EVAZON

IMPERIALISM K ANSWERS

INDEX
Strategy Notes and Misc................................................................................................................................................2 Imperialism Good Its inevitable................................................................................................................................3 Imperialism Good Its inevitable EXT....................................................................................................................4 Imperialism Good Terrorism......................................................................................................................................5 Imperialism Good Terrorism......................................................................................................................................6 Imperialism Good Security Agreements....................................................................................................................7 Imperialism Good Security Agreements....................................................................................................................8 Imperialism Good Prolif Bad.....................................................................................................................................9 Imperialism Good Prolif Bad...................................................................................................................................10 Imperialism Good Prolif Bad EXT.......................................................................................................................11 Imperialism Good Economy/Poverty.......................................................................................................................12 Imperialism Good Economy/Poverty.......................................................................................................................13 Imperialism Good Democracy.................................................................................................................................14 Imperialism Good Capitalism..................................................................................................................................15 Imperialism Good Civil Wars in Sub-Saharan Africa.............................................................................................16 Imperialism Good Genocide Bad.............................................................................................................................17 Imperialism Good Genocide Bad Moral Obligation To Act................................................................................18 Future Population Growth Worsens Problems............................................................................................................19 A2: Imperialism is expensive..................................................................................................................................20 US Key.........................................................................................................................................................................21 A2: Luttwak conflict burn out..................................................................................................................................22 A2: Vietnam OR Why Spanos' fetish is wrong..........................................................................................................23 A2: Nation-building fails.............................................................................................................................................24 A2: They dont want us there Its not imperialism if they dont resist...................................................................25 Cultural Imperialism Good Solves Terrorism..........................................................................................................26

EVAZON

IMPERIALISM K ANSWERS

Strategy Notes and Misc.

There are 8 impact turn modules in this file. You dont need to run them all each round. You just need an impact thats bigger than the Ks impact. So if you think you will be hearing the Imperialism K a lot you might want to save some of the modules so people cant block them all out for next time they debate you and run the same K. Some of the A.) cards have multiple potential impacts in them, so read them and pull different impact cards to read if you want. I just chose impacts that would be big and give you offense against their impacts. It would behoove you to read impact calculus cards (not provided here) so they dont pull some kind of deontological impact calculus argument out of thin air in the 2NC or 1NR to try and get out of your sweet strategy. Or you can read the genocide bad impact module with the Vetlesen card. The Civil Wars module can also be used as offense versus the alternative about how they can not solve the case in a world in which there is a chaotic social climate. Feel free to make no link arguments and arguments about why the alternative is bad and/or doesnt solve the case.

EVAZON

IMPERIALISM K ANSWERS

Imperialism Good Its inevitable

Imperialistic actions are inevitable the only question is whether or not we embrace the new imperial moment to make our strategy effective. Mallaby, 2002 (Sebastian, columnist for The Washington Post, The Reluctant Imperialist FOREIGN AFFAIRS, March/April 2002, Vol. 81, Issue 2, Academic
Search Premier/Ebscohost)

Empires are not always planned. The original American colonies began as the unintended byproduct of British religious strife. The British political class was not so sure it wanted to rule India, but commercial interests dragged it in there anyway. The United States today will be an even more reluctant imperialist. But a new imperial moment has arrived, and by virtue of its power America is bound to play the leading role. The question is not whether the United States will seek to fill the void created by the demise of European empires but whether it will acknowledge that this is what it is doing. Only if Washington acknowledges this task will its response be coherent.

EVAZON

IMPERIALISM K ANSWERS

Imperialism Good Its inevitable EXT

The Bush administration will be imperialist the war on terrorism proves. Mallaby, 2002 (Sebastian, columnist for The Washington Post, The Reluctant Imperialist FOREIGN AFFAIRS, March/April 2002, Vol. 81, Issue 2, Academic
Search Premier/Ebscohost)

The Bush administration's denigration of nation building and its refusal to participate in a peacekeeping force for Afghanistan are not the final words on this subject. By launching his war on terrorism, the president has at least acknowledged the urgency of the threat. For all the grumbling over Balkan commitments, the administration has pulled out of neither Bosnia nor Kosovo. The logic of neoimperialism is too compelling for the Bush administration to resist. The chaos in the world is too threatening to
Now U.S. foreign policy must again respond to circumstance -- this time to the growing danger of failed states. ignore, and existing methods for dealing with that chaos have been tried and found wanting.

EVAZON

IMPERIALISM K ANSWERS

Imperialism Good Terrorism

A.) The trend is a waning of the imperial urge traditional imperialism based on conquest is dead imperialism now means solving the risks of failed states. The impact is twofold: one, we solve for people who otherwise would live in a Hobbesian war of all against all; two, we solve the root cause of terrorism. And Africa is a key location where the risks to liberty, stability, and growth are increasing all the time. Cooper, 2002 (Robert, British politician, The Post Modern State in Mark Leonard (ed.) Re-Ordering the World: The long-term implications of September 11
(Foreign Policy Centre: London, 2002) http://www.esiweb.org/pdf/esi_europeanraj_debate_id_2.pdf)

