Neg for Venezuela Practice Debate

---Appeasement

Engagement opponents control the debate on venezuela

Harper, 10 (liz, Senior Editor @ US Institute for Peace, adjunct fellow at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, americasquarterly.org contributing blogger based in Washington DC, 12/21, http://americasquarterly.org/node/2058)
It's not clear whether some sought to use the QFR to strong arm the State Department to articulate or take tougher positions, and thereby bolster Palmer's confirmation prospects and support on the heels of his "weak" hearing performance. Alternatively, perhaps the QFR was publicized to thwart his prospects entirely. Who knows; at this stage, it's irrelevant. What's very relevant are the unfolding consequences of the QFR mishandling. First and foremost, Palmer got rolled. A dedicated Foreign Service officer was not treated with due professionalism and respect. We will not know how great he would have been in Venezuela. Second, the State Department on this matter appears naive, indecisive and disorganized. Third, critics who never wanted ANY ambassador—and certainly NOT Palmer—in Caracas, succeeded. As did Chávez, for the short term. To take up the second point, the State Department appears to have different and confused messages on Venezuela. The ostensible example of this is the two messages of Larry Palmer's Senate testimony versus his answers to the QFR. What can be said publicly and on the record regarding Venezuela? Beyond talking with a low voice on the safest matters, it is not clear. Is such timidity to Chávez' bluster necessary? The next step will be to see whether the State Department will go bold and call Venezuelan Ambassador to the U.S. Bernardo Alvarez a persona non grata, or take a softer approach and cancel his visa. Alvarez had been back home, and over the weekend, it was said he was not planning to return to Washington DC—already one move ahead of the anticipated reciprocation to Palmer's rejection. It was in Chávez’s best interests to welcome Palmer, as he wanted to work with Venezuelans, and help ease the growing tensions between the two countries. But now, the State Department will have to rethink this, and find another person...most likely with a stronger track record on human rights and democracy. Perhaps we should accept that playing nice and fair with an irrational actor like Chávez is not likely to yield positive results. At the end of the day, we've been backed into a corner to put forward a tougher ambassador, and not Palmer, who was our first pick. Does this mean likewise that our policy of engagement must be altered? Are we acting in response to Venezuela's moves? In this context, Chávez, and some conservative critics here, are setting the terms of U.S. policy. This debacle also illustrates the express need for the State Department to complete its review of Venezuela policy and clarify its positions. The QFR mishandling is a symptom of the bigger issue: uniting our various agencies to craft a coherent message and policy on Venezuela. What are the "red lines" of what we'll tolerate from Venezuela? When one of our career diplomats goes on record saying that Venezuela's National Guard is involved in narcotrafficking, provides safe haven to terrorists like the FARC, imprisons judges for ruling against Chávez, why is the State Department not publicizing those concerns? Until now, the State Department had been keeping its profile too low for anyone's good. Ostensibly that of Ambassador Palmer. At this point, why is it a mistake to outline on record ways in which the Venezuelan government is breaking very basic standards of human rights and hemispheric security? Just some open and disquieting questions. At the least, the State Department needs to figure out what its basic message is, and then put it out there with a unified voice, loud and clear. This could go far to improve its public outreach and image. But while silence continues, it seems that the Venezuelans have settled the U.S. debate: this kind of "engagement" will not get us where we want to be. Chávez is antithetical to our democratic values and security concerns. He is moving full steam down the field, while we sit on the sidelines. Time to play.

Perceived as weak appeasement – crushes Obama PC and means plan can never be a win

Mead, 10 (Walter Russell, Senior Fellow Council Foreign Relations, Prof Foreign affairs @ Bard, 3/31, http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2010/03/31/kicked-by-the-great-white-north/

