Promoting world wide democratic principles should be a higher priority than promoting sovereignty.

I affirm: Promoting world-wide democratic principles should be a higher priority than promoting sovereignty. To promote: to contribute to the growth or prosperity of : further (Merriam-Webster) Some brief resolutional analysis: 1. Pro is under no obligation to promote via militaristic action. I simply have the burden to prove that, with regards to priority, there should be some sort of effort to instill democratic ideals prior to national sovereignty. Nor do I need to prove that one should categorically replace the other. 2. Furthermore, Pro is under no obligation to argue pure democratic principles (i.e. a direct democratic system). Democratic principles, in this case, are simply those adopted by representative democracies, such as the U.S. or U.K. systems (and any number of other democratic nations). The primary pro argument is simply that national sovereignty is clearly precluded by that nation being governed by its citizenry. Human rights, which are quintessential to the formation of any just state, must be guaranteed (assuming we look to multi-national declarations and documents, as well as to just about any political philosopher worth our time). In order to ensure this, or at least maximize the recognition of such fundamental rights, democratic ideals must be in place prior to a nation being able to label itself as a sovereign power. Look to John Locke to begin: "The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions…" [1] This is one of several political philosophies which have not only informed just about every democratic nation in the world, but also the UN Declaration of Human Rights, which states similarly: "Article III: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." Though security of person replaces Locke's more defined "possessions," the concept still remains intact. Human beings are entitled to these specific rights, and 192 nations of 203 have affirmed this document as a piece of the world's paramount political guide. [2] [3] Furthermore, being secure in one's person encompasses the original concept of "possessions" as expressed by Locke. More important than Article III, however, is Article II: "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind...no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty." [1] The point of this is simply that a nation's government cannot claim sovereignty in order to reify its oppressive regime, as sovereignty is not just, and cannot exist, unless it is born of a rule of the citizenry. To claim otherwise would be to support every genocide ever conducted, so long as it only took place within a single "sovereign" entity. It would allow nations that hold the principles of human rights and political self-actualization paramount (like the U.S.) to ignore oppressive and dictatorial regimes, rather than using means to allow citizens of every nation to enjoy the rights guaranteed to them as members of the human race. Hence, while sovereignty is an important cog in the machine that is the international geopolitical system, human rights are the lifeblood of that machine, and those rights cannot be realized if sovereignty is held above the pursuit of political self-actualization within a democratic state. Thank you, and I look forward to my opponent's response. [1] http://www.constitution.org... [2] http://www.un.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org...