The second half of the twentieth Century has seen not just the end of the balance of power but also the waning of the imperial urge: in some degree the two go together. A world that started the century divided among European empires finishes it with all or almost all of them gone: the Ottoman, German, Austrian, French , British and finally Soviet Empires are now no more than a memory. This leaves us with two new types of state: first there are now states often former colonies where in some sense the state has almost ceased to exist a 'premodern' zone where the state has failed and a Hobbesian war of all against all is underway (countries such as Somalia and, until recently, Afghanistan). Second, there are the post imperial, postmodern states who no longer think of security primarily in terms of conquest. And thirdly, of course there remain the traditional "modern" states who behave as states always have, following Machiavellian principles and raison d'tat (one thinks of countries such as India,
Pakistan and China). The postmodern system in which we Europeans live does not rely on balance; nor does it emphasise sovereignty or the separation of domestic and foreign affairs. The European Union has become a highly developed system for mutual interference in each other's domestic affairs, right down to beer and sausages. The CFE Treaty, under which parties to the treaty have to notify the location of their heavy weapons and allow inspections, subjects areas close to the core of sovereignty to international constraints. It is important to realise what an extraordinary revolution this is. It mirrors the paradox of the nuclear age, that in order to defend yourself, you had to be prepared to destroy yourself. The shared interest of European countries in avoiding a nuclear catastrophe has proved enough to overcome the normal strategic logic of distrust and concealment. Mutual vulnerability has become mutual transparency. The main characteristics of the postmodern world are as follows: The breaking down of the distinction between domestic and foreign affairs. Mutual interference in (traditional) domestic affairs and mutual surveillance. The rejection of force for resolving disputes and the consequent codification of self-enforced rules of behaviour. The growing irrelevance of borders: this has come about both through the changing role of the state, but also through missiles, motor cars and satellites. Security is based on transparency, mutual openness, interdependence and mutual vulnerability. The conception of an International Criminal Court is a striking example of the postmodern breakdown of the distinction between domestic and foreign affairs. In the postmodern world, raison d'tat and the amorality of Machiavelli's theories of statecraft, which defined international relations in the modern era, have been replaced by a moral consciousness that applies to international relations as well as to domestic affairs: hence the renewed interest in what constitutes a just war. While such a system does deal with the problems that made the balance-of-power unworkable, it does not entail the demise of the nation state. While economy, law-making and defence may be increasingly embedded in international frameworks, and the borders of territory may be less important, identity and democratic institutions remain primarily national. Thus traditional states will remain the fundamental unit of international relations for the foreseeable future, even though some of them may have ceased to behave in traditional ways.

What is the origin of this basic change in the state system? The fundamental point is that 'the world's grown honest'. A large number of the most powerful states no longer want to fight or conquer. It is this that gives rise to both the pre-modern and postmodern worlds. Imperialism in the traditional sense is dead, at least among the Western powers.
If this is true, it follows that we should not think of the EU or even NATO as the root cause of the half century of peace we have enjoyed in Western Europe. The basic fact is that Western European countries no longer want to fight each other. NATO and the EU have, nevertheless, played an important role in reinforcing and sustaining this position. NATO's most valuable contribution has been the openness it has created. NATO was, and is a massive intra-western confidence-building measure. It was NATO and the EU that provided the framework within which Germany could be reunited without posing a threat to the rest of Europe as its original unification had in 1871. Both give rise to thousands of meetings of ministers and officials, so that all those concerned with decisions involving war and peace know each other well. Compared with the past, this represents a quality and stability of political relations never known before. The EU is the most developed example of a postmodern system. It represents security through transparency, and transparency through interdependence. The EU is more a transnational than a supra-national system, a voluntary association of states rather than the subordination of states to a central power. The dream of a European state is one left from a previous age. It rests on the assumption that nation states are fundamentally dangerous and that the only way to tame the anarchy of nations is to impose hegemony on them. But if the nation-state is a problem then the super-state is certainly not a solution. European states are not the only members of the postmodern world. Outside Europe, Canada is certainly a postmodern state; Japan is by inclination a postmodern state, but its location prevents it developing more fully in this direction. The USA is the more doubtful case since it is not clear that the US government or Congress accepts either the necessity or desirability of interdependence, or its corollaries of openness, mutual surveillance and mutual interference, to the same extent as most European governments now do. Elsewhere, what in Europe has become a reality is in many other parts of the world an aspiration. ASEAN, NAFTA, MERCOSUR and even OAU suggest at least the desire for a postmodern environment, and though this wish is unlikely to be realised quickly, imitation is undoubtedly easier than invention. Within the postmodern world, there are no security threats in the traditional sense; that is to say, its members do not consider invading each other. Whereas in the modern world , following Clausewitz' dictum war is an instrument of policy in the postmodern world it is a sign of policy failure. But while the members of the postmodern world may not represent a danger to one another, both the modern and pre-modern zones pose threats. The threat from the modern world is the most familiar. Here, the classical state system, from which the postmodern world has only recently emerged, remains intact, and continues to operate by the principles of empire and the supremacy of national interest. If there is to be stability it will come from a balance among the aggressive forces. It is notable how few are the areas of the world where such a balance exists. And how sharp the risk is that in

The challenge to the postmodern world is to get used to the idea of double standards. Among ourselves, we operate on the basis of laws and open cooperative security. But when dealing with more old-fashioned kinds of states outside the postmodern continent of Europe, we need to revert to the rougher methods of an earlier era force, pre-emptive attack, deception, whatever is necessary to deal with those who still live in the nineteenth century world of every state for itself. Among ourselves, we keep the law but when we are operating in the jungle, we must also use the
some areas there may soon be a nuclear element in the equation.

laws of the jungle. In the prolonged period of peace in Europe, there has been a temptation to neglect our defences, both physical and psychological. This represents one of the great dangers of the postmodern state.

EVAZON

IMPERIALISM K ANSWERS

Imperialism Good Terrorism

<Cooper, 2002 Continued>

The challenge posed by the pre-modern world is a new one. The pre-modern world is a world of failed states. Here
the state no longer fulfils Weber's criterion of having the monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Either it has lost the legitimacy or it has lost the monopoly of the use of force; often the two go together.

