Resolved: the U.S. should intervene to promote democracy

Framework:1.According to the Conflict Research Consortium at the University of Colorado, “intervention can take many forms, including political, economic, diplomatic, humanitarian, and military interventions.”[1] Thus, it is not enough for the con to oppose merely one type of intervention, it may be the case that other forms work and do provide substantive benefits. The con opposes all of these. 2.According to Mark Peceny at the University of New Mexico, the U.S. has only engaged in proliberalization military interventions 1/3 of the time and nonliberalization policies 2/3 of the time.[2] Thus, evidence which looks at the former should be preferred over the latter since its more relevant to the topic. Arguments:1C: Military Intervention is successfulMark Peceny points out that of the countries in which the U.S. intervened to promote democracy and proliberalization policies, seventy percent successfully became democracies.[3] Thus, when the express goal is democratic liberalization, intervention is successful. Peceny concludes, “The evidence presented here shows that target states have rarely democratized if the U.S. failed to adopt proliberalization policies during its interventions, while a majority of states where the U.S. adopted such policies became democracies. Furthermore, states that have experienced proliberalization policies are significantly more likely to be democracies than states that have not shared this experience.”[4]Moreover, Economist Paul Collier at Oxford University points out that intervening after a conflict also yields substantial benefits. First, “Compared with no deployment, spending $100 million on a peacekeeping initiative reduces the ten-year risk of conflict from around 38% to 16.5%. At $200 million per year, the risk falls further, to around 12.8%. At $500 million, it goes down to 9%, and at $850 million drops to 7.3%.”[5] Second, its net cost-beneficial: “Because of war’s massive costs, each percentage point of risk reduction is worth around $2.5 billion to the world. The most expensive deployment reduces the risk of conflict by a massive 30 percentage points, with ten-year gains of $75 billion, compared to the overall cost of $8.5 billion.”[6]Thus, intervention to promote democracy is successful, AND intervention to sustain peace in the aftermath is also successful, since it (1) reduces the risk of conflict and (2) yields economic benefits at a very low cost. 2C: Power Differentials mean intervention is necessary to support democratic movementsThe Small War Jounral explains: “The insurgency’s level of external support influences the groups’ ability to secure weapons, supplies, and funds…Without it, the overwhelming conventional firepower of the state win generally win out.”[7] This is because the autocracy has an established military and is therefore able to crush a rebellion if it is not helped. This is empirically supported by the National Defense Research Institute: “when supported externally, these movements have a 79% chance of success, while without that aid, there is only about a 5% chance of success.”[8] The impact to this may be further seen in the context of Libya, as Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch explains that without US intervention, “Qaddafi’s resulting victory would have signaled to other authoritarian governments from Syria to Saudi Arabia to China that if you negotiate with protesters you lose, but if you kill them you win.”[9] Accordingly, by intervening to ensure democracy, we not only see great successes within the country itself, but ensure the support of democracy and civil rights around the world.3C: More BenefitsFirst, Democracy prevents genocideProfessor Moore of the University of Virginia explains: empirically, more than 99% of victims of genocide were killed by non-democratic governments; these autocracies have caused 167 million deaths.[10] Thus, democracy fosters the change necessary to prevent genocide and human rights violations, since the inherent nature of democracy is that the people are a check on the government. Second, Democratic Peace TheoryThe Harvard Belfer Center reports: “Michael Doyle compares all international wars between 1816 and 1980 and a list of liberal states. Doyle concludes that "constitutionally secure liberal states have yet to engage in war with one another." Subsequent statistical studies have found that this absence of war between democracies is statistically significant and is not the result of random chance. Other analyses have concluded that the influence of other variables, including geographical proximity and wealth, do not detract from the significance of the finding that democracies rarely, if ever, go to war with one another.”[11]This means that if the U.S.intervenes to promote democracy, it decreases the risk of future conflict between these states, and the U.S. It also means the U.S. has leverage over these states, allowing for more cooperation with the U.S.Therefore, the U.S. should intervene to promote democracy, (1) because it works, (2) because its low cost and yields substantial economic benefits, and (3) because it reduces overall casualties and ensures long term peace. [1] "Report of Conference Key Findings, Ideas, and Recommendations" in Managing Conflict in the Post-Cold War World: The Role of Intervention. Report of the August 2-6, 1995, Aspen Institute Conference (Aspen, Colorado: Aspen Institute, 1996) pp. 9-26[2] Mark Peceny, professor at the University of New Mexico, “Democracy at the Point of Bayonets”, 1999[3] Ibid. pg.207[4] Ibid.[5] Collier, Paul. Project Syndicate. “Does Military Intervention Work?”. 4/30/08[6] Ibid.[7] Lt. Col. Mike Fowler, Small Wars Journal, "Philippine Counterinsurgency Strategy: Then and Now", 2011[8] Ben Connable and Martin C. Libicki, RAND Corporation, National Defense Research Institute, "How Insurgencies End", 2010, Page 63[9] Tom Malinowksi, Human Rights Watch, The New Republic, "The Timeliness Paradox", March 27,2011, http://www.tnr.com...[10] Moore, Director of Center for National Security Law @ University of Virginia Law School, 1997 (37 Va. J. Int'l L. 811, Lexis)[11] Belfer Center. Harvard University. “Why the United States Should Spread Democracy.” 1998. http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu...