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

Since it is the last round I will not exploit that fact and spam evidence sources and arguments. That would be very unfair to my opponent. However, I will explain why, with the evidence and arguments presented my opponent has failed to prove the resolution true. Macro Analysis The macro analysis is essentially evaluating the arguments from a global perspective rather than a case by case basis, democracy by democracy. The first macro analysis can be found with the distinction of realism vs. neoconservatism. My opponent argues that 3rd world democracies are still at risk because of US hegemony which undermines the prospects of democracy such as freedom and independence. This disregards the distinction of illiberal vs. liberal democracy. Even though countries such as India and Egypt have very illiberal democracies does not mean that the government is not a democracy. There is simply a scale of how liberal a democracy becomes. But moreover, he misses the argument about realism and neoconservatism entirely. Essentially all of my opponent’s listed countries and mine included (from a micro perspective) where all examples during the height of realist foreign policy. However, at this point in US foreign policy neoconservatism and the belief in a global spread of democracy is primary doctrine. The US is not a threat to 3rd world democracies because democracy is a means towards future stability in the eyes of the US. My opponent cites the coup in Haiti but this coup, as I mentioned before, resulted in the displacement of an illegitimate president who violated the integrity of the democratic system. From my research there was no coup in Argentina in 2002. The voters can look for themselves. Why is this point important? The resolution asks my opponent to prove if the US is detrimental to 3rd world democracies. However this resolution cannot be affirmed from a macro perspective if current US foreign policy has a stated goal of protecting and fostering global democracy. All of the micro arguments become null and void because they represent an outdated source of US foreign policy doctrine. The second macro analysis is the prevention of Soviet dominance in Latin America. Remember, the evidence tells us that it was because of US hegemony that prevented the spread of Soviet influence in the region. The reason was because with US hegemony strongly implemented in Latin America the Kremlin and communist leaders thought it was too difficult to actually infiltrate communist parties in Latin America. My opponent always mentions death tolls, albeit with analysis about how CIA intervention directly lead to the death toll, but these numbers pale when compared to the deaths arising from countries with direct Soviet Influence. Micro Analysis A first important point must be noted before I go through the list: pay attention to the timeframe analysis by my opponent. There is a point when dates become so outdated that it is irrelevant to the debate at hand. Dominican Republic: My opponent argues that the democracy was one established by the military. This is completely false. We do not know what government would have resulted from the military coup. What we do know is that Carter’s military intervention removed the president from power and prevented a coup by the military. The attempted coup in 1965 was after the fact that the US, according to my opponent source, assassinated the sitting leader. The US prevented the coup from destabilizing the transitioning democratic government. Philippines: My opponent argues that the US supported his dictatorship up to 1972. At this time the US was under the Reagan Administration and had to deal with issues with the USSR. However, the Carter Administration’s human rights campaign models the neoconservative position that the US has today more so than the realism of the Reagan Administration. Panama: My opponent’s source indicates that the US supported him, in an effort to prevent communist influence, but removed him after he nulled elections and destabilized the democratic regime. When the US intervened they removed him from power and he was arrested. On this point the US prevented the breakdown of democracy in Panama, albeit it was still an illiberal democracy. Remember, the resolution only specifies democracy and does not make the distinction of liberal vs. illiberal. Honduras: Again my opponent argues that the democracy was not liberal enough. That point is irrelevant. The US protected the foundations of the democracy by going so far as the prevent Nicaraguan military intervention against the democracy. Haiti: My opponent argues that the US was detrimental because of past attempts. The most recent in 1991 and 2004 restored the legitimacy of the democratic governments by removing from power a corrupt leader. Libya: My opponent’s only argument is that the global regime supported intervention as well. The US is not mutually exclusive to other nations. By intervening the US has aided in the institution of a transitioning democratic government.