DDO Tournament - Top Tier: Intervention to Stop Rights Abuses

To open his round, my opponent gives a brief overview of his debate framework. He establishes my burden of proof to prove the resolution, and that he will be trying to undermine it. He gives a succinct overview of his arguments and criteria, and then his contentions - which I appreciate and will respond to in-depth. His two criteria for moral permissibility that he notes in this round are 'utility' and 'sovereignty'. The first is an appeal to utilitarianism, asserting that it simply isn't utilitarian to intervene. Secondly, he asserts that intervention undermines state sovereignty; he first asserts that state sovereignty is established under the social contract, and that government is supposed to protect from outside threats. He says governments have no obligation or right to intervene as they lack the consent of the country they are intervening in. I find these to be odd claims. For one, people don't cede all their rights to government; we may have a social contract with government, but as with all contracts, it comes with obligations and responsibilities for both sides. If one party breaks their side, they can expect to be pressured by higher authorities who are allowed to enforce the contract. In a similar matter, governments have made themselves subject to higher rule - international law. International law is a group of rules nations accept as binding.[1] In a way, this is a contract with the world. My opponent has recognized treaties in R1 and and nations that have signed these treaties are bound to follow their rules, which runs into a key problem with my opponent's side – how are these rules enforced if intervention is not allowed? In the same manner that a man who is beating his wife (a violation of the law[2] that has been set up as part of the social contract) can be held to account, a country can be held to account by the international community. Moreover, as the state agreed to these rules, the people by default consented to them as well.With the framework rebuttal out of the way, I'll rebut each contention my opponent has made. First off, my opponent asserts that human rights abuses are so common that intervention would justify intervening for minor affairs. He asserts that it creates an excuse to invade countries for minor reasons. I find this argument absurd. There is a huge difference between intervening because a country is committing genocide and intervening because a country doesn't have hate speech laws. Why? Public support. Look at the Iraq war, which sparked massive protests even though Iraq was a brutal dictatorship.[3] Imagine the outrage that would happen if Canada decided to attack the US because we don't have laws against hate speech. Clearly, my opponent's concern here is unfounded. Second, I would like to note intervention does not have to involve military action. I noted in my opening round that intervention has led to the end of dictatorships without any military action. The idea that intervention must equal military action is absurd and outdatedMy opponent's second contention is that intervention results in instability. He argues that intervention conflicts with international stability. In particular, his block quote asserts that intervention violates the UN charter. To quote him, “Article 2 (7) further mitigates interference in the sovereign affairs of states by declaring, 'Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state'”. Unfortunately, this is a case of selective quoting – he chops off the bit at the end that says “...or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII”.[4] What are the enforcement measures in Chapter VII? “The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.... Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for [above] would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations”.[5] Far from opposing intervention, the UN Charter actually specifically notes that intervention is acceptable. Aside from this, his argument doesn't work; I've already established intervention as the enforcement measure for breaches of international law, and established this law surpasses the law of any nation. Additionally, instability is only a symptom of bad intervention – I've demonstrated several examples of intervention that cause no instability, aside from the overthrow of oppressive regimes. Accordingly, his argument here is refuted.My opponent's third contention is empiric failures. Firstly, he argues intervention fails to halt violence in the long run. However, his source here is taken bizarrely out of context. The source is selectively quoted and even with the selective quoting agrees intervention stopped violence and displacement. To clarify what it actually says, the source notes that prior to international involvement 1,500 people were killed and 600,000 were uprooted from their homes. Even though R2P did not prevent this from happening, it effectively ended both the violence and displacement. In the aftermath, there was a lack of clarity about what to do to return those displaced, and the Kenyan government was not cooperating fully in returning displaced people. The article closes by saying “R2P is a tool to raise awareness to the obligation we all have when it comes to protection. It should have the support of everyone here.”[6] Far from asserting that R2P failed to stop violence, the source applauds R2P and wants to broaden it in scope. I think we can safely say this argument is refuted.His next assertion is that intervention doesn't deter future abuse. His source, however it is also taken out of context – the article is primarily referring to direct military intervention into regional wars. Even if we assume that intervention in regional wars fails to deter violence, it still doesn't eliminate the whole idea of intervention, as not all human rights abuses are caused in regional wars. Through scenarios I have given, indirect aid to opposition political movements in abusive countries is very effective and results in little to no bloodshed as well as long-term stable democracies. All that aside, the primary goal of intervention is to stop abuses in a certain country – not to deter abuses in all areas.His final assertion is that intervention backfires. To support this, he asserts that the Khmer Rouge wouldn't have taken power in Cambodia if it weren't for US intervention. This fundamentally misunderstands the reasons for their rise, which was caused primarily due to internal political turmoil in Cambodia and armed conflicts between Vietnam and Cambodia – not the US.[7] That aside, the examples I have given resulted in no backfire. I am not defending all intervention, just the principle of it, and I have established smart intervention is effective and safe.My opponent's fourth and fifth contentions are linked - that intervention is bad because nations will go to great lengths to avoid having troops deployed, that direct intervention can result in collateral damage, and that it inflames situations. Unfortunately, this is the case, but that is the case in any war – be it war waged to liberate Europe from the Nazi regime, or war to stop terrorists. It is literally impossible to wage a war with zero civilian casualties, zero property damage, and zero resistance from those supporting the abuses. Consider this scenario; a group of terrorists are hiding in a bunker, and are launching missiles at civilian targets. They have intentionally located their bunker in a civilian area to ward off drone strikes. Is it appropriate to target the bunker with a drone and risk some civilian deaths, or to hold off and risk both civilian deaths and property damage due to the rockets? While this is a lose-lose scenario, the former is clearly better, as the drone strike may cause civilian deaths, but it will prevent far more deaths from rocket fire. Intervention may cause issues, but so does not intervening. Ultimately, the idea that that all intervention is morally impermissible because some intervention has backfired is silly.To sum up: my opponent's opening case isn't very convincing. Many of his arguments take sources out of context, and he mostly doesn't focus on the philosophical merits of intervention, but instead on practical issues with some forms of intervention – which isn't sufficient in and of itself to establish intervention as morally impermissible or even to usurp the resolution. Additionally, his case relies heavily on quotes. Because of these factors, my opponent simply hasn't been able to undermine the resolution and thus the resolution is affirmed.References:1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...2. http://womenshealth.gov...3. http://www.theguardian.com...4. http://www.un.org...5. http://www.un.org...6. http://www.brookings.edu...7. Genocide and International Justice, Rebecca Joyce (page 267)