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

Analysis [1] What is the third world? The third world can be described as countries with two-interrelated factors: the first is that of non-alignment during the Cold War, and the second is low prosperity economics. The first world was the allies of the U.S, the second world was the satellite states and allies of the USSR, and the third world was of non-alignment. Con Case C1: U.S. Primacy/Hegemony maximizes the spread of democracy [2] Kagan writes, “History shows that the distribution of world power at the top affects the course of smaller and weaker nations across the globe.” Between the 1970s and 1990s, with a decrease in soviet influence, the number of democracies increased to 120, well over half the world’s nation population. U.S. Primacy was necessary for this 3rd and continuing wave of democracy: in the 1970s and onward the U.S. reversed its policy of aiding dictatorships financially and militarily which was critical for regime survival; the U.S. compelled the international order to protect human rights in the Eastern bloc and other Soviet satellite states; Carter promoted democracy in the Dominican Republic and Reagan in Granada; the U.S. prevented military coups in Honduras, Bolivia, El Salvador, Peru and South Korea; the U.S. influence on governments such as Poland, Chile, Portugal and Taiwan gave the edge necessary for democratic victory. The list goes on. Here is a short list with explanations: Granada: Reagan used direct military intervention to prevent a coup and to assist American’s in a hostage situation. President Bishop had first established himself in a coup during a tumultuous attempt at democracy, but the reign was short lived. A member of his own party attempted a coup which threatened U.S. citizenry. As such, direct intervention resulted in the displacement of the Marxist-military government and helped establish democracy. Dominican Republic: Carter threatened military action against the sitting President who nulled elections, frauded elections, and who refused to give up power. Moreover, in 1965, direct military action prevented a coup from establishing power in the Dominican Republic. Philippines: In 1968, the U.S., by threatening military action, prevented Marcos from destabilizing the newly established democratic constraints on the government. Marcos attempted to remain in power by nulling the elections. Panama: Bush’s military intervention prevented an internal power-grab by Noriega and the military. They had previously attempted to null elections and establish themselves as the ruling elite. Honduras and Bolivia: In both countries, the military attempted to seize control of the government through a coup. The U.S. in both cases threatened military action if the military attempted to overthrow the government. In Honduras, the U.S. sent troops to prevent Nicaraguan aid in the overthrow. El Salvador: Anti-government insurgents tried to destabilize the transitioning democratic government through guerilla warfare. The U.S. assisted the government by sending tactioners and military strategists to counter the insurgency. With U.S. assistance the insurgency movement was dismantled. Haiti: In Operation Uphold Democracy U.S. military intervention reestablished the democratically elected President who was deposed by a military coup in 1991. Egypt: The Obama Administration formally renounced ties with Mubarak which led to his overthrow and imprisonment by democratic protestors with the aid of the military. The government is currently in transition. Libya: The U.S. along with the Europeans aided the democratic rebels in the overthrow of Qadaffi. The government is currently in transition to a democracy assisted by Western monitors and other human rights agencies. C2: Authoritarian Expansionism [3] [4] Within the current regime of international affairs there are essentially three main players (in order of influence): The United States, China and Russia. China has been increasing its influence in Africa by propping up dictators in exchange for raw materials, China’s support of the Iranian regime in exchange for oil and China’s support of weak communist nations in Asia such as North Korea, Vietnam and Laos. If the U.S. loses primacy the result will most likely be a rapid retroaction of the Arab Spring, the collapse of democratic movements in the post-U.S.S.R. states and pretty much no chance for democracy in Africa. Moreover, Russia has been destabilizing the move of the former-Soviet States from authoritarianism to democracy, a move which was fostered by the U.S. when the USSR collapsed. In the Middle East Russia has been pivotal in preventing the collapse of the Assad Regime (making the prospect of democracy there improbable) and has also been aiding the Iranian’s in military capability expansion. Pro Case C1: Iran My opponent makes the argument that the U.S. instituted a dictator (the Shah) in Iran however this example is non-topical because depending on your analysis Iran is either a first or second world nation. Moreover, from an economic standpoint they are considered first world due to the capital gained from oil and OPEC. C2/3: Guatemala and Chile Ill concede that Guatemala and Chile was a mistake in terms of U.S. intervention, however this example does not prove on balance that the U.S. is detrimental to third-world democracies. Underview Points First, the analysis my opponent provides cannot be applied to U.S. foreign policy today since our foreign policy is dominated by neoconservative rather than realist doctrine. Realist doctrine was our policies during the Cold War, especially under Kissinger, where short-term goals of preventing the spread of Communism outweighed long-term impacts such as the repression of right-wing dictators. Today, however, our foreign policy follows the neoconservative doctrine which indicates that long-term stability through democracy promotion outweighs any potential short-term blowback. We can see this to be the case with the Clinton Administration with their actions in Balkans, the Bush Administration in the Middle East and the Obama Administration in Northern Africa. Thus, under the status quo neocon foreign policy the U.S. is not a threat. Second, U.S. intervention was the reason that soft-Soviet dominance was prevented in Latin America. Nelson writes, “Additionally, the Latin American armed forces...trained under the guidance of U.S. advisers...So the sum of U.S. hegemony in this hemisphere is a formidable obstacle to Soviet penetration, for although U.S. influence may be weakening, by comparison with that of any other nation, including the U.S.S.R., it is awesome.” Essentially Nelson makes the point that one factor that prevented U.S. dominance in the area was constant U.S. economic and military intervention which made influence improbable. And this prevented hard-line communist takeoever which was a good thing. It was good because hard-line communist governments are the most oppressive on their people. The democide count for communist governments are in the hundreds of millions, and in terms of an example of Latin America Cuba to this day continues to be one of the most repressive regimes. Third, my oppont has failed to meet his burden in proving the resolution true. Even disregarding all the examples of positive U.S. intervention for democray, the vast majority of non-intervention would prove that the U.S. is not detrmental. Accounting for the 120 emergent democracies, the U.S. has intervened in only a minimal amount. Examples of non-intervention include India, Malyasia, Indonesia, Turkey, Sri Lanka, many other Caribb Islands, etc. [1] http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com... [2] Kagan. The World America Made. [3] http://www.newstimeafrica.com... [4] http://www.cbc.ca... [5] http://www.airpower.au.af.mil...