE = Aid
Economic engagement includes foreign aidNorth Korea proves

Babson, 11
Bradley O., consultant on Asian affairs with a focus on Korea and Northeast Asia economic cooperation.
He is retired from a career at the World Bank, with a concentration in East Asia, Rethinking Economic
Engagement with North Korea, 38 North, Mar. 11, http://38north.org/2011/03/rethinking-economic-
engagement-with-north-korea/

Now is a good time to rethink strategies for economic engagement with North Korea. Recent
requests for food aid from the North and the report from a U.S. NGO Needs Assessment Team paint a
picture of deteriorating food security due to harsh weather conditions and continued systemic failures.
The UN humanitarian appeal for 2011 is being updated by a special assessment now underway. These
developments raise for fresh debate the merits of renewing humanitarian aid following a vacuum of
international response to the convulsions of internal economic changes inside North Korea over the past
year, with China standing out as the glaring exception. The failure of Pyongyangs policies to dampen the
role of markets and reassert socialist management system practices, and its inability to temper
inflationary forces in the economy, stand in contrast to the proclamations of improving the lives of
ordinary people and becoming a strong and prosperous country by 2012. Recent announcements of
Cabinet changes made to better plan and manage economic development projects and foreign
investment and trade initiatives signal openness to new ideas and relationships. But there is no evidence
that the North Korean leadership is ready to embrace markets and pursue the economic policy reforms
that will be needed to nurture a growing role for markets. Economic and political disengagement from
North Korea by the United States and South Korea embody the doctrines of strategic patience and
reciprocity adopted by these two administrations and has been amplified by increased military
hostilities between the two Koreas during the past year. In a departure from previous governments in
both countries, the Obama and Lee administrations have resisted requests for humanitarian assistance
of any significant scale. Although widespread concern for the plight of ordinary North Koreans is
genuine, some actors believe it is paramount to respond to demonstrated humanitarian needs, while
others also recognize that political factors need to be taken into account when calibrating a response.
Concerns about whether the North Korean government appeal is motivated by domestic priorities to
shore up stocks to meet expectations created for 2012, and whether monitoring protocols will be
honored after previous experiences, contribute to the hesitation to respond robustly. Also, provision of
humanitarian assistance has implications for the perceived role of foreigners by the recipient groups and
the effectiveness of the governments own systems and capacity for providing food for the people. Any
claims that food aid is fully independent of other considerations are not credible for those
concerned with the wider political dynamics of engagement with North Korea. This means that food
aid should be understood to have significance as a political tool and also should be synchronized with
an overall economic engagement policy that is shaped by political and not solely humanitarian
objectives.
Foreign aid is economic engagement

Milner and Tingley 11
Helen and Dustin, Milner: B. C. Forbes Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton
University and the chair of the Department of Politics from 2005 to 2011, Tingley: Assistant Professor of
Government at Harvard University, a PhD in Politics from Princeton in 2010, and BA from the University
of Rochester in 2001, Who Supports Global Economic Engagement? The Sources of Preferences in
American Foreign Economic Policy, Winter 2011,
http://www.princeton.edu/~hmilner/forthcoming%20papers/MilnerTingley%20(2011)%20Who%20Sup
ports%20Global%20Economic%20Engagement.pdf

Political economy factors, foreign policy concerns, and ideology help account for legislative voting on aid
and trade, but they do so in different ways. Why? Interestingly, the same political economy factors
operate in the two areas. Legislators seem to respond to the economic endowments of their
constituents. As Stolper-Samuelson models predict, districts heavily endowed with high-skill workers
gain from freer trade and more aid, and their legislators voting choices reect this. Surprisingly, this is
just as true for aid as for trade. Even though aid is a smaller part of the U.S. economy than trade, aid is
often seen as an important means of economic engagement with the world economy. Legislators
hence respond to the political economy pressures of their constituents similarly. This suggests that
political economy factors might help shape a broad internationalist policy orientation across multiple
policy areas.
EE = Dialogue
Economic engagement includes dialogueUS and Mexico prove

US Chamber of Commerce 13
May 2013.The U.S.-Mexico Leadership Initiative Vision 2020: Enhancing the U.S.-Mexico Economic
Partnership http://www.uschamber.com/international/americas/us-mexico-leadership-initiative-
vision-2020-enhancing-us-mexico-economic-par. Retrieved: July 1, 2013.