The policy of slapping friends seems not to be working very well; the policy of kissing up to the bad guys has been even less of a success. North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela and Iran have blown off the administration’s efforts to put bilateral relationships on a friendlier basis. Not only is President Obama back to Bush’s old policy of trying to get the UN to adopt tougher sanctions on Iran, he’s denouncing human rights crackdowns in Cuba. The biggest success to date, getting a new missile treaty with Russia, is at lot less impressive than it looks. Russia needs to reduce the costs of its nuclear arsenal and wants the prestige that comes from arms talks with the US just like the Soviet Union used to have. I support the treaty and hope it gets ratified, but on the whole it’s more a favor from us to Russia than the other way round. In many cases, the administration has good reasons for specific choices that it makes. Russia, for example, is never going to be our best friend, but there is no point in not trying to put relations on a more businesslike basis. Britain’s stand on the Falkland Islands, that there is ‘nothing to negotiate’ where sovereignty is concerned, is a tricky one to support. It always looks bad to be against talks. Given global skepticism about US intentions after the poorly handled war in Iraq, it made sense for the Obama administration to bend over backwards to show it was willing to reach a new relationship with Iran. Pressing Karzai to clean up the abysmal corruption that wastes American money and undermines the strength of his government is certainly the right thing to do. And by twice announcing controversial housing decisions in Jerusalem during critical talks with the United States, the Israeli government was showing enough arrogance or incompetence that the White House had to do something. But while many of steps the administration is taking make sense on their own terms, when you look at them all together the picture isn’t pretty. Beating up on your friends and kissing up to your enemies looks terrible, especially when neither your friends nor your enemies show any respect. Slamming Honduras and pampering Russia might have both been good decisions on their own; but when you do them both you end up looking like a hypocrite who moralistically and didactically lectures the weak while fawning on the strong. Nobody respects that kind of behavior, and nobody admires people who practice it. It tastes weak, like blood in the water — and the sharks out there are paying attention. The emerging perception of weakness is one reason the administration has had to fight Israel so hard over the Jerusalem issue. As Laura Rozen reports in a must read article at Politico.com, administration sources say that the quarrel with Netanyahu is “bigger than Jerusalem” because “it’s about the credibility of the administration.” It’s precisely because so many people have kicked so much sand in the administration’s face that it had to raise the stakes so high on this one. Forcing Netanyahu to back down in Jerusalem may help the administration fight the perception of weakness abroad, but it is unlikely to help President Obama much at home. And he may not get the win he seeks. Canada and Brazil have blown the administration off with no ill effects, and even the preternaturally accommodating Japanese are still defying the administration over the unpopular American military base on Okinawa. If Netanyahu sticks to his guns on an issue where he has strong domestic support, he might still force Washington to compromise. Beating up on our few remaining friends isn’t going to fix things. What the President really needs is a victory over an adversary. He needs to get North Korea, Iran, Syria, Hamas, Venezuela or even Cuba to take a step back — or he needs to charm one of them into behaving more nicely. Capturing bin Laden or otherwise achieving something decisive in Afghanistan would also be a plus. Failing that, foreign policy will be a continuing weak spot for the administration, and sooner or later that will mean trouble.

anything short of big stick on Venezuela triggers intense congressional opponents and high media profile

Harper, 10 (liz, Senior Editor @ US Institute for Peace, adjunct fellow at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, americasquarterly.org contributing blogger based in Washington DC, 12/21, http://americasquarterly.org/node/2058)
I'm told that some sought to torpedo Palmer's nomination from the get-go, either preferring another candidate with more credentials on human rights, or not wanting an ambassador in Venezuela at all. Critics doubted that Palmer—despite his experience as President of the Inter-American Foundation and as the Chargé d’Affaires in Ecuador during a time of major internal crises—had the steel to tangle with Venezuela's strongman. To many, his soft tone and circumspect statements at his confirmation hearing reinforced this view. Because Palmer did not come out swinging a big stick at his Senate confirmation hearing, Senator Richard Lugar sent the ambassador a set of "questions for the record" (QFRs), in attempt to strengthen support for his nomination. Palmer sat down with folks at the State Department and answered them, discussing the low morale in Venezuela's military, the ties between members of Venezuela's government and Colombian guerrillas and allowing them refuge in Venezuelan territory, its role in narcotrafficking, Chávez' increasing control over the judicial and legislative branches, steady erosion of checks and balances, and violations of human rights and freedom of the press. Palmer's responses—which he thought would be closely held, according to several sources at the State Department, including the ambassador-designate himself—were newsworthy, especially at a time of heightened tensions between Colombia and Venezuela. The QFR ripped around town and the world, media reports picked up Palmer's statements, thereby setting off the wildfire. So much for the State Department trying to keep a "low profile" on Venezuela and the sensitive situation in the Andean region.