Examples of total collapse are relatively rare, but the number of countries at risk grows all

the time. Some areas of the former Soviet Union are candidates, including Chechnya. All of the world's major drug-producing areas are part of the pre-modern world.
Until recently there was no real sovereign authority in Afghanistan; nor is there in upcountry Burma or in some parts of South America, where drug barons threaten the

All over Africa countries are at risk. No area of the world is without its dangerous cases. In such areas chaos is the norm and war is a way of life. In so far as there is a government it operates in a way similar to an organised crime syndicate. The premodern state may be too weak even to secure its home territory, let alone pose a threat internationally, but it can provide a base for non-state actors who may represent a danger to the postmodern world. If non-state actors, notably drug, crime, or terrorist syndicates take to using premodern bases for attacks on the more orderly parts of the world, then the organised states may eventually have to respond. If they become too dangerous for established states to tolerate, it is
state's monopoly on force. possible to imagine a defensive imperialism. It is not going too far to view the West's response to Afghanistan in this light.

To become involved in a zone of chaos is risky; if the intervention is prolonged it may become unsustainable in public opinion; if the intervention is unsuccessful it may be damaging to the government that ordered it. But the risks of letting countries rot, as the West did Afghanistan, may be even greater.
How should we deal with the pre-modern chaos? What form should intervention take? The most logical way to deal with chaos, and the one most employed in the past is colonisation. But colonisation is unacceptable to postmodern states (and, as it happens, to some modern states too). It

is precisely because of the death of imperialism that we are seeing

the emergence of the pre-modern world. Empire and imperialism are words that have become a form of abuse in the postmodern world. Today, there are no colonial powers willing to take on the job, though the opportunities, perhaps even the need for colonisation is as great as it ever was in the nineteenth century. Those left out of the global economy risk falling into a vicious circle. Weak government means disorder and that means falling investment. In the 1950s, South Korea had a lower GNP per head than Zambia: the one has achieved membership of the global economy, the other has not. All the conditions for imperialism are there, but both the supply and demand for imperialism have dried up. And yet the weak still need the strong and the strong still need an orderly world. A world in which the efficient and well governed export stability and liberty, and which is open for investment and growth all of this seems eminently desirable. B.) Bioterrorism will cause the end of the population. Steinbruber, 98 (John D., Biological weapons: A plague upon all houses, Foreign Policy, Winter97/98, Issue 109, Ebscohost/Academic Search Premier)
That deceptively simple observation has immense implications. The use of a manufactured weapon is a singular event. Most of the damage occurs immediately. The aftereffects, whatever they may be, decay rapidly over time and distance in a reasonably predictable manner. Even

before a nuclear warhead is detonated, for instance, it is possible to estimate the extent of the subsequent damage and the likely level of radioactive fallout. Such predictability is an essential component for tactical military planning. The use of a pathogen, by contrast, is an extended process whose scope and timing cannot be precisely controlled. For most potential biological agents, the predominant drawback is that they would not act swiftly or decisively enough to be an effective weapon. But for a few pathogens--ones most likely to have a decisive effect and therefore the ones most likely to be contemplated for deliberately hostile use-the risk runs in the other direction. A lethal pathogen that could efficiently spread from one victim to another would be capable of initiating an intensifying cascade of disease that might ultimately threaten the entire world population. The 1918 influenza epidemic
demonstrated the potential for a global contagion of this sort but not necessarily its outer limit.

EVAZON

IMPERIALISM K ANSWERS

Imperialism Good Security Agreements

A.) The US does not engage in the same kind of historical imperialism your authors deplore US imperialism is key to security agreements and the global economy. Boot, 2006 (Max, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, Power for Good, The Weekly Standard, 10 April, Vol. 11, Issue 28, Factiva)
His case for labeling the United States a global government, rather than a global empire, rests on a rickety foundation. "Traditionally," he notes, "the

imperial power has been seen as a predator, drawing economic profit and political gain from its control of the imperial possession, while the members of the society it controls suffer." The United States, he correctly notes, does not exploit any states in this way. Instead, it provides the whole world with valuable "public goods"--principally protection from predators--that are welcomed by most of the world's states. But that hardly makes it that different from the British Empire, which also performed
all sorts of public services, such as stamping out the slave trade and piracy. Mandelbaum may see the United States as a particularly benign great power, and he is not wrong to do so; but most empires of the past also saw themselves as advancing a mission civilisatrice. His assurance that the United States means it--honestly!--is not likely to mollify America's critics. Nor is his choice of terminology particularly reassuring. I can't see some mandarin at the Quai d'Orsay (the French foreign ministry) slapping himself on the forehead and exclaiming, "So they are not an empire after all. They're only the world's government. What a relief. Vive les Etats-Unis!"

The value of The Case for Goliath does not lie in its central conceit--the United States as the world's government--but in the arguments Mandelbaum advances for why American power serves the interests of other countries. The case he makes is
not particularly novel (William Odom and Robert Dujarric made similar points in their 2004 book, America's Inadvertent Empire), but it bears repeating at a time when the publishing industry is churning out reams of paranoid tomes with titles like Rogue Nation, The Sorrows of Empire, and The New American Militarism.

Mandelbaum begins by listing five security benefits the United States offers the world. First, the continuing deployment of American troops in Europe is a reassurance that "no sudden shifts in Europe's security arrangements would occur." Second, the United States has "reduced the demand for nuclear weapons, and the number of nuclear-armed countries, to levels considerably below what they otherwise have reached," both by attempting to stop rogue states from acquiring nukes and by providing nuclear protection to countries such as Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan that would otherwise go nuclear. Third, the United States has fought terrorists across the world and waged preventive war in Iraq to remove the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. Fourth, the United States has undertaken humanitarian interventions in such places as
Bosnia and Kosovo, which Mandelbaum likens to the "practice, increasingly common in Western countries, of removing children from the custody of parents who are

Fifth, the United States has attempted to create "the apparatus of a working, effective, decent government" in such dysfunctional places as Haiti and Afghanistan. Mandelbaum also points to five economic benefits of American power. First, the United States provides the security essential for international commerce by, for instance, policing Atlantic and Pacific shipping lanes. Second, the United States safeguards the extraction and export of Middle Eastern oil, the lifeblood of the global economy. Third, in the monetary realm, the United States has made the dollar "the world's 'reserve' currency" and supplied loans to "governments in the throes of currency crises." Fourth, the United States has pushed for the expansion of international trade by midwifing the World Trade Organization, the North American Free Trade Agreement, and other instruments of liberalization. And fifth, by providing a ready market for goods exported by such countries as China and Japan, the United States "became the indispensable supplier of demand to the world." Naturally, the United States gets scant thanks for all these services provided gratis. But Mandelbaum points out that for all their griping, other countries have not pooled "their resources to confront the enormous power of the United States because, unlike the supremely powerful countries of the past, the United States [does] not threaten them." Instead, the United States actually helps other nations achieve shared goals such as democracy, peace, and prosperity.,
abusing them."

