Resolved: That the United States should intervene in another nation's struggle for democracy.

=My Case (Pro)= C1: Protection of Human Rights The U.S. has an obligation to step in where they can as a way to protect human rights abroad. Since the US has this ability, seeing as it is the most powerful nation on earth, then US should step in. Humans are equal, and thus deserve equal protection, even if others do not see this as an obligation. (1) Borders are arbitrary. One cannot make a moral claim based on arbitrary factors. As such, the US has an obligation to act to protect others because not doing so would make moral obligations dependent upon arbitrary and non-chosen factors. Thus, people don't deserve to be punished simply for being born in the wrong area of the globe, such as in Libya. (2) Equality. Humans are equal due to their equal capacity for rationality. As such nothing fundamentally distinguishes human beings. Therefore, nations or people with the ability to protect human rights need to because it is what everyone is equally deserving of. C2: Democratic Promotion is Advantageous A) The Democratic Peace Theory [1]. In short the democratic peace theory states that democracies rarely if ever go to war with each other. Two internal links are isolated: (1) Ideological. Democracies have ideological ties to one another which make them more willing to enter into agreements and alliances. Liberal ideologies which pervade democracies make these nations more susceptible to negotiations, alliances and agreements which make it very difficult to go to war. (2) Structural. The structure of governments within democracies make it difficult to go to war. For example, public opinion would be a main hindering factor for war. The majority of a public wouldn't be open to war as easily unless clear evidence was given for its need. Thus, by promoting democracies abroad, the US will be heavily reducing the probability of war within volatile areas and hot spots around the world. According to Muller, an analysis of history does empirically prove that democracies do not go to war with one another, except in a few isolated circumstances. The DPT does not endorse Kants view of perpetual peace but it does show that war will ultimately be reduced which protects a larger amount of people globally. B) Reduction of State Violence. Professor Rummel finds that democracies between 1900 and 1987 saw only .14% of their populations die annually in internal violence, whereas authoritarian regimes was .59% and for totalitarian regimes 1.48%. Rummel also finds that citizens of democracies are far less likely to die at the hands of their governments. Totalitarian and authoritarian regimes have been responsible for the overwhelming majority of genocides and mass murders of civilians in the twentieth century. [2] C) Free Trade. Mancur Olson tells us that democracies are much more likely to have free trade agreements and policies especially with the help of the US. This is true because democracies have a vested interest in exporting and importing goods more freely as a way to increase the flow of capital within society. [3] And free trade is good. James tells us that free trade is advantageous for the Us specifically and for people abroad because it reduces the risk of great recessions, spurs innovation, expands capital flow, creates lower prices, increasing the variety of goods and increases productivity. Thus, free trade is good for the people of Libya. Olson goes on to further point out that democracies have the most stable of economies throughout the world including the Middle East – Israel and Turkey. [3] C3: Intervention in the Middle East and securing hegemony in the Middle East solves multiple problematic scenarios for the US. Brzezinski writes, "The combination of oil and volatility gives the United States no choice. America faces an awesome challenge in helping to sustain some degree of stability among precarious states inhabited by increasingly politically restless, socially aroused, and religiously inflamed peoples. It must undertake an even more daunting enterprise than it did in Europe more than half a century ago, given a terrain that is culturally alien, politically turbulent, and ethnically complex. In the past, this remote region could have been left to its own devices. Until the middle of the last century, most of it was dominated by imperial and colonial powers. Today, to ignore its problems and underestimate its potential for global disruption would be tantamount declaring an open season for intensifying regional violence, region-wide contamination by terrorist groups, and the competitive proliferation of weaponry of mass destruction." [4]Thus, promoting democracies in the middle east helps secure US hegemony in that area, which prevents the scenarios highlighted by Brzezinski.=His (Con) Case=C1: Democracy may not be best form of government1. His argument about failed democracies is incorrect - not influenced by a liberal democrcy. e.g. the US(i) The french revolution was from its beginning an illiberal democratic movement. I.e. The revolutionaries expounded liberal ideas but in practice thought it fitting to implement illiberal policies. Without the aid of foreign power, there was no regulation on the way in which the new government was set up. This is not the case today since the US strives to implement liberal democracies.(ii) The Weimar Republic's form of democracy didnt fail because demcracy failed, it was because of tough circumstances, i.e. stagflation. This resulted in a loss of confidence in a democracy which then resulted in Hitler. Again, a foreign power wasnt there to help regulate and mediate. (iii) TURN: After WW2, the allies did insitute a democracy in Germany, and it still stands today. (iv) TURN: Leaving Egypt to fend for itself has also resulted in illberal policies within the structure of democractic change. E.g. religious tolerace has actually gone down because there is no protection for Coptic Christians and Jews. This can be seen with the increase of attacks and burning of churches.2. You are empirically incorrect as well. Algeria, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain had also shown interest in democracy but because of the autocratic hold on power the attempt at democratic reforms have been futile. That is why the US' aid is essential. This can be seen in Syria where the Monarchy has cracked down entirely and has killed hundreds of innocent protesters. C2: None of our business and may not benefit us1. XA C2 and 3 from my case. There are clear benefits for us as well as the members of that nation.2. Democratic reform is preferable because it helps to reduce terrorism long run. This is true because the factors for the creation of terrorism - xenophobia, economic hardships, religious intolerance - would be mitated by educational and economic reform which comes with democracy. 3. Your analysis of "global powers" is misleading. The international stage has mor players, yes; however the US is the hegemon at this point in history and the world is unipolar. The EU canarely supply its military across the Mediterranian Sea, China isnt a democracy so its not going to promote it, and Russia has identity issues with the US (due to the Cold War) so its not going to support the US either. However, ideogically Europe has supported democratiztion, e.g. in Libya.C3: Intervention is expensive1.No impact argued. Who cares?2. The US is the worlds reserve currency, which gives us the ability print large amounts of capital needed to fund these nterventions.3. Benefits outweigh - Free trade will in the long run economically help the S, which will counter and negative externalities of expenditure. Refer to my case. 4. The Taliban isnt stronger than ever. They have retreated from most parts of Afghanistan and are being forced into the FATA region in Pakistan. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...... [2] Rummel, Democratic Peace: Reevaluating China's Democides [3] Olson, The Logic of Collective Action [4] The Choice: Global Domination or Global Leadership"