Spun as appeasement, soft on terrorism and national security

Kouri, 11

Jim Kouri, Law Enforcement Examiner

Jim Kouri, CPP, the fifth Vice President and Public Information Officer of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, has served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country, Examiner.com, 6/26/11, http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-urged-to-place-venezuela-on-terrorist-sponsor-list
Obama urged to place Venezuela on "Terrorist Sponsor List" Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez, who is believed to be in Cuba following emergency surgery, is in ''critical'' but stable condition, Miami's El Nuevo Herald has reported. The government has treated the President's departure since June 10 as a state secret. Chavez's government so far has made no comment about Iran Hezbollah activities in their country. During Friday's hearing of the House Western Hemisphere Subcommittee, Chairman Connie Mack (R-14) again called on the Obama Administration to cease their delaying of placing Venezuela on the "State Sponsor of Terrorism List." The hearing, "Venezuela's Sanction able Activity," was held to provide oversight of sanctions available for the State Department and Treasury Department to dissuade illicit activity in the Western Hemisphere. To date, the Obama Administration has underutilized these tools allowing ruthless dictator Hugo Chavez to profit from the drug trade, sell fuel to the Iranians, and transport terrorists around the world. Congressman Mack stated, "The State Department said they would name Venezuela a state sponsor of terrorism as well as enforce consequential sanctions on their state run oil company if they received proof that Venezuela is demonstrably sanctionable. That proof was again presented to officials of the State and Treasury Departments and further delay by the Obama Administration is unacceptable and will only continue to coddle Hugo Chavez." Chairman Mack reiterated Venezuela's repeated support for acts of international terrorism; including the sale of refined fuel to Iran and the actions of Ghazi Nasr al Din, a Venezuelan Diplomat, who was sanctioned by the Treasury Department for facilitating the transfer of funds to Hezbollah and escorted Hezbollah officials to and from Venezuela. Iran, and its proxy group Hezbollah continue to expand their presence in Central and South American taking advantage of their already close relationship with Venezuela's despot Presidente Hugo Chavez, according to Air Force General Douglas Fraser, commanding officer of the U.S. Southern Command, Additionally, Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) drew sanctions on several Venezuelan senior government officials, Hugo Carvajal Barrios, the Director of Military Intelligence, and Henry de Jesus Rangel Silva, General-in-Chief of the Venezuelan Armed Services, for materially assisting and supporting drug trafficking and terrorism activities by the revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). Mack added: "If the Obama Administration continues to coddle Hugo Chavez and the threat he poses to our security, freedom loving Americans will take matters into their hands by not purchasing oil and gas from PDVSA, the Chavez run oil company which operates as CITGO in the U.S." In addition, last week Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said that no U.S. funds should be provided to the newly-formed Hezbollah government in Lebanon, or to a Palestinian Authority that includes Hamas. The congresswoman and other lawmakers are concerned that U.S. taxpayer money may end up in the hands of terrorist groups claiming to be political organizations. “For years, members of Congress warned that it was unwise to fund a Lebanese government in which Hezbollah participated. It was clear that Hezbollah’s influence was growing, and that the Executive Branch had no long-term strategy to deal with that reality, and no contingency plan to stop U.S. aid from falling into the wrong hands," she said.

