Should the us have responsibility in aid and resolve conflicts abroad in different countries.

OBV 1 The resolution requires me to explain why the US should have the responsibility to aid foreign countries and resolve conflicts abroad. In other words, I have to prove that the US needs to be involved in foreign affairs and destroy the idea of isolationism, which is the idea that the US should stay completely out of foreign affairs and only act within its own borders. If I prove this, then I fulfill my burden of proof and win the debate. My opponent has to prove the opposite, that the US should not involve itself in foreign politics when relating to aid or other foreign problems not on US soil, and that there are clear benefits to do so. Framework As all policy plans, we need to view today’s debate through the idea of utilitarianism, or the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people. We need to discard any nativist understanding that US lives are more important than others, that is simply not true. However, I will show that there are unique benefits to being an active player in foreign affairs that would disappear by my opponent’s advocacy. Nevertheless, remember that all lives matter when we are talking about policy initiatives. C1: Security By giving up all hegemony in regions where US influence is high already is a dangerous act that will have negative consequences should one affirm the resolution. I offer 2 examples of how US neutrality will damage global security. A. South China Sea The Wilson Quarterly in Spring of 2013 refutes the idea of isolationism outright by explaining the possible dangers. For instance, without any presence militarily in China, it can continue to impede on the sovereignty of other nations in its bid to gain control of the South China Sea (1). In fact, with no military presence near China, we can expect high levels of tension that can and will result in naval skirmishes from neighboring countries. The Council of Foreign Relations author Bonnie Glaser in April of 2012 goes further, specifying some of the disputes that led to higher tension in the Asian region. One of them involves the Philippines, where a Presidential spokesperson for the filipino government used the legal precedent of the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty with the Philippines and US that stated the following to express that the US has an obligation to help: "Each Party recognizes that an armed attack in the Pacific Area on either of the Parties would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common dangers in accordance with its constitutional processes."By backing down, we lose our already decrepit image of a national superpower and undermines our credibility with other key allies in Asia (2). These alliances are necessary to limit the loss of lie within the international conflict as per my framework. The fact is, with little to no US influence there will be no compromise, and we leave a gap for China to continue its conquest of countries for the sole purpose of oil and energy resources while threatening the sovereignty of other nations like the Philippines. The Council of Foreign Relations continue, explaining that without US influence in the countries in the South China Sea, there would be 1 of 2 results. I. The countries give into Chinese demands, furthering Chinese interest against the US or; II. The countries embark in an arms race to protect themselves from China with a gained mistrust with the US. (2) Neither of these are good for US interests as both increase the likeliness of conflict, hurt our relations with our allies, or strengthen the abusive regime of China. This even harms us economically. Of the $5.2 trillion of trade in the South China Sea, $1.2 trillion is ours (2).Should a conflict occur, regional economies would suffer and the US loses out on trade with developing and developed economies that could benefit both the US and the trade recipient. B. Middle East Our presence in the Middle East is an important factor that could help stymie the growth of the Islamic State and push other countries to act in favor of those who are displaced and/or victimized with the Syrian conflict. In the status quo, however, we are neglecting any opportunity to help. Sammer Attar of the Washington Post in October of 2016 talks about the conflict in Aleppo, a key city with a huge population in the Northern part of Syria. Specifically, the barrel bombings on hospitals, schools, and homes resulting in hundreds of injured and killed people. Many of them were children. The US, British, and French forces were greenlighting this in the effort to remain neutral and focus on diplomacy (3). However, as one would probably realize, diplomatic relations are an impossibility at the moment. Reuters in October of 2016 talks of the most recent violation of the many ceasefires that were attempted (4). Inaction is unacceptable. If Russia and Syria are not going to move and there are hundreds of people at stake, then there needs to be an initiative to seal the victory for the US initiative and to build up the broken infrastructure due to the destructive bombing. The stability in the Middle East is also important to the national security of the US. Sebastian and Katharine Gorka of the New York Post in November of 2015 lays out exactly how likely an attack like the one in Paris could happen in the US. The results are startling, as in a 20 month period there was a 300% increase in terrorist arrests in the US (5). Clearly, this type of behavior is indicative of a grasp that ISIS has on the US. This comes in the form of recruitment of naive people on social media. Mary Weaver of the New York Times in April of 2015 goes deeper, explaining that roughly half of ISIS’ fighting force are from foreign countries, roughly 4,000 of them coming from the West (6). If the US wants to protect its domestic security, then fighting ISIS overseas is the best possible way to decrease the strength of the terrorist group. By getting rid of ISIS, we get rid of the threat of any attack from the Islamic State on the US. In summation, there has to be foreign policy initiatives to support national and global security in both the Middle East and in Asia. C2: Aid My opponent’s advocacy implies aid to foreign countries to be worthless to the US. However, this is far from the case. Sean Coughlan reports from the BBC in February of 2014 about a recent study on the funding to Sub-Saharan Africa from the US to counter the HIV problem. The point of the study was to find what effect aid has on the country’s opinion of the US. The results show a positive influence by giving aid and increasing global opinion about a certain nation, especially in the case of Sub Saharan Africa which started to support the US more after the aid was given and shown to be effective. In fact, the study concluded it to be a real foreign policy tool that could be of use in the future (7). Not only are there clear soft power gains for the US, but also economic ones as well. Tom Bussen of University News in April of 2013 explains this, showing that foreign aid increases buyers of US product, which is why 95% of US trading partners were at one time US aid recipients, and why 45% of our aid goes to developing economies (8). Increased exports of US product mean more money in the pocket of US business, but also more US jobs. The Department of Commerce released a statement on March of 2015, commenting on the fact that export jobs account for over 11 million jobs in 2014 (9). These jobs would all disappear without any aid or trade to other countries. Remember, aid is an indicator of future trade with the US, so we should protect the avenue of which companies sell products, and our domestic jobs. C3: United Nations This is probably obvious to my opponent, but the US is a part of the international community known as the UN. He/She also understands that by completely withdrawing from all international affairs we would also be withdrawing from the UN. This is a disastrous idea as it means withdrawing from an important platform that allows countries to work multilaterally to achieve a goal. If you want an example, Ted Piccone of the Brookings Institute would gladly suffice. As he reports in April of 2011, great success was made with multilateral agreements with the UN Human Rights Council which, among other things: I. Started an investigation of human rights violations in Libya II. A commission was created to look at the recent standoff with someone in political office not standing down after a recent election in Côte d’Ivoire III. Other mandates to study the use of torture,freedom of expression, and violence against women were all extended for another 3 years (10). This type of action could not happen without the US leading the diplomatic talks. By withdrawing from the UN this progress could be undone. Also, it is important to understand exactly why the UN Security Council is so important. Jessica Rettig of the US News and World Report in October of 2009 explains the importance of the UN Security Council as it has been an effective body to ease international tensions with peacekeeping missions. Also, there is an increasing importance that all of the major powers are on the same page at countering international issues that threaten security (11). We lose our opportunity to act multilaterally in a way that can bring a positive outcome. That is why you affirm. Conclusion With our security, aid, and involvement in the UN on the line, I must ask that the judge vote in the affirmation to prevent harm coming to the American government and people as well as those in foreign countries who would face adversity by my opponent’s advocacy. Sources 1. (http://tinyurl.com...)2. (http://tinyurl.com...)3. (http://tinyurl.com...)4. (http://tinyurl.com...)5. (http://tinyurl.com...)6. (http://tinyurl.com...)7. (http://tinyurl.com...)8. (http://tinyurl.com...)9. (http://tinyurl.com...)10. (http://tinyurl.com...)11. (http://tinyurl.com...)