EVAZON

IMPERIALISM K ANSWERS

Imperialism Good Security Agreements

B.) Security agreements via imperialism is key to prevent nuclear war. Vergino and May, 2003 (Eileen S. of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and Michael of Stanford University, The Governance of Nuclear
Technology American Nuclear Society Global 2003, New Orleans, Louisiana, November 16-20, 2003, September 22, 2003, http://www.llnl.gov/tid/lof/documents/pdf/245803.pdf)

Outstanding issues remain regarding the implementation of a new framework for governance of nuclear technology. Thus we recommend in addition to selecting from the options discussed above a work program to examine the following issues.
Rogue states may use nuclear weapons for intimidation or as an asymmetrical response to superiority in conventional weapons. Enhanced safeguards and security may be the most rapid and effective solution to dealing with the diversion of nuclear material from IAEA safeguarded facilities, but will it help deal with the more difficult problems of detection of covert activities and breakout, which must be dealt with in a timely fashion? How best can states, with limited resources to fight terrorist activities and safeguard nuclear materials, be assisted in securing their materials and technologies? The G-8 identified the need for more protection against weapons of mass destruction and pledged to enhance export controls. Unfortunately little has been done to implement this pledge. There is a critical need to build upon the G-8 pledge to fund improvements in the nuclear technology regime, lest the world be in a position in the future of wishing it had done more. Who will take the leadership for this initiative?

Enforcement is the key to the success of collective security agreements. The IAEA and the NPT are instruments of the member states, but it is the member states that must provide enforcement, especially the P-5 in concert with the Security Council. There is currently tension between collective security and sovereignty rights. There are questions regarding the clear definition of an NPT violation and how to
ensure that predictable, effective, and rapid enforcement will follow. Who enforces if the Security Council vetoes an enforcement action? Can there be a predetermined response to violations to allow for rapid and firm reaction?

The policies to address these and other issues must explicitly deal with NPT members who do not observe their obligations; NPT nonmembers, illicit trade in weapon useable nuclear materials and weapon manufacturing technologies, and the possibility of nuclear war.

EVAZON

IMPERIALISM K ANSWERS

Imperialism Good Prolif Bad

A.) Discarding the imperial mission leads to WMD proliferation and an arms race in Asia and the Middle East. Rosen, 2003 (Stephen Peter, Prof. National Security and Military Affairs @ Harvard, An Empire, If You Can Keep It., National Interest, Spring2003, Issue 71,
Ebscohost/ Academic Search Premier) Rather than wrestle with such difficult and unpleasant problems, the

United States could give up the imperial mission, or pretensions to it, now. This would essentially mean the withdrawal of all U.S. forces from the Middle East, Europe and mainland Asia. It may be that all other peoples, without significant exception, will then turn to their own affairs and leave the United States alone. But those who are hostile to us might remain hostile, and be much less afraid of the United States after such a withdrawal. Current friends would feel less secure and, in the most probable post-imperial world, would revert to the logic of self-help in which all states do what they must to protect themselves. This would imply the relatively rapid acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Iran, Iraq and perhaps Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Indonesia and others. Constraints on the acquisition of biological weapons would be even weaker than they are today. Major regional arms races would also be very likely throughout Asia and the Middle East. This would not be a pleasant world for Americans, or anyone else. It is difficult to guess what the costs of such a world would be to the United States. They would probably not put the end of the United States in prospect, but they would not be small. If the logic of American empire is unappealing, it is not at all clear that the alternatives are that much more attractive.

EVAZON

IMPERIALISM K ANSWERS

Imperialism Good Prolif Bad

B.)The impact is inevitable nuclear war. Utgoff, 2002 (Victor A., Deputy Director of the Strategy, Forces, and Resources Division of the Institute for Defense Analysis, Proliferation, Missile Defence and
American Ambitions, Survival, p. 87-90) Further, the large number of states that became capable of building nuclear weapons over the years, but chose not to, can be reasonably well explained by the fact that most were formally allied with either the United States or the Soviet Union. Both these superpowers had strong nuclear forces and put great pressure on their allies not to build nuclear weapons. Since the Cold War, the US has retained all its allies. In addition, NATO has extended its protection to some of the previous allies of the Soviet Union and plans on taking in more. Nuclear proliferation by India and Pakistan, and proliferation programmes by North Korea, Iran and Iraq, all involve states in the opposite situation: all judged that they faced serious military opposition and had little prospect of establishing a reliable supporting alliance with a suitably strong, nuclear-armed

What would await the world if strong protectors, especially the United States, were no longer seen as willing to protect states from nuclear-backed aggression? At least a few additional states would begin to build their own nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them to distant targets, and these initiatives would spur increasing numbers of the worlds capable states to follow suit. Restraint would seem ever less necessary and ever more dangerous. Meanwhile, more states are
state. becoming capable of building nuclear weapons and long-range missiles. Many, perhaps most, of the worlds states are becoming sufficiently wealthy, and the technology

at some point, halting proliferation will come to be seen as a lost cause and the restraints on it will disappear. Once that happens, the transition to a highly proliferated world would probably be very rapid. While some regions might be able to hold the line for a time, the threats posed by wildfire proliferation in most other areas could create pressures that would finally overcome all restraint. Many readers are
for building nuclear forces continues to improve and spread. Finally, it seems highly likely that probably willing to accept that nuclear proliferation is such a grave threat to world peace that every effort should be made to avoid it. However, every effort has not been made in the past, and we are talking about much more substantial efforts now. For new and substantially more burdensome efforts to be made to slow or stop nuclear proliferation, it needs to be established that the highly proliferated nuclear world that would sooner or later evolve without such efforts is not going to be acceptable. And,