Economic Engagement perceived by congressional critics as appeasement, soft on national security, terrorism and iran

Goodenough, 12

Patrick Goodenough, Patrick covered government and politics in South Africa and the Middle East before joining CNSNews.com in 1999. Since then he has launched foreign bureaus for CNSNews.com in Jerusalem, London and the Pacific Rim. From October 2006 to July 2007, Patrick served as Managing Editor at the organization's world headquarters in Alexandria, Va. Now back in the Pacific Rim, as International Editor he reports on politics, international relations, security, terrorism, ethics and religion, and oversees reporting by CNSNews.com's roster of international stringers, CNS News, 2/2/12, http://cnsnews.com/news/article/iran-venezuela-links-examined-amid-fresh-calls-terror-sponsor-designation

Iran-Venezuela Links Examined Amid Fresh Calls for Terror-Sponsor Designation U.S. lawmakers will turn a spotlight Thursday on the deepening links between Iran and leftist regimes in Latin America, at a meeting that will likely hear fresh calls for the administration to designate Venezuela as a state sponsor of terrorism. Three weeks after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visited Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua and Ecuador, the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee will hold a hearing entitled “Ahmadinejad’s Tour of Tyrants and Iran’s Agenda in the Western Hemisphere.” “Iran has been actively working for years to expand its ties and influence in the Western Hemisphere, and it has found willing partners in the region’s anti-American despots,” committee chairman Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) said in an earlier statement. The panel aims to review steps the U.S. should take to advance American interests and counter Iran’s activities in the region. Among experts scheduled to testify is Institute for Global Economic Growth president Norman Bailey, who formerly served on the National Security Council and in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, where he was appointed in November 2006 as “mission manager” for Cuba and Venezuela. In a briefing paper published by the American Foreign Policy Council on Wednesday, Bailey explored the Hugo Chavez regime’s “facilitation and encouragement of the penetration of the Western Hemisphere by the Islamic Republic of Iran.” “Since 2005, with Venezuela’s assistance, Iran has created an extensive regional network of economic, diplomatic, industrial and commercial activities, with significant effect,” he wrote, noting that Iran’s interests have extended to other Latin American countries, especially the leftist-governed Ecuador, Bolivia and Nicaragua. Bailey noted that although the Iran-Venezuela partnership had caught the attention of U.S. policymakers in recent years, “little by way of concrete responses has emerged to counter the extensive web of illicit activity and strategic connections that Iran has made in Venezuela and throughout Latin America.” Among his recommendations – designation of Venezuela as a state sponsor of terrorism, for its collusion both with Iran and the Iranian-backed Lebanese terrorist group, Hezbollah. Bailey said designation would potentially result in a boycott of Venezuelan oil to the U.S., but argued that the oil shipments “could easily be made up with equivalent amounts released from the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve.” “By contrast, such a move would have a much more pronounced impact on the Venezuelan economy.” Links to foreign terrorist organizations The U.S. currently lists Cuba, Syria, Iran and Sudan as state sponsors of terrorism, a designation that carries sanctions including a ban on arms-related exports and sales, controls over exports of dual-use items, prohibitions on economic assistance, and various financial restrictions. Designation requires a determination by the secretary of state that a country’s government “has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism,” for example through support for and links to “foreign terrorist organizations” (FTOs).

Congressional resolution passage proves congress perceives plan as appeasement – triggers bipartisan opposition

Walser, 10

Ray Walser, Ph.D., is Senior Policy Analyst for Latin America in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at The Heritage Foundation, 1/20/10, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/01/state-sponsors-of-terrorism-time-to-add-venezuela-to-the-list

Since January 2009, the Obama Administration's attempts to improve relations with the stridently anti-America Chávez have yielded little more than empty gestures. Although ambassadorial relations were restored in June 2009, Chávez has signaled renewed support for the narcoterrorism of the FARC, begun threatening and punishing Colombia for its defense cooperation agreement with the U.S., helped destabilize Honduras by backing former president Manuel Zelaya's illegal referendum, pushed ahead with major Russian arms acquisitions, and sealed ever closer ties, including joint nuclear ventures, with Iran. Venezuela plays an increasingly prominent role as a primary transit country for cocaine flowing from Colombia to the U.S., Europe, and West Africa. Nevertheless, the Obama Administration, according to the President's National Security Council adviser on Latin America, Dan Restrepo, does not consider Venezuela to be a challenge to U.S. national security: President Obama "does not see Venezuela as a challenge to U.S. national security. There is no Cold War nor Hot War. Those things belong to the past."[2] This view is not optimistic--it is dangerous. The Administration needs to, as a recent bipartisan congressional resolution urges, adopt a genuinely tough-minded approach to dealing with Chávez and Venezuela. The Administration needs to develop a public diplomacy strategy to counter Chavista disinformation and a diplomatic strategy in the Americas that responds to growing threats of political destabilization. It also needs to recognize that under Chávez, Venezuela has become terrorism's most prominent supporter in the Western Hemisphere. The Obama Administration can begin to correct this policy of drift and inaction by placing Venezuela on the list of state sponsors of terrorism along with Iran.[3]

