Should the US intervene to promote democracy?

FogofWar
FogofWar: This is not my debate; but I saw this posted in another forum; it had compelling arguments.
12 years ago Report
1
Comrade_
Comrade_: "intervene" "promote"
...to say if I agree/disagree, I'd need to know the method of "intervening" and how the "promoting" will be done.
12 years ago Report
2
FogofWar
FogofWar: Any form of intervening. Medical, financial, military intervention...any; or all.
12 years ago Report
0
FogofWar
FogofWar: You are free to post opinions; but I do ask to please provide statistical analysis for any claims of facts.
12 years ago Report
0
caramel lady
caramel lady: Hello
America promotes democracy; you can’t be serious sought out your own backyard before messing in others lol
Seriously when there’s a Humanitarian reason yes but there’s countless wars America and other countries have ignored. Plus is it fair on the citizens of that nation i.e America where you have your own Economical and social problems and wars are expensive both in human lives and finacially and only the elite make money So it’s difficult. morally yes but with American and other countries neo liberal history maybe no, more harm than good is normally the way!!! either way if your gone have moral high ground and beleive we live in a globe village yes, but no country should lead and there should be no finacial Incentive for countries who help other countries. It should be done out of a true human desire to help your fellow human not a chance to make financial gains. AS the history books seem to suggest!!!!!
12 years ago Report
2
motherfingsuperwoman
motherfingsuperwoman: I think America needs to start looking out for America.
12 years ago Report
5
Comrade_
Comrade_: No to:
1) forcing Democracy
2) using military to 'promote' it

I also disagree to the US (or any one country) being the one(s) to 'promote' democracy.
12 years ago Report
3
FogofWar
FogofWar: Caveman, your last post reconfirms everything I have been saying of you in our previous discussions.

Yes caramel lady; I am serious.

There are no wars that the US and NATO have ignored. There are wars however that; although we are concerned about; and aware of; we are not in a position to be of help; and it would not benefit us to. We cannot help nations that will continually harm us more and more. If we are not gaining from intervening; then we cannot afford to. Plain and simple.

There are also countless other "wars" or conflicts in which NATO and the UN ARE involved in; and that you haven't the slightest idea of.

Wars do cost money; but intervening to promote democracy MAKES money. It also costs far more money NOT to intervene in several instances. The idea that you should not get involved because their are problems in your own nation are naive and uneducated.


"It should be done out of a true human desire to help your fellow human not a chance to make financial gains."

So should we stop using the tuberculosis vaccine because someone profits from it? Should we stop treating cancer because someone profits from it? Should we close the Shriner's Children's Hospitals because the life saving operations that are performed there are done so for a financial gains?

Think about this:

How can a doctor continue to practice if he does not earn a living?

How can a pharmacist provide you medicine if he is not earning a living?

How can the soldier defend you if he is not earning a living?
12 years ago Report
0
FogofWar
FogofWar: Like I said; I did not come up with this topic; it was taken from debate.org. It is a very informative and thoughtful topic however.

1.According to the Conflict Research Consortium at the University of Colorado, “intervention can take many forms, including political, economic, diplomatic, humanitarian, and military interventions.”[1] Thus, it is not enough for the con to oppose merely one type of intervention, it may be the case that other forms work and do provide substantive benefits. The con opposes all of these.

2.According to Mark Peceny at the University of New Mexico, the U.S. has only engaged in proliberalization military interventions 1/3 of the time and nonliberalization policies 2/3 of the time.[2] Thus, evidence which looks at the former should be preferred over the latter since its more relevant to the topic.
12 years ago Report
0
FogofWar
FogofWar: Arguments:

1C: Military Intervention is successful

Mark Peceny points out that of the countries in which the U.S. intervened to promote democracy and proliberalization policies, seventy percent successfully became democracies.[3] Thus, when the express goal is democratic liberalization, intervention is successful. Peceny concludes, “The evidence presented here shows that target states have rarely democratized if the U.S. failed to adopt proliberalization policies during its interventions, while a majority of states where the U.S. adopted such policies became democracies. Furthermore, states that have experienced proliberalization policies are significantly more likely to be democracies than states that have not shared this experience.”[4]

Moreover, Economist Paul Collier at Oxford University points out that intervening after a conflict also yields substantial benefits. First, “Compared with no deployment, spending $100 million on a peacekeeping initiative reduces the ten-year risk of conflict from around 38% to 16.5%. At $200 million per year, the risk falls further, to around 12.8%. At $500 million, it goes down to 9%, and at $850 million drops to 7.3%.”[5] Second, its net cost-beneficial: “Because of war’s massive costs, each percentage point of risk reduction is worth around $2.5 billion to the world. The most expensive deployment reduces the risk of conflict by a massive 30 percentage points, with ten-year gains of $75 billion, compared to the overall cost of $8.5 billion.”[6]