Proliferating states will feel great pressures to obtain nuclear weapons and delivery systems before any potential opponent does. Those who succeed in outracing an opponent may consider preemptive nuclear war before the opponent becomes capable of nuclear retaliation. Those who lag behind might try to preempt their opponents nuclear programme or defeat the opponent using conventional forces. And those who feel threatened but are incapable of building nuclear weapons may still be able to join in this arms race by building other types of weapons of mass destruction, such as biological weapons. [The article continues] The war between Iran and
for many reasons, it is not. First, the dynamics of getting to a highly proliferated world could be very dangerous. Iraq during the 1980s led to the use of chemical weapons on both sides and exchanges of missiles against each others cities. And more recently, violence in the Middle East escalated in a few months from rocks and small arms to heavy weapons on one side, and from police actions to air strikes and armoured attacks on the other.

Escalation of violence is also basic human nature. Once the violence starts, retaliatory exchanges of violent acts can escalate to levels unimagined by the participants before hand. Intense and blinding anger is a common response to fear or humiliation or abuse. And such anger can lead us to impose on our opponents whatever levels of violence are readily accessible. In sum, widespread proliferation is likely to lead to an occasional shoot-out with nuclear weapons, and that such shoot-outs will have a substantial probability of escalating to the maximum destruction possible with the weapons at hand. Unless nuclear proliferation is stopped, we are headed toward a world that will mirror the American Wild West of the late 1800s. With most, if not all, nations wearing nuclear 'six-shooters' on their hips, the world may even be a more polite place than it is today, but every once in a while we will all gather on a hill to bury the bodies of dead cities or even whole nations.

10

EVAZON

IMPERIALISM K ANSWERS

Imperialism Good Prolif Bad EXT

Imperialism is key to nonproliferation. Rosen, 2003 (Stephen Peter, Prof. National Security and Military Affairs @ Harvard, An Empire, If You Can Keep It., National Interest, Spring2003, Issue 71,
Ebscohost/ Academic Search Premier)

Imperial governance also involves the creation and enforcement of rules. The first rule of the empire must be to prohibit behavior that threatens its basic power position. Nonproliferation treaties and alliance diplomacy are today part of the set of imperial rules drawn up and enforced by the United States. NATO, ANZUS and the U.S.Japan defense agreement are not really alliances among equals, but security guarantees offered by the imperial power to subordinates. As such they are mechanisms for codifying interstate hierarchy. The position advanced by the U.S. government in 2002, that it will act
pre-emptively to destroy the programs of hostile states to construct weapons of mass destruction, is a logical extension of that policy, and one enabled by the improved power position of the United States after the end of the Cold War.

11

EVAZON

IMPERIALISM K ANSWERS

Imperialism Good Economy/Poverty

A.) Attempting to wish away our imperial responsibilities only promotes global disorder and global economic decline. Crook, 2003 (Clive, AMERICA IS AN EMPIRE. IT HAD BETTER ACT LIKE ONE. National Journal, 2/8/2003, Vol. 35, Issue 6, Ebscohost/Academic Search
Premier) Lal made two main points. The first is that America

is already, whether it likes it or not, an imperial power, simply by virtue of its unrivalled economic pre-eminence. The country's vital interests (including much of its property and many of its citizens) crisscross the globe. In its desire to protect and advance those interests, America has as big a stake in international order as Britain did in the 19th
century. The United States does not directly rule beyond its borders in the way Britain ran its empire, but it uses its unchallenged power, hard and soft, to take care of its own. Lal's second point is that if

the United States frankly recognizes the responsibilities of this indirect imperial role, it and the world will be better off than if it denies them--as it is inclined to. America's challenge, Lal says, is to run the empire well, but that means first acknowledging its existence: "Wishing the empire would just go away ... is not only to bury one's head in the sand but to actually promote global disorder." That is what happened between the two world wars. With British hegemony gone, America failed to rule. Trade collapsed, international property rights (which the British Empire was created to establish and police) were eroded, and the world economy spiraled downward. The consequences were disastrous. After 1945, in the light of that experience, America saw the need for
leadership, and exercised it after a fashion--but continued to be guided by its moral rejection of empire. So, for instance, a renewed assault on foreigners' property rights in much of Europe and in the former colonies and protectorates of the developing world met with little protest. When Britain and France tried to reverse by force Egypt's nationalization of the Suez Canal in 1956, anti-imperialist America scuppered the enterprise.

12

EVAZON

IMPERIALISM K ANSWERS

Imperialism Good Economy/Poverty

B.) Preventing global economic decline is key to reducing poverty. Vasquez, 2001 (Ian, Director, Cato Institute Project on Global Economic Liberty, Ending Mass Poverty Economic
Perspectives, Volume 6, Number 3, September, http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/ites/0901/ijee/vasquez.htm) The historical record is clear: the single, most effective way to reduce world poverty is economic growth. Western countries began discovering this around 1820 when they broke with the historical norm of low growth and initiated an era of dramatic advances in material well-being. Living standards tripled in Europe and quadrupled in the United States in that century, improving at an even faster pace in the next 100 years. Economic growth thus eliminated mass poverty in what is today considered the developed world. Taking the long view, growth has also reduced poverty in other parts of the world: in 1820, about 75 percent of humanity lived on less than a dollar per day; today about 20 percent live under that amount. Even a short-term view confirms that the recent acceleration of growth in many developing countries has reduced poverty, measured the same way. In the past 10 years, the
percentage of poor people in the developing world fell from 29 to 24 percent. Despite that progress, however, the number of poor people has remained stubbornly high at around 1,200 million. And geographically, reductions in poverty have been uneven.