In this moment, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is launching a CEO-level Leadership Initiative to execute
a strategy for enhanced economic engagement between the United States and Mexico. The
Leadership Initiative will provide the strategic energy behind Vision 2020, a five-point plan for
enhancing the U.S.-Mexico economic partnership, with a view toward making the relationship a global
model for bilateral best practices by the year 2020. Key Elements: Annual high-level trade and
investment mission to Mexico City and reciprocal visit to Washington, DC Annual high-level U.S.-
Mexico commercial dialogue to be hosted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in conjunction with the
Mexican private sector Working-level policy group structure in support of Vision 2020 Annual report
to U.S. and Mexican governments on the state of the bilateral economic relationship

EE = Energy Cooperation
Economic engagement includes cooperation on energy issues

Hormats 13
Robert, Under Secretary for Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment, U.S. Economic
Engagement with the Asia Pacific, 6-12-13, http://www.state.gov/e/rls/rmk/210563.htm

But U.S. economic engagement with the Asia-Pacific region is not limited to traditional trade and
investment issues. It includes energy as well.
EE = Various
Economic Engagement includes innumerable means to increase US influence
-forging economic ties
-lower tariffs
-intellectual property
-market regulations
-trade and investment regulations

Hormats 12
December, 7, 2012. Robert: Under Secretary for Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment. Hong
Kong, China December 7, 2012. http://www.state.gov/e/rls/rmk/2012/201746.htm.

This trip is actually my 10th visit to China during my tenure as Under Secretary of State. And in the past
nine months alone, Ive made six trips to the Asia Pacific region, covering 12 cities in seven countries,
including two visits each to China and Vietnam, and a recent visit to Vladivostok for the APEC Heads of
State meeting. So the fact that Im involved in this, and my colleagues are involved in this, given the
number of trips weve taken, is an indication of the amount of emphasis and the amount of
commitment that we have. But, of course, frequent flyer miles are not really the main indicator of the
commitment (laughter) although they demonstrate, I think, some measure of commitment flying all
those trips back and forth. But the real indicator of this is what weve done to enhance our
economic engagement in the region, and I would like to spend some time describing what weve done
and then go on to the kind of things that we anticipate doing over coming months and coming years. A
few highlights of what we have include: (1) Seeking to forge more open economic ties, particularly
through enhanced engagement with regional institutions such as ASEAN and APEC; (2) Promoting a
free system of commerce and investment and the exchange of ideas by pushing for lower tariffs,
through trade expansion, and increased investment throughout the region, along with measures to
protect intellectual property, and broader and deeper dialogues within regional institutions; (3)
Advancing a more transparent system with rules and with regulations that will promote higher
standards, such as through the TPP and through other vehicles; and (4) Supporting a fairer system, a
system that respects rules of the road on trade and investment, particularly through extensive and
constructive dialogues with emerging economies of the region in APEC, in ASEAN, and in other groups,
engaging a wide number of countries in the region in a wide range of dialogues.


EE Sanctions
Sanctions are not economic engagement

Elik 11
Arda C., Uppsala University (Department Of Peace and Conflict Research) Economic Sanctions and
Engagement Policies, p. 14

Therefore economic engagement policies are not only different from economic sanctions but also
they design the former ones from early phases. This argument has similarities with the conditionalists
in a sense that economic sanctions are more effective between interdependent countries albeit it is
more costly.(Kroll, 1993)

EE = Conditional AND Unconditional

The literature defines economic engagement as conditional AND unconditional

Kahler and Kastner 06
Miles, Graduate School of International Relations and Pacific Studies at University of California, San
Diego, and Scott, Department of Government and Politics at University of Maryland, STRATEGIC USES
OF ECONOMIC INTERDEPENDENCE: ENGAGEMENT POLICIES IN SOUTH KOREA, SINGAPORE, AND
TAIWAN, Journal of Peace Research, Sage.