Thus, intervention to promote democracy is successful, AND intervention to sustain peace in the aftermath is also successful, since it (1) reduces the risk of conflict and (2) yields economic benefits at a very low cost.
12 years ago Report
0
FogofWar
FogofWar: 2C: Power Differentials mean intervention is necessary to support democratic movements

The Small War Jounral explains: “The insurgency’s level of external support influences the groups’ ability to secure weapons, supplies, and funds…Without it, the overwhelming conventional firepower of the state win generally win out.”[7] This is because the autocracy has an established military and is therefore able to crush a rebellion if it is not helped. This is empirically supported by the National Defense Research Institute: “when supported externally, these movements have a 79% chance of success, while without that aid, there is only about a 5% chance of success.”[8] The impact to this may be further seen in the context of Libya, as Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch explains that without US intervention, “Qaddafi’s resulting victory would have signaled to other authoritarian governments from Syria to Saudi Arabia to China that if you negotiate with protesters you lose, but if you kill them you win.”[9] Accordingly, by intervening to ensure democracy, we not only see great successes within the country itself, but ensure the support of democracy and civil rights around the world.
12 years ago Report
0
FogofWar
FogofWar: 3C: More Benefits

First, Democracy prevents genocide

Professor Moore of the University of Virginia explains: empirically, more than 99% of victims of genocide were killed by non-democratic governments; these autocracies have caused 167 million deaths.[10] Thus, democracy fosters the change necessary to prevent genocide and human rights violations, since the inherent nature of democracy is that the people are a check on the government.
12 years ago Report
0
FogofWar
FogofWar: Second, Democratic Peace Theory

The Harvard Belfer Center reports: “Michael Doyle compares all international wars between 1816 and 1980 and a list of liberal states. Doyle concludes that "constitutionally secure liberal states have yet to engage in war with one another." Subsequent statistical studies have found that this absence of war between democracies is statistically significant and is not the result of random chance. Other analyses have concluded that the influence of other variables, including geographical proximity and wealth, do not detract from the significance of the finding that democracies rarely, if ever, go to war with one another.”[11]

This means that if the U.S.intervenes to promote democracy, it decreases the risk of future conflict between these states, and the U.S. It also means the U.S. has leverage over these states, allowing for more cooperation with the U.S.

Therefore, the U.S. should intervene to promote democracy, (1) because it works, (2) because its low cost and yields substantial economic benefits, and (3) because it reduces overall casualties and ensures long term peace.

[1] "Report of Conference Key Findings, Ideas, and Recommendations" in Managing Conflict in the Post-Cold War World: The Role of Intervention. Report of the August 2-6, 1995, Aspen Institute Conference (Aspen, Colorado: Aspen Institute, 1996) pp. 9-26

[2] Mark Peceny, professor at the University of New Mexico, “Democracy at the Point of Bayonets”, 1999

[3] Ibid. pg.207

[4] Ibid.

[5] Collier, Paul. Project Syndicate. “Does Military Intervention Work?”. 4/30/08

[6] Ibid.

[7] Lt. Col. Mike Fowler, Small Wars Journal, "Philippine Counterinsurgency Strategy: Then and Now", 2011

[8] Ben Connable and Martin C. Libicki, RAND Corporation, National Defense Research Institute, "How Insurgencies End", 2010, Page 63

[9] Tom Malinowksi, Human Rights Watch, The New Republic, "The Timeliness Paradox", March 27,2011,
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/85856/the-speed-paradox

[10] Moore, Director of Center for National Security Law @ University of Virginia Law School, 1997 (37 Va. J. Int'l L. 811, Lexis)

[11] Belfer Center. Harvard University. “Why the United States Should Spread Democracy.” 1998. http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/ 2830/why_the_united_states_should_spread_democracy.html
12 years ago Report
0
younlee
younlee: Im no world affairs expert like you Fog but why hasnt the West/NATO/whoever intervened in Burma...it has been 21 years since a democratic goverment was elected only for a military junta to ignore it and nullify the election result...Aung San Suu Kyi was democratically elected by the people..if our mission is to promote democracy around the world why havn't we done it there?
12 years ago Report
0
Comrade_
Comrade_: My point (since I have a mind of my own, and need not copy & paste)

No to:
1) forcing Democracy
2) using military to 'promote' it
- Means by force, kills more civilians. The idea of Democracy is a greek thought. Throughout history our forms of Governance has changed, by understanding. You turn into the same people you are fighting against by forcing Democracy instead of 'promoting' it through understanding.

I also disagree to the US (or any one country) being the one(s) to 'promote' democracy.

