Foreign Interventionism is preferable to non-interventonism

*As a note, foreign policy is my main concentration of study so my sources are mostly academic sources which cant be accessed from the normal database. But I provided the cites anyway if their legitimacy is questioned.* I look forward to a great round. I affirm: Foreign Interventionism is preferable to non-interventionism Observation: We both have equal burden of proofs, so my opponent must make a case for non-interventionism as well as refuting my own case. C1: US GLOBAL WITHDRAWAL AND NON-INTERVENTIONISM Many opponents of interventionism make the claim that withdrawing from the world-stage would reduce hostilities. This, however, is naive and based on flawed calculating models. To put this into perspective, let us look at some areas of the world. In Asia: Japan, Taiwan and South Korea would all have incentives to develop nuclear weapons as a way to deter their rivals, China and North Korea. This being the case if Chinese expansionism and North Korean expansionism doesn't occur first. The regional competition and instability between India and Pakistan would most likely increase without the US being the mediator. And in the Middle East: Iran could continue the creation of nuclear weapons without much hindrance. This plus the fact that Iran has the strongest conventional military in the Middle East would make Iran a regional hegemon. Saudi Arabia without the assistance of the US could not compete. And this would probably create an arms race in the Middle East. [1] All of these scenarios threaten economic security and US national security as well. Moreover, the situations would probably become so volatile that the US would be thrust back onto the world stage, but this time at a disadvantage because we would have let others take our place. It is important to note that US Withdrawal from the global arena would leave the world apolar, which means that no power is dominant. This may seem good prima facie, however that is not the case. Apolarity only exacerbates regional tensions and conflicts because no oversight exists. Moreover, it would cause the greater powers to seek the new role, which at this time is most likely China or Russia. If people think the US being a hegemon is bad, think about China or Russia militarily and economically dominating the world. [1] Robert J. Lieber (Professor of Government and International Affairs @ Georgetown University) 2005 The American Era: Power and Strategy for the 21st Century p 53-4 C2: HEGEMONIC STABILITY THEORY A) Spread of Democracy. The US being the soft and hard power leader of the globe is the only State with the ability to effectively promote and deliver democracy to other nations throughout the world. The notion of bandwagoning, which was condemned by the left, is now seen as to be true. Iraq and Afghanistan are now democracies, and that has spurred youth movements in other areas of the Middle East. This can be seen in Egypt, Libya, Bahrain, Tunisia and Algeria. Without the US at the forefront, the global democratic movement would probably cease to exist, seeing as Europe's only true capacity is when the US is leading any type of operation. By accepting a policy of non-interventionism, the apolar world would most likely see an increase in depotic regimes which might result in failed states. This is true because people will seek protection from their own governments since the US would not be there to protect them anymore. Democracy spreads when there is international stability, not the other way around. [2] B) Stopping of rivalries. The threat of interventionism curbs regional hegemons from increasing power and also from wars sparking between rivalries. Since no country could match the power of the US, states seek their own survival first by submitting themselves, explicitly or implicitly to the US. A few empirical examples would be Turkey and Greece, the Arabs and the Israelis, North Korea and South Korea, China and Taiwan, Japan and China, former USSR States and Russia. [2] C) Spread of Free Trade. It is pointed by scholars that free trade really only works and is embraced when the world is unipolar. This is true because the hegemon sees economic benefits from free trade, which by extension increases capital flow and wealth globally. However, when the international system is NOT unipolar, protectionism increases and free trade decreases. Moreover, with the increased power of regional hegemons, fvital trade ways may be blocked off as a way to economically cripple the great powers and also the global economy in general. This could be the case with both Iran having regional power over the Middle East and thus the tradeways there and in the Indian Ocean, and North Korea with the Asian waterways. [2] Thus, interventionism is a prerequisite for libertarian, free trade ideals. C2) Free Trade is good. "...international trade and investment are not to blame for downturns in the economy and may, in fact, be moderating the business cycle. In recent decades, as foreign trade and investment have been rising as a share of the U.S. economy, recessions have actually become milder and less frequent...Other countries that have opened themselves to global markets have been less vulnerable to financial and economic shocks. Countries that put all their economic eggs in the domestic basket lack the diversification that a more globally integrated economy can fall back on to weather a slowdown...economies that trade less with other countries are more prone to sudden stops and to currency crises...Access to foreign capital markets can allow domestic producers and consumers alike to more easily borrow to tide themselves over during difficult times." [3] [2] Bradley A. Thayer, November/December, 2006 "In Defense of Primacy," Issue 86 [3] Griswold, ‘8 [Daniel, Director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, June 3, "Worried About a Recession? Don't Blame Free Trade," http://www.freetrade.org...] C3: INTERVENTION GOOD By embracing non-interventionism, the US will take a backseat to other nations including China, Russia, the EU and Japan. This puts the US at the whims of other nation's agendas and not its own. Multilateralism is the fuse for global inefficiency and just terrible mistakes. US dominance, however, is the precursor to all military operations abroad and all humanitarian operations as well. The other option besides a concert-like system seen before WW1 would be a dividing of influence, which would also be undesirable because it would give China and Russia free reign over the EU and also the middle east would be dominated by Iran. This would not be sufficient in containing regional wars and aspiring regional hegemons. [3] Moreover, only the US has the economic and military prowess necessary to deter regional warfare. Regional nations fear US involvement as an as such are deterred from any great attempt at expansionism. This is seen with North Korea who is all talk and this point and has done very few provocative actions, besides a few naval encounters and the use of bombardments. However as soon as the US threatens to intervene, North Korea has always backed down. This deterrence is necessary to prevent other powers from themselves intervening which could embroil the US in larger conflicts. Thus minor intervention is preferable to necessary large scale intervention, e.g. US entering WW2. [4] [4] John M. Owen IV, Assistant Professor of Government and Foreign Affairs at the University of Virginia, 2002 "Transnational Liberalism and U.S. Primacy," INTERNATIONAL SECURITY 26.3 (2002) 117-152 [5] Zbigniew Brzezinski (Counselor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and a professor of foreign policy @ Johns Hopkins) 2004 "The Choice: Global Domination or Global Leadership" p 19-20