Scholars have usefully distinguished between two types of economic engagement : conditional
policies that require an explicit quid pro quo on the part of the target country and policies that are
unconditional.1 Conditional policies, sometimes labeled linkage or economic carrots, are the inverse of
economic sanctions. Instead of threatening a target country with economic loss (sanction) in the
absence of policy change, conditional engagement policies promise increased economic benefits in
return for desired policy change. Drezner (1999/2000) has proposed several plausible predictions
regarding the employment of conditional strategies and the conditions of their success. He argues that
the successful use of economic engagement is most likely between democracies (because democracies
are better able to make credible commitments than non-democracies), within the context of
international regimes (because regimes reduce the transactions costs of market exchange), and, among
adversaries, only after coercive threats are first used. The success of a conditional engagement strategy
should also be contingent on a states influence over domestic firms. If those firms find market-based
transactions with the target state unappealing, a government pursuing a conditional strategy must
convince them to deal with the target when desired change occurs. On the other hand, if domestic firms
have strong economic incentives to conduct economic transactions with the target state, a successful
conditional strategy must prevent them from pursuing their economic exchange in the absence of the
desired change in a target states behavior. In this regard, democracies may have a harder time pursuing
a conditional strategy: in a democratic setting, firms are likely to be openly critical of politicians who try
to restrict their commercial activities and will support candidates who do not place such demands on
them. Our first hypothesis (H1), therefore, is that conditional engagement strategies will be less likely to
succeed if the initiating state is a democracy, especially when underlying economic incentives to trade
with or invest in the target state are strong.2 Unconditional engagement strategies are more passive
than conditional variants in that they do not include a specific quid pro quo. Rather, countries deploy
economic links with an adversary in the hopes that economic interdependence itself will, over time,
change the targets foreign policy behavior and yield a reduced threat of military conflict. How
increased economic integration at the bilateral level might produce an improved bilateral political
environment is not obvious. While most empirical studies on the subject find that increased economic
ties tend to be associated with a reduced likelihood of military violence, no consensus explanation exists
(e.g. Russett & Oneal, 2001; Oneal & Russett, 1999; for less sanguine results, see Barbieri, 1996). At a
minimum, state leaders might seek to exploit two causal pathways by pursuing a policy of unconditional
engagement: economic interdependence can act as a constraint on the foreign policy behavior of the
target state, and economic interdependence can act as a transforming agent that reshapes the goals of
the target state.
Resolved

Resolved requires firm intent

Dictionary.com 13
resolved, Accessed: July 2, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/resolved

Adjective: firm in purpose or intent; determined .
The

The introduces a unique noun

Merriam Webster 13
Definition of the. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/the. Retreived: July 1, 2013.

The: used as a function word to indicate that a following noun or noun equivalent is a unique or a
particular member of its class

United States federal government

United States federal government has 3 branches

US Legal 13
United States Federal Government Law and Legal Definition. http://definitions.uslegal.com/u/united-states-federal-government/. Retrieved:
July 1, 2013
The United States Federal Government is established by the US Constitution. The Federal Government shares sovereignty over the United Sates
with the individual governments of the States of US. The Federal government has three branches: i) the legislature, which
is the US Congress, ii) Executive, comprised of the President and Vice president of the US and iii) Judiciary. The US Constitution
prescribes a system of separation of powers and checks and balances for the smooth functioning of all the three branches of the Federal
Government. The US Constitution limits the powers of the Federal Government to the powers assigned to it; all powers not expressly assigned
to the Federal Government are reserved to the States or to the people.
USfg refers to 3 branches
-This evidence defines lower case federal government

Oxford Dictionary 13
Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary, federal government, Accessed: July 3, 2013,
http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/dictionary/federal-government)
(in the US) the system of government as defined in the Constitution which is based on the separation
of powers among three branches: the executive, the legislative and the judicial. This system provides a
series of checks and balances because each branch is able to limit the power of the others. The
executive branch consists of the President and Vice-President, based in the White House in
Washington, DC, and government departments and agencies. The President can approve or stop laws
proposed by Congress, appoints senior officials, such as heads of government departments and federal
judges, and is also Commander-in-Chief of the military forces. There are 15 government departments,
the heads of which make up the Cabinet which meets regularly to discuss current affairs and advise the
President. The legislative branch is the Congress which is made up of the two houses, the Senate and
the House of Representatives which both meet in the Capitol Building in Washington, DC. The main job
of Congress is to make laws, but its other responsibilities include establishing federal courts, setting
taxes and, if necessary, declaring war. The President and members of Congress are chosen in separate
elections. The Senate has 100 members, two from each state, both of whom represent the whole state
and are elected for six years. The House of Representatives has 435 members, who are elected every
two years. The number of members from each state depends on the population of the state, with larger
states divided into districts, each with one representative. The judicial branch of government has three
levels: the Supreme Court, 13 courts of appeal and many federal district courts. The Supreme Court
has nine members, called justices who are chosen by the President and headed by the Chief Justice. The
Supreme Court has the power to influence the law through a process called judicial review.