-You specifically said the US.
-Leaving one country to be the one to "promote" democracy brings serious concern for the method this country will be "promoting" this democracy and questions will arise about their motives, esp. the sensitive issues of Oil. If an organisation such as the UN for example were given the power to "promote" democracy then it will be more accepted as being an organisation without a Political agenda.
-The US is falling apart economically and can not support a "promotion" of democracy.

PS. When dealing with cultures that are not with a democratic form of government, you have to keep in mind that these are deep rooted cultures & their government will reflect this and not everyone in those countries will support democracy.
I'll not support another forcing crusade.
12 years ago Report
3
davidk14
davidk14: .

Caveman said: If an organization such as the UN for example were given the power to "promote" democracy then it will be more accepted as being an organization without a Political agenda.

David responds: Are you smokin cw$x~??? The UN is a organization without a political agenda??? You’re kidding right??? Please tell me you are kidding. Maybe I read your sentence wrong.

.
12 years ago Report
0
Comrade_
Comrade_: David, pay attention I used the UN as an example.
If the authority was given to an organisation (as the UN is an international organisation), with the input of representatives of the world instead of giving that authority to one country.
12 years ago Report
0
Comrade_
Comrade_: Authorisation needed for "promoting" democracy:

1) Permission to invade another country (physically)
2) Changing another country's Governance & Culture (Democracy wouldn't ONLY be changing politics but in a subtle way it will also change culture)
3) Deciding which country to "promote" democracy to.
4) Is democracy a suitable form of government for that country.
5) Creating a criteria and reason for "promoting" democracy in that country.
...there will be other authorisation that would be needed, but you get the idea.


Wouldn't it be democratic to include the world in this decision than to give that authority to ONE country (since the OP only stated the US) ?

Less questions and less room for corruption and more transparency.


Edit for clarity & to add #4
12 years ago Report
0
Comrade_
Comrade_: * Would also need to know if the people in the countries without democracy are either for or against it. Being careful not to generalize or give into propaganda. I think they need to have a say in whether they want democracy, don't be surprise if there are people who will reject that form of government.
12 years ago Report
0
davidk14
davidk14: .

Do you really think that governments that are not democratic want to change? Of course they don't.


You either support and promote personal freedom and liberty for all or you don't.

.
12 years ago Report
0
Comrade_
Comrade_: Copy & paste the section that I either said/insinuate this. (If the "you" was meant for me, because no where did I suggest that the Government of the said country should have a say)


"You either support and promote personal freedom and liberty"

Be reminded that the topic is "Should the US INTERVENE to PROMOTE Democracy"
Which is a form of government and not a campaign slogan. The issue is more than if Democracy is good or bad, it is IF the US should be given the authority to intervene to promote a form of government onto another country. Everyone knows what Democracy is and what it aims to promote, what is said on paper isn't always as easy as what happens in real life. You have to take things into consideration
Intervening to promote Democracy means more that whether get's "freedom and liberty."

(Fog's posting from the website shows the view of the person who lost the debate, the person who won the debate made some good points too, but I'm not going to reinvent the wheel and copy&paste)
12 years ago Report
0
davidk14
davidk14: .

Does anyone really think that governments that are not democratic want to change? Of course they don't.


We either support and promote personal freedom and liberty for all or we don't.


Regarding your question, I need to find the words to respond and need to think about it for awhile so as not to sound like an empire builder. I understand where you are going with this topic. You are a few 'moves' ahead of me right now.

.
12 years ago Report
0
davidk14
davidk14: .

"Should the US INTERVENE to PROMOTE Democracy?"

If anyone is looking for a simple yes or no answer, it is not that easy to answer even though many might think it is. In our recent history the US has been invited into a country either to support a government in repelling anti- democratic forces or invited into a country by those trying to install a democratic government. In both scenarios, very messy.

What are the attributes in installing a democratic government and who would not want these principles?

For those that want modern democracy, a country needs to fulfill some basic requirements and they need not only be written down in its constitution but must be kept up in everyday life by politicians. There must be a guarantee of basic Human Rights to every individual person as well as a Separation of Powers between the institutions of the state specifically the executive, legislative and judicial powers and that no one institution can overwhelm another. There also needs to freedom of speech and the press, the right to vote, and a focus on the public interest and an absence of corruption.


There are other forms of government where the people have no say in whether they want it or not. It is forced upon them. The opposite of a democratic government are five basic types of government: Monarchy – A government by a a single ruler…Aristocracy – A government ruled by nobleman…Oligarchy – a government ruled by a few persons…Theocracy – A government by religious leaders, and a Dictatorship – A government by people who have seized power by force usually be military force.


These five forms of government are completely opposite to the democratic form of government.


A number of years ago, Winston Churchill said:

"There is no such thing as the "perfect form of government" on earth, but any other form of government produces even less desirable results than democracy..."

