Resolved: The United States ought to promote democracy in the Middle East.

I'm going to go with a DA, CP, and K. First off is the NED Funding DA. Democracy promotion occurs through the NED Scott and Steele "05 "Assisting democrats or resisting dictators? The nature and impact of democracy support by the United States National Endowment for Democracy, 1990"99" 60 percent of NED's grants are channeled through four institutes. The NED engages to promote democracy. Additionally, in CX, my opponent only lists agencies in the U.N., not the U.S. AND, NED worsens democratization efforts " turns case " outweighs on specificity Scott and Steele "05 "Assisting democrats or resisting dictators? The nature and impact of democracy support by the United States National Endowment for Democracy, 1990"99" There is no statistically significant relationship between aid and democracy. The relationship between the two variables is negative. Rather than promoting democracy, NED grants seem to be associated with worsening situations. On to the Brazil CP. CP Text: The Federative Republic of Brazil should promote good governance in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and Oceania. The Counterplan solves democracy but the Aff doesn"t " a Brazilian campaign for good governance activates global modeling. Stuenkel, PhD Political Science, "13 "Rising Powers and the Future of Democracy Promotion: the case of Brazil and India," Promoting democracy is Brazil's national interest. Liberal "democracy promotion" may be an important step to facilitate cooperation, particularly on the multilateral level. Brazil's societal structures are similar to many countries that are struggling to establish democracy. India and Brazil provide powerful counter-examples that political freedom is no obstacle to economic growth. AND, U.S. democracy promotion destabilizes the international order and incites perpetual warfare " all democratic progress has occurred in spite of, and not because of America. Smith 12 http://site.ebrary.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu... Hope to make America secure through the expansion of free-market democracies created the illusion that history could be fundamentally restructured. Progressive imperialism became a "just war". The military was ushering a new dawn of freedom. Publications deepened American self-confidence, arrogance, self-interest, and self-delusion characterized the arguments underlying the "Washington Consensus". Brazil demonstrated the ability of a country outside American hegemony to combine responsible government with social justice. The invasion of Iraq had made it more problematic than would otherwise have moderate forces in favor of democratic government. On to the Human Rights K. Human rights discourse sees political victims, not political subjects " this posits the necessity of Western intervention in the form of technical administration that actively subverts revolutionary movements, preserving neocolonial paternalism. Neocosmos 11 http://pambazuka.org... When "political conditionalities" proved insufficient, it was possible to enforce democracy, human rights through military might justified by "humanitarian" intervention. The "transition" is never-ending as the ideal is rarely attained. The theoretical foundation of human rights on which this whole reasoning was constructed, is that people are seen as victims of regimes, and not as collective subjects of their own liberation. The law is understood to be their saviours. Democracy shows how politics has been reduced to a technical process removed from popular control and placed into the hands of experts who staff an industry whose tentacles hold up the liberal global hydra of the new imperial "democratising mission" on the continent. "De-politicisation" as a process: people are convinced that they are incapable. Everyone should return to their place and vacate politics, leaving it to those who know how to follow the rules of the game. This process could be a never-ending "transition" from politics of popular agency to the oppressive technicism of imperial power. AND, In this colonial relationship, all the difficult questions of decision making need to be left to the professionals " foreign elites reach a consensus ill-disposed to resolve the demands of the revolts " perpetuating the violent cycle of decolonization Neocosmos 11 http://pambazuka.org... This process promises a world in which difficult questions and "decision-making" should be left to professionals. This gives rise to political exclusion. Violence does not disappear with the democratic state. A new oligarchy is formed as a result of the de-politicisation and political exclusion. Authoritarianism is re-created to such an extent that state thinking becomes constructed as "natural". The neocolonial state give rise to a fundamental contradiction between human rights and state nationalism. HRD is not concerned with inclusion as with legal redress. Producing the passivity of victims: It privileges state solutions and reduces all political thought to state subjectivity. Violence in neo-colonial states are a necessary outcome of democracy. This is a direct turn to my opponent's case. My opponent said in CX that he's trying to solve for numerous human rights violations. This K shows that our focus on human rights is bad. On to my opponent's case. I believe contention 1 of my opponent's case is already taken care of. Contention 2 doesn't have any impacts. There's nothing in the case that says why the corruption in those countries are bad, so don't look to that contention. I also adopt my opponent's framework. I've proven that my opponent actually decreases the amount of happiness and life that he's/she's actually trying to achieve. This is a reason you need to vote NEG.