The United States Federal Government should help to modernize third-world countries.

Lets get down to business I will go in the same order as my opponent but I will add a new section laying out my case at the end ========= Definitions ========= Should- I agree with my opponent Help- I would like to redefine as: 1: to give assistance or support to http://www.merriam-webster.com.... this why the pro side must prove why the US must act directly in the modernization of third world instead of just saying they use someone else to do the work Modernize- I believe that the affirmative must defend the modernization of all parts of life including but not limited to thing like economic modernization, political modernization and social modernization. These are the normal standers used to determine development. 3rd world- the developing countries of Africa, Asia, Latin America and Oceania. http://www.nationsonline.org... ====== Should ====== I agree with my opponent on this point that I should not be arguing something like that there is no money to do this instead I will show how the US helping to modernize the third world will hurt these countries. ====================== My opponent's arguments ====================== I really have nothing to say against these arguments because not much is said what I'm going to focus on the negative effects that the US attempting to modernize third world countries. ======= My case ======= 1. DEPENDENCY a. assistance programs create dependency on foreign countries Garrett, Senior Fellow for Global Health at the Council on Foreign Relations, 2007 (Laurie, Foreign Affairs, January/February) http://www.foreignaffairs.org... Few of the newly funded global health projects, meanwhile, have built-in methods of assessing their efficacy or sustainability. And nearly all have been designed, managed, and executed by residents of the wealthy world no provisions exist to allow the world's poor to say what they want all programs lack exit strategies or safeguards against the dependency of local governments billions of people, driven by a grand public and private effort comparable to the Marshall Plan -- or they could see poor societies pushed into even deeper trouble, in yet another tale of well-intended foreign meddling gone awry. b. US ASSISTANCE TRADESOFF WITH LOCAL SOLUTIONS AND IT INCREASES THE RISK OF INFLATION, CREATING MORE POVERTY, MALNUTRITION AND HOMELESSNESS. Garrett, Senior Fellow for Global Health at the Council on Foreign Relations, 2007 (Laurie, Foreign Affairs, January/February) http://www.foreignaffairs.org... massive infusions of foreign cash into the public sector undermine local manufacturing and economic development. foreign-aid efforts suck all the air out of local innovation and entrepreneurship. A more immediate concern is that raising salaries for healthcare workers and managers directly involved in HIV/AIDS and other health programs will lead to salary boosts in other public sectors and spawn inflation in the countries in question. This would widen the gap between the rich and the poor, exacerbate such conditions as malnutrition and homelessness while undermining any possibility that local industries could eventually grow. Thus turning all of my opponent's arguments because by the US helping they create more problems COOKSEY, Tanzania Development Research Group, 2004 (Brian, DAC DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP FORUM IMPROVING DONOR EFFECTIVENESS IN COMBATING CORRUPTION Organised jointly by OECD Development Assistance Committee and Transparency International, 9-10 December) page 3 http://www.oecd.org... As aid dependency increases, so the negative consequences listed above are likely to outweigh the positive. If the half dozen major hazards listed above grow more acute in direct proportion to the degree of aid dependency, To propose large increases in aid transfers without considering the potential negative consequences is breathtakingly reckless. More aid means more resources and incentives for cronyism, patronage and corruption. 2. Neoliberalism (for all you people out there that don't know what this is, it is the idea that by opening third world countries to the global economy they can help reduce poverty, but sadly this fails as I will exsplane in this next argument) a. US aid programs are sending aid with a neoliberal mind set Sanders 01 http://www.choike.org... Accompanying neoliberal reforms of the macro-economy have been health sector reforms. Key components include user fees, insurance schemes and introduction of managed competition; and rationing of health care through the identification of public health and clinical "packages", comprising a set of (often limited) interventions. b. in Africa the effects of neo liberalism have cost the continent 272 billion dollars over the past 20 years Bonds 07 http://www.equinetafrica.org... By contrast, rigorous studies and analyses now confirm the negative consequences of neoliberal policies Trade liberalisation has cost sub-Saharan Africa $272 billion over the past 20 years. Had they not been forced to liberalise as the price of aid, loans and debt relief, sub-Saharan African countries would have had enough extra income to wipe out their debts and have sufficient left over to pay for every child to be vaccinated and go to school. Two decades of liberalisation has cost sub-Saharan Africa roughly what it has received in aid. The first step to effect genuine growth and deliver resources to health services, welfare, and basic infrastructure is, instead, for African societies and policymakers to identify and prevent the vast and ongoing outflows of the continent's existing and potential wealth. c. no the global scale these Neoliberal policies cause a global race to the bottom, because as more countries open to the global economy they are forced to compete with countries like China who's low prices force third world countries to lower wages in order to compete thus causing global poverty. Michael Hardt Antonio Negri 2004 Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age of Empire is Professor of Literature and Italian at Duke University Professor of Political Science at the University of Padua. (sorry that I don't have a link for this source but it is hard to find this book online) Global capital, the argument goes, since it movement and reach extend well beyond the limits of national space, cannot be effectively controlled by the state. Many labor Unions protest the fact that the mere threat of the mobility of capital- the treat of moving jobs to another country were labor cost are lower. This creates a sort of race to the bottom in which the interest of society as a whole take a back seat to that of capital. Neoliberalism is the name give to this economic policy. Neoliberalism is not a regime of unregulated capital but rather a form of state regulations that best facilitates the global movements and profits of capital. The fundamental task of the neoliberal state is to regulate the capital development in the interest of global capital itself So to wrap this up the reason that you as a judge are going to vote con is because while this may seem like the moral thing to do in the end it only creates more trouble for the third world then they already have because attempting to modernize them will only result in dependency and a spread of poverty because of economic policies