Again there is no easy yes or no answer to the question. Let’s reverse the question for a moment. Should the US ignore requests for support including boots on the ground by a government that is repelling anti-democratic forces? Should the US ignore the request of the people of a country that want to have a democratic form of government but the dictatorship is brutally keeping the will of the people under foot? As I said earlier, the US has been involved in both of these scenarios and they became very messy. Currently, Egypt and Syria come to mind. The US is intervening in Egypt, but not in Syria or Iran. The US was involved in the Serbian conflict but did nothing to stop the Darfur slaughter. There is currently no consistency.

Some believe that the US should not get involved at anytime and that the UN and NATO should be the bodies that determine who will or won’t be supported. Unfortunately, all the thug nations are involved with the UN so that body is compromised. NATO is primarily funded and operated by the US and is outdated since it was created during the cold war to keep the USSR in check in Europe.

Perhaps an organization like The Center for Democracy which promotes and practices bipartisan initiatives by citizens voluntarily for the public good could be the foundation of a non-governmental organization funded by those that support democracy. Perhaps this non-military organization, properly funded can promote on a large scale freedom and liberty.

Unfortunately, that pesky question re-arises…

When a government is abusing its citizens and talk will not stop the abuse as in Darfur, who should stop the carnage? The UN? That’s not reality.

I would like to think that the US would want to ride in and save the day along with others that believe in the same goals of life and liberty.

So, if I am forced to answer this complex question with a yes or no…I would have to draw a line in the sand and answer yes.

.
12 years ago Report
0
Comrade_
Comrade_: You stated Egypt and Syria, but to my knowledge the US did not intervene to promote democracy in these countries.
For Egypt their "success" is on its own military intervention & the protest by its citizens, young people who pressed for a change.
According to BBC : "the US is "Mr Mubarak's most influential Western ally, and has been caught in a serious bind. Should it live up to its professed desires for democracy or support the Egyptian president for fear of loss of influence and what might follow his overthrow?
It (US) has been able to exert little influence beyond calling for an "orderly transition" at the earliest opportunity."

[I'm looking at it from the pre-protests in these two contries till after the overthrows]

In both cases, no boots (outside military) came in to intervene

Interesting Facts:
1) The pro-democratic Arabian people in Tunisia was successful in overthrowing their autocratic ruler. (as far as I know, this was done without Western/European intervention)
2) The list of Non-democratic countries are not limited to the Middle East.


(I would be interested in knowing the names of the countries that requested support from the US.)
12 years ago Report
0
davidk14
davidk14: .

Caveman said: You stated Egypt and Syria, but to my knowledge the US did not intervene to promote democracy in these countries.

David responds: Not in Syria and that’s the problem. Who do you think is bombing the crap out of Kaddafi? The US has spent over a billion dollars for the US military bombing the crap out of that government to help the ‘people’ overthrow that regime for over 90 days. Where have you been?

Caveman said: For Egypt their "success" is on its own military intervention & the protest by its citizens, young people who pressed for a change.

David responds: The dictator in Algeria was forced from office by a people’s revolt, and it was all caught on TV and the internet.

Yes, the US felt that a “humanitarian crisis” was imminent in Libya and supported the protesters and called for the government to resign. But what about the “humanitarian crisis” in Syria where “they are” killing their own people is occurring? Same for Iran.


Inflation, joblessness, hopelessness for those living in countries where opportunity is for the tiny ruling elite fueling frustrations from Algiers to Amman, from Tripoli to and Damascus to Iran and now even North Korea is feeling the effect recently fearing a student revolt and closed all Universities and forcing the students to do hard labor.

The issue is that the US supported the Egyptian revolt and is currently militarily involved in the overthrow of the government in Libya but is not interested in getting involved with the people’s revolt in Syria and Iran where thousands of students, men, women and children have been killed and where human rights groups have asked for intervention to stop the slaughter. No military response from the US or the rest of the world as in Lybia to actively support these people from being killed by their governments much less any real help to transition to democracy.

.
12 years ago Report
0
Comrade_
Comrade_: hmm I think you're confusing governments.

Syria:
-President Bashar al-Assad
-the people's pro-democracy revolution was influenced by Egypt & Tunisia, and other hardship faced in their country.
-He used military extreme force on unarmed protesters (killing most, idk the figures)
-The President has supporters from within the Syrian people (this is important to note)
-The government & the military are not separate entities.
-The EU poses sanctions against Syria
-No intervention by the EU/UK/US

Egypt:
-President Hosni Mubarak
-Mubarak stepped down from the pressure from: the protestors of that country (the Muslim Brotherhood also played a role)
-The Military of Egypt played a major role too, they promised not to use force on the protesters and they remained neutral unlike the Syrian military.
-No intervention by the EU/UK/US

Libya is different country.
12 years ago Report
0
Page: 12345678910 ... Last