This mixed performance has prompted many observers to ask what factors other than growth reduce poverty and if growth is enough to accomplish that goal. Market reforms themselves have been questioned as a way of helping the poor. After all, many developing countries have liberalized their economies to varying degrees in the past decade. But it would be a colossal mistake to lose focus on market-based growth and concentrate instead on redistribution or traditional poverty reduction programs that have done little by comparison to relieve poverty. Keeping the right focus is important for three reasons -- there is, in fact, a strong relationship between growth and poverty reduction, economic freedom causes growth, and most developing countries can still do much more in the way of policies and institutional reforms to help the poor. THE IMPORTANCE
OF GROWTH The pattern of poverty reduction we see around the world should not be surprising. It generally follows the relationship found by a recent World Bank study that looked at growth in 65 developing countries during the 1980s and 1990s.

The share of people in poverty, defined as those living on less than a dollar per day, almost always declined in countries that experienced growth and increased in countries that experienced economic contractions. The faster the growth, the study found, the faster the poverty reduction, and vice versa. For example, an economic expansion in per
capita income of 8.2 percent translated into a 6.1 reduction in the poverty rate. A contraction of 1.9 percent in output led to an increase of 1.5 percent in the poverty rate. That relationship explains why some countries and regions have done better than others. "Between 1987 and 1998, there was only one region of the world that saw a dramatic fall in both the number of people and the proportion of the population living on less than a dollar a day. That region was East Asia," observes economist Martin Wolf. "But this was also the only region to see consistent and rapid growth in real incomes per head."

High growth allowed East Asia to reduce the share of its poor during this period from 26 to 15 percent and the number of poor from 417 million to 278 million people. With annual growth rates of nearly 9 percent since 1979, when it began introducing market reforms, China alone has pulled more than 100 million people out of poverty. The more modest but increasing growth rate in India during the past decade means that the outlook of the poor in the two countries that make up half of the developing world's population is noticeably improving. Elsewhere the performance is less encouraging but follows the same pattern. Poverty rates rose in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, where economic activity declined sharply, and stayed the same in Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa, where growth was low or negligible. Even within regions there are variations. Thus Mexico's per capita growth rates of 1.5 percent in the 1990s did not affect the share of people living in
destitution, while Chile's 7 percent average growth rate from 1987 to 1998 reduced the poverty rate from 45 to 22 percent, according to the Institute for Liberty and Development based in Santiago. Likewise, Vietnam stands out in Southeast Asia. With that country's per capita growth rates averaging about 6 percent in the 1990s, the World Bank reports that those living under the

Uganda's per capita growth of more than 4 percent in the 1990s reduced the share of people living below a minimum poverty line from 56 percent to 44 percent between 1992 and 1997. The Centre for the Study of African Economies at Oxford University concluded that "general growth accounts for most of the fall in poverty." The dramatic impact of growth cannot be understated, even when differences in productivity rates are apparently small. To illustrate, Harvard economist Robert Barro notes that per capita income in the United States grew at an average 1.75 percent per year from 1870 to 1990, making Americans the richest people in the world. Had this country grown just one percentage point slower during that time period, U.S. per capita income levels would be about the same as Mexico's. Had the growth rate been just one percentage point higher, average U.S. income would be $60,841 -three times the actual level.
poverty line declined from 58 to 37 percent between 1993 and 1998. And

13

EVAZON

IMPERIALISM K ANSWERS

Imperialism Good Democracy

A.) Imperialism is key to democracy. Shaw, 99 (Martin, Professor of International Relations and Politics at the University of Sussex, The unfinished global revolution: intellectuals and the new politics
of international Relations http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Users/hafa3/unfinished.pdf) Third, while the

global revolution cannot do without the West and the UN, neither can it rely on them unconditionally. We need these power networks, but we need to tame them too, to make their messy bureaucracies enormously more accountable and sensitive to the needs of society worldwide. This will involve the kind of cosmopolitan democracy argued for by David Held85. It will also require us to advance a global social-democratic agenda, to address the literally catastrophic scale of world social inequalities. This is not a separate problem: social and economic reform is an essential ingredient of alternatives to warlike and genocidal power; these feed off and reinforce corrupt and criminal political economies. Fourth, if we need the global-Western state, if we want to democratise it and make its institutions friendlier to global peace and justice, we cannot be indifferent to its strategic debates. It matters to develop international political interventions, legal institutions and robust peacekeeping as strategic
alternatives to bombing our way through zones of crisis. It matters that international intervention supports pluralist structures, rather than ratifying Bosnia-style apartheid.

B.) Democracy checks otherwise inevitable extinction. Diamond, 95 (Larry, senior fellow at the Hoover Institute, http://wwics.si.edu/subsites/ccpdc/pubs/di/1.htm)
This hardly exhausts the lists of threats to our security and well-being in the coming years and decades. In the former Yugoslavia nationalist aggression tears at the stability of Europe and could easily spread. The flow of illegal drugs intensifies through increasingly powerful international crime syndicates that have made common cause with authoritarian regimes and have utterly corrupted the institutions of tenuous, democratic ones. Nuclear,

chemical, and biological weapons continue to proliferate. The very source of life on Earth, the global ecosystem, appears increasingly endangered. Most of these new and unconventional threats to security are associated with or aggravated by the weakness or absence of democracy, with its provisions for legality, accountability, popular sovereignty, and openness. LESSONS OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY The experience of this century offers important lessons. Countries that govern themselves in a truly democratic fashion do not go to war with one another. They do not aggress against their neighbors to aggrandize themselves or glorify their leaders. Democratic governments do not ethnically "cleanse" their own populations, and they are much less likely to face ethnic insurgency. Democracies do not sponsor terrorism against one another. They do not build weapons of mass destruction to use on or to threaten one another. Democratic countries form more reliable, open, and enduring
trading partnerships. In the long run they offer better and more stable climates for investment. They are more environmentally responsible because they must answer to their own citizens, who organize to protest the destruction of their environments. They are better bets to honor international treaties since they value legal obligations and because their openness makes it much more difficult to breach agreements in secret. Precisely because, within their own borders, they respect competition, civil liberties, property rights, and the rule of law, democracies and prosperity can be built.

