DDO Tournament - Top Tier: Intervention to Stop Rights Abuses

In addition, I accept all rules given in this debate. As me and my opponent have agreed upon, I will be affirming the principle that "Intervention in the internal political processes of other nations is morally permissible when a goal of the intervention is to halt human rights abuses. " In our modern world, one would expect the era of tyranny and human rights abuses to have ended. However, in many regards, human rights abuses are running as strong as ever - be it through the rampant corruption and political oppression in China, insurgent-supporting Middle-Eastern theocracies, or tyrannical African dictatorships. While it is not always a good idea to intervene to stop these abuses, I will attempt to prove the philosophical merit behind external attempts to end these abuses. Contention I: Helping those who are being mistreated or abused is morally permissibleAlthough this likely goes without saying, it is morally permissible for individuals to help other individuals in need. Almost every day we hear a story about an individual who had a grand act of heroism – be it performing CPR on the street, foiling an armed robbery, or rescuing someone who is drowning. These individuals are hailed by heroes as the public and the media, and for good reason – they demonstrate a basic human respect for those who seek to aid others in need. This moral permissiveness is codified in common law - although there is rarely a direct obligation to support those in need,[1] protection is often given to individuals who try and give reasonable assistance to those in need. [2] Although reckless rescue attempts may be punishable by law,[3] this clearly shows both a societal agreement that it is morally permissible to aid those in need. Contention II: Governments are formed by the people, and are obligated to protect the peopleIt one thing for it to be moral for individuals to do help a person who is facing abuse or mistreatment; it is another for government to intervene in another country's political process so as to help individuals in that country. However, when we look at the idea of government, we can establish government does indeed have the just moral authority to intervene. The Declaration of Independence states that “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) affirms that “The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government” and, more importantly, that “Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized”. What we can gather from this is that a just government is ruled by the people, and that all people have the rights to the freedoms listed in the UDHR. The two are linked – a just government ruled by the people will protect the rights of the people, who hold the supreme power. Additionally, any nation that is facing human rights abuses is obligated to stop them; the United Nations policy 'responsibility to protect', wherein a sovereign nation is obligated to protect it's people from human rights abuses, requires just that. However, the responsibility to protect does not end within a country's own borders – under the right to protect doctrine, the international community is obligated to help end human rights abuses when needed. [4] What we can gather from this is that all nations are obligated to seek an end to rights abuses, and I will establish through my next contention that intervention is a direct and humane way to do so. Contention III: Covert intervention into the political affairs of other countries can be humane and effectiveWhen the world is faced with rampant human rights abuses within a country, the response - at least from democratic, Western countries, is to condemn them. However, in practical terms such condemnation means nothing if not followed through with by means to enact change. Realistically, there are really only two options to try and end the abuse:1. Pursue a policy of isolating the country from the rest of the world.2. Support opposition parties, politicians, and/or arm opposition military movements. The first policy is clearly the easiest, and can do much good when implemented. Embargos, trade sanctions and removal from international groups can pressure countries to stop their abuses and lead to internal strife. However, there are downsides to this. For one, many countries that were formerly isolated (like early communist China) simply grew too powerful to ignore, and many countries that engage in abuses (like Russia and present-day China) are already too powerful to ignore. For other countries like Cuba, Iran, and North Korea, the isolation isn't really doing much - the governments simply don't care that they are being isolated and use it to their advantage. Additionally, this policy can result in economic harm to the people, who are not the ones at fault for their government's actions. The second option, while not without faults, can lead to positive change without resulting in full-fledged war. How is this so? For starters, supporting opposition parties and movements can lead to genuine social change - one example of this is the Polish trade union Solidarity. The union was financially supported by the US government, to the tune of nearly 50 million dollars, and grew to represent nearly 10 million people - almost a third of the working-class population of Poland. The Solidarity movement spurred social change through civil disobedience and resistance,[5] and after over 7 years of government suppression, the head of the Communist Party, Alfred Midowicz, agreed to face Solidarity leader Lech Walesa in a televised debate. Walesa won the debate, which the BBC notes “proved to party members and the public that Solidarity was not a destructive force but key to the emergence of a democratic Poland". [6] The Communists had to negotiate with Solidarity, leading to partially free elections in 1989 that resulted in Solidarity winning almost every seat that was allowed to be competitive. [7] Even though the Communist Party and it's satellite parties were given 65% of Sejm (lower house) seats, Solidarity was so strong that it convinced the satellite parties to join in it a ruling coalition. [8] The end result was a free, democratic Poland, and an end to the communist oppression – a completely bloodless revolution that would not have been possible without the financial and moral support of Western nations like the United States. Of course, Poland is merely one example of successful efforts by foreign countries to end human rights abuses. One could also point to the external financial and moral support of the anti-apartheid African National Congress (ANC) by Nordic countries such as Sweden. [9] As with Poland, South Africa was ruled by a dictatorial governing party, the National Party, who instituted apartheid, a system of racial segregation, thorughout all of South Africa. [10] Due in part to internal revolution led by the ANC, the National Party was forced to 'reform' and ultimately end apartheid, leading to free elections and a freer South Africa. This would also not have been possible were it not due to immense political pressure from within and support for anti-apartheid movements by other countries. While there is always a risk to intervention in the internal political affairs of other countries, we can see from these two examples that it is justifiable and morally permissible, when the goal is to end human rights abuses and it is done responsibly. ConclusionAs I have demonstrated, it is morally permissible to aid others in need and, by extension through the people's will in government, it is morally permissible for governments to try and end human rights abuses – both inside of their borders and outside of them. I have also demonstrated the pragmatic, practical benefits of such intervention, as a bloodless revolution in Poland and the end of apartheid in South Africa were both aided by the external intervention of other countries into their political processes. When you factor in all of this, it becomes clear – intervention into the political affairs of other countries to end human rights absuses is morally permissible, both under our basic system of morals and due to the obligation of governments and the international community. As such, the resolution of this debate (Intervention in the internal political processes of other nations is morally permissible when a goal of the intervention is to halt human rights abuses) is affirmed. I look forward to seeing Con's opening round! References:1. . http://www.invispress.com...2. . https://en.wikipedia.org...3. . https://en.wikipedia.org...4. . http://www.un.org...5. . https://en.wikipedia.org...(Polish_trade_union)6. . http://news.bbc.co.uk...7. . https://en.wikipedia.org...8. . http://books.google.com...9. . https://en.wikipedia.org...10. . http://news.bbc.co.uk...