Powerful congressional and committee backlash – spun as appeasement and soft on terror

O’Brien, ‘9 (Michael, The Hill, 10/28, http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/65219-lawmakers-want-venezuela-named-a-state-sponsor-of-terrorism

Lawmakers want Venezuela named a state sponsor of terrorism A bipartisan pair of lawmakers introduced a resolution on Wednesday to classify Venezuela as a state sponsor of terrorism. Rep. Ron Klein (D-Fla.), a member of the Foreign Affairs committee, and Rep. Connie Mack (R-Fla.), the ranking member of the Western Hemisphere subcommittee, joined together to float a bill calling on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to add Venezuela to the list of states which sponsor terrorism. The resolution, H.Res.872, cites the Venezuelan government's ties to Iran, Hezbollah, and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia (FARC) as examples of the South American nation's support for terrorism. "The evidence linking Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez to the FARC and Hezbollah – two of the most dangerous terrorist organizations, responsible for many bombings, kidnappings, killings and drug trafficking – is overwhelming," Mack said in a statement announcing the resolution. "Naming Venezuela a state sponsor of terrorism will strengthen the stability of the region," the Florida Republican, who has long been a vocal critic of Chavez, added. "The Administration must not turn a blind eye to Chavez’s dangerous aggression and must add Venezuela to the state sponsors of terrorism list without delay.” "Venezuela’s assistance to the FARC in Colombia destabilizes the region and places the Chavez regime squarely outside the international community," Klein said. "This legislation seeks to stop Venezuela’s facilitation of terrorism now. The United States cannot and will not accept such actions taking place so close to home.”

Especially because well documented terror ties – drives opposition

Goodenough, 12

Patrick Goodenough, Patrick covered government and politics in South Africa and the Middle East before joining CNSNews.com in 1999. Since then he has launched foreign bureaus for CNSNews.com in Jerusalem, London and the Pacific Rim. From October 2006 to July 2007, Patrick served as Managing Editor at the organization's world headquarters in Alexandria, Va. Now back in the Pacific Rim, as International Editor he reports on politics, international relations, security, terrorism, ethics and religion, and oversees reporting by CNSNews.com's roster of international stringers, CNS News, 2/2/12, http://cnsnews.com/news/article/iran-venezuela-links-examined-amid-fresh-calls-terror-sponsor-designation

In its most recent annual report on international terrorism, published last August, the State Department in its section on state sponsors cites Cuba’s links with the Basque separatist group ETA and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) – both FTOs – as well as Iranian and Syrian sponsorship of Hezbollah and Palestinian FTOs including Hamas. Yet Venezuela’s links to Hezbollah are well-documented (as early as June 2008, the U.S. Treasury Department charged that Chavez’ government was “employing and providing safe harbor to Hezbollah facilitators and fundraisers”) and he has also been accused of ties to FARC and to ETA. Caracas’ cozy relationship with state sponsors of terror Cuba and Iran – including new concerns that Chavez could help Tehran to evade the latest Western sanctions against its banks and oil exports – provide further reason, proponents say, for Venezuela itself to be designated. Rep. Connie Mack (R-Fla.), chairman of the Foreign Affairs subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, has for several years sponsored legislation urging action. The most recent bill, introduced in May 2011, calls for “Venezuela to be designated a state sponsor of terrorism for its support of Iran, Hezbollah, and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).” Mack introduced similar bills in October 2009 and in March 2008.