are the only reliable foundation on which a new world order of international security

14

EVAZON

IMPERIALISM K ANSWERS

Imperialism Good Capitalism

A.) Imperialism is key to the good kind of capitalism. Johnson, 2001 (Paul, journalist and historian, AT WAR - Why West Is Best: Secrets-or rather, obvious ingredients-of the Good Society National Review, Dec.
3, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_23_53/ai_80099505) From these dozen or so advantages and their interaction, capitalism

evolved. It is not, strictly speaking, an "ism," but a process of nature, which at a certain state of human development the rule of law and a measure of personal freedom being the most important ingredients occurs spontaneously, as millions of ordinary people go about their business in as efficient a manner as they know how. It is, then, a force of nature, which explains its extraordinary fecundity, adaptability, and protean diversity. It is as much a product of Western civilization as the university and the library, the laboratory and the cinema,
relativity theory and psychotherapy. Coca-Cola and McDonald's are not alternatives to the Metropolitan Opera and the New York Public Library: They are all four products of a wealth-creating and knowledge-producing process based on freedom and legal certainty. Moreover, because

capitalism is based on human nature, not dogma, it is selfcorrecting. The freedom of the market enables these corrections to be made all the time, to
short- and longterm problems. The expression "the crisis of capitalism" is therefore misleading. Capitalism moves through continual crises, major and minor, absorbing their lessons and so continually increasing productivity and living standards in the long run. Indeed it

is the protean ability of Western civilization to be self-critical and self-correcting not only in producing wealth but over the whole range of human activities that constitutes its most decisive superiority over any of its rivals. And it is protean not least in its ability to detect what other societies do better, and incorporate such methods into its own armory. All the other systems in the world, notably the Japanese, the Chinese, and the Indian, have learned much from the West in turn, and benefited thereby. B.) Capitalism is vital to solving extinction there is no alternative. Rockwell 2002 (Llewellyn Rockwell, The Free Market, Oct, V20 No10, http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=418&sortorder=articledate) market economy has created unfathomable prosperity and, decade by innovation, production, distribution, and social coordination. To the free market, we owe all material prosperity, all our leisure time, our health and longevity, our huge and growing population, nearly everything we call life itself. Capitalism and capitalism alone has rescued the human race from degrading poverty, rampant sickness, and early death. In the absence of the capitalist economy, and all its underlying institutions, the worlds population would, over time, shrink to a fraction of its current size, in a holocaust of unimaginable scale, and whatever remained of the human race would be systematically reduced to subsistence, eating only what can be hunted or gathered. And this is only to mention its economic benefits. Capitalism is also an expression of freedom. It is not so much a social system but the de facto result in a society where individual rights are respected, where businesses, families, and every form of association are permitted to flourish in the absence of coercion, theft, war, and aggression. Capitalism protects the weak against the strong,
If you think about it, this hysteria is astonishing, even terrifying. The decade, for centuries and centuries, miraculous feats of granting choice and opportunity to the masses who once had no choice but to live in a state of dependency on the politically connected and their enforcers. The high value

Must we compare the record of capitalism with that of the state, which, looking at the sweep of this past century alone, has killed hundreds of millions of people in wars, famines, camps, and deliberate starvation campaigns? And the record of central planning of the type now being urged on American enterprise is perfectly abysmal.
placed on women, children, the disabled, and the aged unknown in the ancient worldowes so much to capitalisms productivity and distribution of power.

15

EVAZON

IMPERIALISM K ANSWERS

Imperialism Good Civil Wars in Sub-Saharan Africa

Imperialism is necessary to solve civil wars in Sub-Saharan Africa. Ferguson, 2004 (Niall, Historian at New York University, Collassas: The Price of Americas Empire, p. 24-5) Unlike the majority of European writers who have written on this subject, I am fundamentally in favor of empire. Indeed, I believe that empire is more necessary in the twenty-first century than ever before. The threats we face are not in themselves new ones. But advances in technology make them more dangerous than ever before. Thanks to the speed and regularity of modern air travel, infectious diseases can be transmitted to us with terrifying swiftness. And thanks to the relative cheapness and destructiveness of modern weaponry, tyrants and terrorists can realistically think of devastating our cities. The
old, post-1945 system of sovereign states, bound loosely together by an evolving system of international law, cannot easily deal with these threats because there are too many nation-states where the writ of the "international community" simply does not run. What

is required is an agency capable of intervening in the affairs of such states to contain epidemics, depose tyrants, end local wars and eradicate terrorist organizations. This is the self-interested argument for empire. But there is also a complementary altruistic argument. Even if they did not pose a direct threat to the security of the United States, the economic and social conditions in a number of countries in the world would justify some kind of intervention. The poverty of a country like Liberia is explicable not in terms of resource endowment; otherwise (for example) Botswana would be just as poor."' The problem in Liberia, as in so many sub-Saharan African states, is simply misgovernment: corrupt and lawless dictators whose conduct makes economic development impossible and encourages political opposition to take the form of civil wars. Countries in this condition will not correct themselves. They require the imposition of some kind of external authority.