Should

Should expresses an obligation

Merriam-Webster 13
Online Dictionary, Should, Accessed: July 2, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/should

SHOULD : past of shall
1
used in auxiliary function to express condition <if he should leave his father, his father would die
Genesis 44:22(Revised Standard Version)>
2
used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency <'tis commanded I should
do so Shakespeare> <this is as it should be H. L. Savage> <you should brush your teeth after each
meal>
3
used in auxiliary function to express futurity from a point of view in the past <realized that she should
have to do most of her farm work before sunrise Ellen Glasgow>
4
used in auxiliary function to express what is probable or expected <with an early start, they should be
here by noon>
5
used in auxiliary function to express a request in a polite manner or to soften direct statement <I
should suggest that a guideis the first essential L. D. Reddick>

Should indicates duty

Oxford Dictionary 13
Should, Accessed: July 2, http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/should

Definition of should
verb (3rd sing. should)
1used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness , typically when criticizing someones actions: he
should have been careful I think we should trust our people more you shouldnt have gone indicating a
desirable or expected state: by now students should be able to read with a large degree of
independence used to give or ask advice or suggestions:you should go back to bed what should I wear?
(I should) used to give advice: I should hold out if I were you
Substantially

Substantial = Qualitative

"Substantial" means actually of real worth, importance, and considerable value

West's Encyclopedia of American Law 08
Edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc.
Of real worth and importance; of considerable value; valuable . Belonging to substance; actually
existing; real; not seeming or imaginary; not illusive; solid; true; veritable.

Substantially is without material qualification
Blacks Law 91
(Dictionary, p. 1024)

Substantially - means essentially; without material qualification .

Substantial means large and does not require specification

Watson 2k
James L, Senior Judge, UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE, May 23,
http://www.cit.uscourts.gov/SlipOpinions/Slip_op00/00-57.pdf, CMR

In T.D. 92-108, Customs notes: *n+one of the definitions *submitted to Customs+ actually quantify
substantial. It is always expressed in other terms which clearly convey the meaning. Certainly, a 40%
encirclement is a substantial encirclement of the perimeter of the shoe in that it conforms exactly to
the dictionary definitions of substantial by being ample, considerable in quantity, significantly large
and largely, but not wholly that which is specified. 26 Cust. Bull. at 366. When the term
substantially is used as an adverb preceding a verb, the term means in a substantial manner: so as
to be substantial. Websters Third New International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged
(1968).


Substantial is not defined by percentage tests

Kindell and Reilly 97
Judith E. Kindell and John Francis Reilly. Internal Revenue Service P. Lobbying Issues Fall 1997.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopicp97.pdf
A determination of whether attempts to influence legislation constitute a substantial portion of an
organizations total activities is a factual one and there is no simple rule as to what amount of
activities is substantial. An often cited case on the subject, Seasongood v. Commissioner, 227 F.2d
907 (6th Cir. 1955), is of limited help. Seasongood held that attempts to influence legislation that
constituted five percent of total activities were not substantial. The case presents limited guidance
because the courts view of what set of activities were to be measured is no longer supported by the
weight of precedent. Moreover, it is not clear how the court arrived at the five percent figure. Most
cases have either tended to avoid any attempt at percentage measurement of activities or, at least,
have stated that a percentage test is not conclusive. Thus, in Christian Echoes National Ministry, Inc. v.
United States, 470 F.2d 849 (10th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 864 (1974), the Tenth Circuit
rejected the use of a percentage test to determine whether activities were substantial, stating that [a]
percentage test to determine whether activities were substantial obscures the complexity of
balancing the organizations activities in relation to its objectives and circumstances. In Haswell v.
United States, 500 F.2d 1133 (Ct. Cl. 1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1107 (1975), the Court of Claims cited
percentage figures in support of its determination that an organizations lobbying activities were
substantial. (The amount of the organizations expenditures for lobbying activities ranged from 16.6
percent to 20.5 percent of total expenditures during the four years at issue.) While the court stated
that a percentage test is only one measure of substantiality (and not, by itself, determinative), it held
that these percentages were a strong indication that the organizations purposes were no longer
consistent with charity. G.C.M. 36148 (Jan. 28, 1975) characterized the substantiality issue as a
problem [that] does not lend itself to ready numerical boundaries.


