Western foreign policy should abandon attempts at universializing liberal values

In this final round, I’ll engage in all of my rebuttals and my closing arguments. R1:” Well, firstly, I don't think Pro demonstrated that Liberal Democracies ought not to convey/abandon attempts to Universalize Liberal Values, he certainly didn't demonstrate that Liberal Values were bad, nor did he demonstrate that the U. N is the only viable way to produce progress in turning anti-liberal or anti-democratic countries towards a more open and liberal country. ” The demonization of Liberal values was never in my initial assertion. In my argument and in the acceptance round, I had never asserted that Liberal values were inherently wrong. The only assertion was that Western Foreign policy should not universalize said values. To be against the universalization of something does not imply a distaste towards it. I had never asserted that the UN was the only viable means of universalization. Only that it was the most effective. Given that the vast majority of the world’s countries are a part of the UN, regions seeking international recognition most often do so through the UN. R2:” Since, these propositions are not challenged. 1. Liberal Values are Bad 2. It is not in the interest of liberal democracies to abandon their foreign policy 3. The U. N is not the only viable means to progress and Universalize Liberal Values. ” None of these assertions were made in my opening argument, as seen in “R1” I had never argued that the UN was the only viable means of “universalization” only that it was the most effective. I had never argued that Liberal values were bad. And I have never even implied the assertion that the West should abandon all foreign policy in general, I only said they should “abandon attempts” at universalizing liberal values. Con here has made a large misrepresentation of my original assertion and my later arguments. I cannot rebut Con’s later rebuttals, as they are based off a misrepresentation of my opening arguments. Hence, I cannot rebut to what is in response to what I have never said in the first place. R3: “I don't necessarily see debate here. Encouraging countries to free and open dialogue is not an anti-liberal value, long gone are the days of believing in the idea that countries are passive or neutral to their own values. ” Remember that the debate is not on whether liberal values are a good thing, but whether such values should be universalized. I never asserted that liberal values were inherently good or not, only that preservation of free speech was in the interests of a liberal democracy. Simply because one civilization finds a law, attribute or policy to be good, it does not justify attempts at asserting said law abroad. As that is culturally hegemonic (which goes against liberal values, as stated in my initial argument). R4:“To uphold this value for ourselves, necessarily means fighting its suppression anywhere it is seen to be a threat to those living under oppression. That can be done simply through U. N. resolutions, public denouncements, refusal to co-operate in trade, all viable and fair actions of a Liberal Democracy that refuses to accept the conditions of Theocrats and violent oppressors. ” Refusal to engage in trade, and other forms of economic/political isolation would only harm the general population, punishing them for that having the same political values as one’s own. The West has asserted sanctions and embargoes against Cuba, North Korea and Iran. Isolating their economies do little to effect the political regime. If anything, it only achieves in siring more hatred and discontent to the west. Note, when Con brings up “Theocratic oppressors”, the Islamic revolution in Iran was followed by zealot support of the general population. Just a country is not a liberal democracy, that does not make said country inherently oppressive. Further arguments by Con are rebuttals to my opening argument. As mentioned previously, my opponent had misrepresented the arguments I had made. Hence, I cannot rebut to them sufficiently as they do not accurately represent what I had previously argued. In conclusion I had argued the following premises: 1. Liberalism developed within the context of the West during the 17th-19th century, hence, one cannot expect to assert such a specific political context to a universal scale. 2. To assert one’s own values on a universal scale is culturally and politically hegemonic, which contradicts Liberal valuing of ideological and political diversity. To assert said values would require suppression of opposing ideologies, which as mentioned previously, is hegemonic hence anti-Liberal. Thanks to Con for the debate, apologies for my absence in the previous round.