Intervening to create democracy in third-world countries is the obligation of capable societies

And so we enter the final round. During this time I’ll first sweep away some glaring flaws in my opponent’s argument, then try and bring a sense of closure to the ideas that I brought up. Con’s Case Are there good reasons to believe that intervention is not an obligation? I think not. Con raises two arguments, one of which is D. O. A, and the other which is fraught with difficulty. Con’s argument from cost can be reasonably ignored, since it has been demonstrably refuted. The core of his argument is that “the cost of intervening in all 55 of these [authoritarian regimes] as well as against rising superpower China would be staggering to the United States and would completely demolish our standing in the world. ” This argument can’t hold any water in a debate where the topic is about obligation based on capacity. Con rightly points out that if America tried to unilaterally intervene in a country like China it wouldn’t work, in other words, that America is not capable of doing this. However, this argument is self-contradictory in a debate about capacity - a society capable of intervention that is not capable of sustaining the cost is a self-contradiction, like a married bachelor or a jobless employee. Over the course of the debate Con has accused me of making unfounded assertions, but Con has actually made plenty himself, especially in this argument. He says that “granted the certainty of disapproval from the UN over the prospect of directly intervening against all non-democracies this will lead to the US inevitably committing unilateral aggression” Plenty of multilateral agreement has happened outside of the UN. Continuing with Con’s America-centric view of the world, America has strong connections with many countries in the world, notwithstanding its special relationship with England. There is no need for America to pursue a global takeover on its own. Notice too how Con has misread my rebuttal to this point in Round 4 – at no point did I say I was against toppling Saddam Hussein. My argument is that America was not motivated to intervene in Iraq because of Saddam, but because of oil. If oil had not been a factor, I think intervention would have better ground to stand on. Con’s only other point is the lack of inherent superiority in democracy. Con and I are in a head-to-head contest to show whether democracy is a superior system of governance. The only problem is, Con comes with no alternative, and his argument is really just a rebuttal to my second point. Back in Round 2 he asked me to give a two-pronged case, one prong of which was to show democracy was inherently superior. So, belatedly, here it is: Premise 1: Democracy offers comparably good protection against violations of human rights Premise 2: Other systems of governance do not offer comparably good protection against violations of human rights Conclusion: Democracy is the best protection a country can have against violators of human rights Con’s rebuttal seems to focus on democracy’s shortcomings, but nowhere does he give a comparison to other models and their treatment of human rights, and I think we can read a lot into his silence on this. Con is welcome to advocate a rival system of governance, but unless and until he does, we should all accept the conclusion. Pro’s Case Having explored Con’s case, we must now ask ourselves if there are good reasons to think that intervention is an obligation. I’ve given you successful arguments that solidify each point of the topic, and Con’s attempts to rail against these points have come up short. First, I presented “can implies ought”. Con has recently charged me with not making a case for accepting it, i. e. asserting without evidence. Did he miss my argument in Round 4? In case you did too, let’s have another look… (by the way, this is prong 2 of 2) Premise 1: Agents encounter situations where ethical responsibility is in play (We must make a choice) Premise 2: An agent does good by choosing outcomes where their ethical responsibility is intact (To help is to do good) Premise 3: Excepting limited time or resources, agents have no sufficient reason not to do good (We should help unless we are already helping someone else) Conclusion 1: Agents with the ability to help in a given situation have ethical responsibility to help (Can implies ought) Note that Con has not interacted at all with this argument, so I am taking it he has no objection to make to it. He has the liberty to attack any of the 3 premises of the argument in Round 5, but unless and until he does, we must assume that the principle is now accepted by Con. Next, I made a point that democracy is the best system of governance to ensure human rights are protected. I could have made other points about democracy, such as its stability or representation, but I chose human rights protection because it is almost exclusively the violation of human rights that gives any legitimacy to an intervention. For example, a country whose companies pillage the economic resources of that country would not be intervened, at least not in the active sense I’m talking about. As I said before, Con has had plenty of time to present a different system of governance as better than democracy at protecting human rights. This would have been the simplest rebuttal to the point, but he has not done this. Let this speak volumes to you that democracy does the best job. Remember that if democracy is the best system of governance to protect human rights, we do a good thing to displace a system that is relatively poor at protecting human rights. So then, why do we need intervention to create democracy, why can’t countries just set it up themselves? The answer is because citizens are incapable of establishing democracy on their own. The average Joe who isn’t permitted to freely speak his mind is likely to be cut down by police or surveillance groups if he tries to bring people together to create change. I couldn’t think of a more perfect example than Morgan Tsvangirai, the Zimbabwean farmer turned suppressed political voice. Once a part of a farming board, Tsvangirai rose to prominence because he spoke for the people. He wanted to get Mugabe overthrown for the unjust allocation of farms to anybody who called themselves a veteran from the civil war of the 1970s. Long story short, Tsvangirai has been arrested, tortured, mocked and vilified by the Mugabe government. After more than ten years of political activism, Tsvangirai is still determined to depose Mugabe, but while voting systems are rigged, Mugabe won’t leave power until he dies. Con makes no comment on the nepotism that is rife in third world countries, and insists that I’m baldly asserting that the wealth and resources of a country are found in people who will do anything to protect their privileged position. Do I really have to remind Con of Africa’s post-independence nightmares, or mention military juntas like Myanmar (pre-November) and Fiji? These political systems need to retire themselves to history and let their people be free. In his rebuttal to Point 5 we see Con’s favourite straw man appear again, that obligation is not limited by capability. The inverse of can implies ought is can’t implies needn’t, but Con is still convinced that I’m arguing that all third world countries should be intervened at once, like some terrestrial version of Mars Attacks. Need I say anything more? To summarise, I have given Con the two-pronged case he requested to see, and Con has failed to make a substantive objection or case of his own. For this reason, you owe me your vote. That concludes my case. Thank you, Con, for a lively first debate. I’ve appreciated your clarification (and patience! ) and feel welcomed into the DDO community. I look forward to a challenge from you to debate Point 6 on your terms which I leave to you to instigate if you wish.