The US has shown itself to be detrimental to third world democracies

U.S. Primacy/Hegemony maximizes the spread of democracy He argues that U.S. primacy was not the cause for democracy, yet he gives no alternative to explain my analytic reasoning. As argued by Kagan, following history demonstrates that power at the top of the global chain affects those nations at the bottom. Grenada: He concedes Granada. Dominican Republic: My opponent’s argument is that the US intervened to prevent communism and not to promote democracy. Regardless of the intention, the coup which was prevented (due to military action) allowed the democracy to survive. Otherwise, the coup would have most like succeeded which would have ended democracy in the Dominican Republic. Remember, my burden is only to show that the U.S. is not a threat, and this example demonstrates that the U.S. is not a threat. He also argues that we supported a dictator in the 1930s – prefer arguments with more recent timeframe and always keep in mind that depending on our foreign policy doctrine our actions will change. Philippines: My opponents timeframe is way off – we might have been a threat to them in the early 1900s and we may have been a threat to Spain too (but clearly now, no sane minded individual would say we are a direct threat to Spain). My opponent never direct addresses the argument which is that (even if the democracy may be corrupt) there is a democracy in the Philippines because the U.S. intervened to prevent Marcos from seizing power. Again, due to US intervention democracy was allowed to survive. Panama: My opponent argues that Noriega was supported by the US, but they key to this argument was that the US supported him until he tried to establish an autocracy. As soon as the foundations for democracy were beginning to erode, the US intervened and prevented an internal takeover. Honduras: I would like my opponent to present a credible source on this one for his argument. However, as my opponent mentioned the US did back the democratically elected government. Aside from the potential illiberal policies of the government does not negate the fact that the US helped maintain democratic control. Bolivia: In this case, during the early 1980s the US assisted the people in transition the government from military rule to democratic rule in 1982. My opponent was probably looking at the wrong time period on this one. El Salvador: Irrelevant what the policies where before the transitioning democracy. As I previously mentioned the Us assisted the democratic government in preventing insurgency and combating guerillas. Haiti: There is negligible evidence of the U.S. being involved in the 1991 coup and besides the lack of evidence it is illogical that the US staged the coup and then fought itself in Operation Uphold Democracy and then preserved the integrity of the system of which the system they allegedly tried to overthrow. Moreover, evidence indicates that Aristide actually frauded his elections so he would not be the legitimate president. [1] Egypt: Again his argument is outdated foreign policy. Regardless of what we have done in the past, our foreign policy requires different actions and in specific democracy promotion. Lybia: My opponent says we did little, but seeing as we helped tip the balance in favor the rebels and are assisting the Libyan Council I would say that yes we have promoted democracy in Libya. Authoritarian Expansionism: My opponent misses the main point which is that comparatively in a world without US intervention then there would be vastly more threats to developing democracies then there are at this moment. Yes the US has backed undemocratic regimes in Africa, however the problem with my opponents analysis is that the vast majority of those countries have little to no prospect of democracy anyway. 1st: My opponent misses the important argument about neoconservatism vs. realism. Even if the US hasn’t actually created many democracies doesn’t mean it’s a threat. The analysis here indicates that by the very fact that neoconservatism espouses democracy around the world means that the US wont endanger developing democracies as they have under the doctrine of realism. Most of the empirics my opponent presents deals specifically with regimes fostered by the US, like Chile and Egypt (Mubarak) under the influence of realist doctrine. Remember, it is the burden of my opponent to prove that at this point in US policy the US is a threat to 3rd world democracies. Unless my opponent can prove how the US foreign policy doctrine now threatens democracies around the world, he has not met his burden. 2nd: Again, he misses the point. As the evidence indicates it is because of US primacy in the region which prevented Soviet dominance over those elected governments. Soviet influence could not reach into Latin America which led to the soft-communism you see in Latin America today, not hardlining Soviet communism. And in terms of the death toll, the vast majority of democide has been committed by communist regimes. 3rd: The vast majority of the examples I provided were 3rd world where we have not intervened. From a macro-perspective the US has not intervened in most developing democracies, which would include 3rd world democracies. [1] http://www.pdhealth.mil...