Increase

Increase requires the Aff to make a pre-existing program greaternew policies are
not an increase

Buckley 6
Jeremiah, Attorney, Amicus Curiae Brief, Safeco Ins. Co. of America et al v. Charles Burr et al,
http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/06-84/06-84.mer.ami.mica.pdf

First, the court said that the ordinary meaning of the word increase is to make something greater,
which it believed should not be limited to cases in which a company raises the rate that an individual
has previously been charged. 435 F.3d at 1091. Yet the definition offered by the Ninth Circuit compels
the opposite conclusion. Because increase means to make something greater, there must
necessarily have been an existing premium, to which Edos actual premium may be compared, to
determine whether an increase occurred. Congress could have provided that ad-verse action in the
insurance context means charging an amount greater than the optimal premium, but instead chose to
define adverse action in terms of an increase. That def-initional choice must be respected, not
ignored. See Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379, 392-93 n.10 (1979) (*a+ defin-ition which declares what
a term means . . . excludes any meaning that is not stated). Next, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that
because the Insurance Prong includes the words existing or applied for, Congress intended that an
increase in any charge for insurance must apply to all insurance transactions from an initial policy of
insurance to a renewal of a long-held policy. 435 F.3d at 1091. This interpretation reads the words
exist-ing or applied for in isolation. Other types of adverse action described in the Insurance Prong
apply only to situations where a consumer had an existing policy of insurance, such as a cancellation,
reduction, or change in insurance. Each of these forms of adverse action presupposes an
already-existing policy , and under usual canons of statutory construction the term increase also
should be construed to apply to increases of an already-existing policy. See Hibbs v. Winn, 542 U.S.
88, 101 (2004) (a phrase gathers meaning from the words around it) (citation omitted).

Increase means to make greater

Merriam-Webster 13

Online Dictionary, Increase, Accessed: July 2, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/increase

INCREASE: to become progressively greater (as in size, amount, number, or intensity)

Its

Its is a singular possessive pronoun referring to central federal government

Updegrave 91
W.C., Explanation of ZIP Code Address Purpose, 8-19,
http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/zipcode/updegrav.htm

More specifically, looking at the map on page 11 of the National ZIP Code Directory, e.g. at a local post
office, one will see that the first digit of a ZIP Code defines an area that includes more than one State.
The first sentence of the explanatory paragraph begins: "A ZIP Code is a numerical code that identifies
areas within the United States and its territories for purposes of ..." [cf. 26 CFR 1.1-1(c)]. Note the
singular possessive pronoun "its", not "their", therefore carrying the implication that it relates to the
"United States" as a corporation domiciled in the District of Columbia (in the singular sense), not in the
sense of being the 50 States of the Union (in the plural sense). The map shows all the States of the
Union, but it also shows D.C., Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, making the explanatory statement
literally correct.

Its relates to object of actionUSFG
Merriam Webster, 13
Online Dictionary, Its, Accessed July 2, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/its

ITS: of or relating to it or itself especially as possessor, agent, or object of an action <going to its
kennel> <a child proud of its first drawings> <its final enactment into law>

Toward

Toward means in the direction of
Merriam Webster Dictionary 13
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/toward. Retrieved July 1, 2013.

1: in the direction of <driving toward town>
2 a : along a course leading to <a long stride toward disarmament>
b : in relation to <an attitude toward life>
3 a : at a point in the direction of : near <a cottage somewhere up toward the lake>
b : in such a position as to be in the direction of <your back was toward me>
4 : not long before <toward the end of the afternoon>
5 a : in the way of help or assistance in <did all he could toward raising campaign funds>
b : for the partial payment of <proceeds go toward the establishment of a scholarship>




Cuba
Cuba Government
Cuba refers to the country as a whole, not just the government

TheFreeDictionary, 13
Cuba, Accessed July 2, http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Cuba

An island country in the Caribbean Sea south of Florida . Originally settled by Arawak Indians, it was
discovered by Columbus in 1492 and was colonized by Spain beginning in 1511. Spain relinquished its
control of Cuba in 1898 as a result of the Spanish-American War, and following a three-year occupation
by U.S. forces, the island became self-governing in 1902. Fulgencio Batista dominated the government
of Cuba from 1933 until 1959, when he was ousted by Fidel Castro. Havana is the capital and the largest
city. Population: 11,400,000.

If the resolution meant the government, it would read Republic of Cuba

Princetons Wordnet, 13
Cuba, Accessed July 2, http://www.definitions.net/definition/Cuba

Cuba, Republic of Cuba(noun)

a communist state in the Caribbean on the island of Cuba

Cuba(noun)

the largest island in the West Indies
Cuba = Government
Cuba refers to the state or government

U.S. Department of State, 13
Bureau of Consular Affairs, Cuba: Country Specific Information, May 3,
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1097.html

COUNTRY DESCRIPTION: Cuba is an authoritarian state that routinely employs repressive methods
against internal dissent and monitors and responds to perceived threats to its authority. These methods
include intense physical and electronic surveillance, as well as detention and interrogation of both
Cuban citizens and foreign visitors. U.S. citizens visiting Cuba should be aware that any on-island
activities could be subject to surveillance, and their contacts with Cuban citizens monitored closely.
Human rights conditions in Cuba remain poor, as the Cuban government limits fundamental freedoms,
including freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. The United States does not have diplomatic
relations with Cuba, but Cuba generally welcomes U.S. citizen travelers and U.S. citizens are generally
well received. The United States Government provides consular and other services through the U.S.
Interests Section in Havana (USINT), but U.S. diplomats are not allowed to travel freely outside the
capital and may be prevented from providing assistance outside Havana. USINT operates under the legal
protection of the Swiss government but is not co-located with the Swiss Embassy. Read the Department
of State Fact Sheet on U.S. Relations with Cuba for additional information.

Mexico
Mexico Government
Mexico refers to the country, not the government

The Free Dictionary 13
Mexico, Accessed July 2, http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Mexico

A country of south-central North America . Southern Mexico was the site of various advanced
civilizations beginning with the Olmec and including the Maya, Zapotec, Toltec, Mixtec, and Aztec
cultures. Mexico was conquered by Corts in 1521 and held by the Spanish until 1821. The Treaty of
Guadalupe Hidalgo that ended the Mexican War (1846-1848) awarded all lands north of the Rio Grande
to the United States. Mexico City is the capital and the largest city. Population: 109,000,000.
Mexico = Government
Mexico refers to the government

Wikipedia, 13
Mexico, Accessed July 2, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico

Mexico (Listeni/mksko/; Spanish: Mxico; IPA: *me.xi.ko+ ( listen)), officially the United Mexican
States[9][10] (Spanish: About this sound Estados Unidos Mexicanos (helpinfo)), is a federal
constitutional republic in North America . It is bordered on the north by the United States; on the
south and west by the Pacific Ocean; on the southeast by Guatemala, Belize, and the Caribbean Sea; and
on the east by the Gulf of Mexico.[11] Covering almost two million square kilometres (over 760,000 sq
mi),[2] Mexico is the fifth largest country in the Americas by total area and the 13th largest independent
nation in the world. With an estimated population of over 113 million,[12] it is the eleventh most
populous and the most populous Spanish-speaking country in the world and the second most populous
country in Latin America. Mexico is a federation comprising thirty-one states and a Federal District, the
capital city.

Venezuela
Venezuela Government
Venezuela refers to the country, not the government
The Free Dictionary 13
Venezuela, Accessed July 2, http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Venezuela

A country of northern South America on the Caribbean Sea . Inhabited by a variety of Arawakan and
other peoples, the region was discovered by Columbus in 1498 and settled beginning in the 1520s,
becoming part of the Spanish colony (later viceroyalty) of New Granada. Venezuela won independence
in 1821 in federation with Colombia and Ecuador and broke away to form a separate country in 1830.
Caracas is the capital and Maracaibo the largest city. Population: 26,000,000.
Venezuela = Government
Venezuela refers to the government

Wikipedia, 13
Venezuela, Accessed July 2, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuela

Venezuela is a federal presidential republic consisting of 23 states, the Capital District (covering
Caracas), and Federal Dependencies (covering Venezuela's offshore islands). Venezuela claims all
Guyanese territory west of the Essequibo River; this 159,500 square kilometres (61,583 sq mi) tract was
dubbed Guayana Esequiba or the Zona en Reclamacin (the "zone being reclaimed"); however, this
claim has not been recognized by any other country.[5]
Or

Or indicates alternativesaff cannot engage multiple topic countries

Merriam Webster, 13
Online Dictionary, Or, Accessed July 2, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/or

OR: used as a function word to indicate an alternative <coffee or tea> <sink or swim>, the equivalent
or substitutive character of two words or phrases <lessen or abate>, or approximation or uncertainty <in
five or six days>