16

EVAZON

IMPERIALISM K ANSWERS

Imperialism Good Genocide Bad

A.) It is the failure to imperialize that allows genocide to occur. Boot, 2004 (Max, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, In Modern Imperialism, U.S. Needs to Walk Softly Los Angeles Times, July 15, p. B13,
Proquest)

Failed states and rogue states constitute the biggest threats to world peace in the foreseeable future, and only the United States has the will and the resources to do anything about them. Even many of those who detested the invasion of Iraq plead for the U.S. to bring order to places like Darfur, a province in Sudan where genocide is occurring. The U.S. cannot shrug off the burden of global leadership, at least not without catastrophic cost to the entire world, but it can exercise its power more wisely
But whatever happens in Iraq, there will continue to be strong demand for U.S. interventions around the world. than it did in Iraq over the past year.

B.) Stopping genocide takes the ultimate priority genocide outweighs omnicide. Lang, 1990 (Berel, Professor of Humanities at Trinity College, Act and Idea in the Nazi Genocide, 1990, p. 13)
Before considering further the two primary factors in the concept of genocide (the specification of the group and the intention related to its destruction), it is important to recognize the implied relation between these factors, on the hand, and the likely agents of genocide, on the other. That genocide

entails the destruction of

a group does not imply that the act of genocide itself must be the act of a group; but the practical implementation of a design for genocide would almost necessarily be so complex as to assure this. Admittedly, the same technological advances that make genocide increasingly possible as a collective action also have increased the possibility that an individual acting alone could initiate the process. (When the push of a single button can produce cataclysmic effects, we discover an order of destruction omnicide even larger than genocide. But the opprobrium attached to the term Genocide seems also to have the connotation of a corporate action as if this act or sequence of acts would be a lesser fault, easier to understand if not to excuse if one person rather than a group were responsible for it. A group (we suppose) would be bound by a public moral code; decisions made would have been reached collectively; and the culpability of individual intentions would be multiplied proportionately. Admittedly, corporate responsibility is sometimes invoked in order to diminish (or at least to obscure) individual responsibility; so, for example, the quagmire effect that was appealed to retrospectively by defenders of the United States role in Vietnam. But for genocide, the likelihood of its corporate origins seems to accentuate its moral enormity: a large number of individual, intentional acts would have to be committed and the connections among them also affirmed in order to produce the extensive act. Unlike other corporate acts that might be only decided on but carried out by a single person or small group of persons, genocide in its scope seems necessarily to require collaboration by a relatively large number of agents acting both collectively and individually.

17

EVAZON

IMPERIALISM K ANSWERS

Imperialism Good Genocide Bad Moral Obligation To Act

We have a moral obligation not to be stand on the sidelines while genocide occurs. Vetlesen, 2000 (Arne Johan, Department of Philosophy at University of Oslo, Journal of peace research, Vol. 37 NO 4)
Most often, in cases of genocide, for every person directly victimized and killed there will be hundreds, thousands, perhaps even millions who are neither directly targeted as victims nor directly participating as perpetrators. The

moral issue raised by genocide taken as the illegal act part excellence, are not confined to the nexus of agent and victim. The majority to the even will be formed by the contemporary bystanders. Such as bystanders are individuals; in
their private and professional lives, they will belong to a vast score of groups and collectives, some informal and closely knit, others formal and detached as far as personal and emotional involvement are concerned. In the loose sense intended here every

contemporary citizencognizantof a specific ongoing instance of genocide, regardless of where in the world, counts as a bystander.
Bystanders in this loose sense are cognizant through TV, newspaper, radio, and other publicly available sources of information, of ongoing genocide somewhere in the world, but they are not, by definition or appointmentinvolved in it. Theirs is a passive role, that of onlookers, although what starts out as a passive stance may, upon decision, convert to an active engagement in the events at hand. I shall label this category passive bystanders. It Continues

But is not halting genocide first and foremost a task, indeed a duty for the victims themselves? The answer is simple: the sheer fact that genocide is happening shows that the targeted group has not proved itself able to prevent it. This being so, responsibility for halting what is now unfolding cannot rest with the victims alone, it must also be seen to rest with the party not itself affected but which is knowledgeable aboutwhich is more or less literally witnessingthe genocide that is taking place. So whereas for the agent, bystanders represent the potential of resistance for the victims they may represent the only source of hope left.

18

EVAZON

IMPERIALISM K ANSWERS

Future Population Growth Worsens Problems

Future population growth will intensify the cycles of poverty, instability, and violence created by antiimperialism. Mallaby, 2002 (Sebastian, columnist for The Washington Post, The Reluctant Imperialist FOREIGN AFFAIRS, March/April 2002, Vol. 81, Issue 2, Academic
Search Premier/Ebscohost) Lawrence Summers, the dominant professor-politician of the Clinton years, used to say that the United States is history's only nonimperialist superpower. But is this claim

The war on terrorism has focused attention on the chaotic states that provide profit and sanctuary to nihilist outlaws, from Sudan and Afghanistan to Sierra Leone and Somalia. When such power vacuums threatened great powers in the past, they had a ready solution: imperialism. But since World War II, that option has been ruled out. After more than two millennia of empire, orderly societies now refuse to impose their own institutions on disorderly ones. This anti-imperialist restraint is becoming harder to sustain, however, as the disorder in poor countries grows more threatening. Civil wars have grown nastier and longer. In a study of 52 conflicts since 1960, a recent World Bank study found that wars started after 1980 lasted three times longer than those beginning in the preceding two decades. Because wars last longer, the number of countries embroiled in them is growing. And the trend toward violent disorder may prove self-sustaining, for war breeds the conditions that make fresh conflict likely. Once a nation descends into violence, its people focus on immediate survival rather than on the longer term. Saving, investment, and wealth creation taper off; government officials seek spoils for their cronies rather than designing policies that might build long-term prosperity. A cycle of poverty, instability, and violence emerges. There is another reason why state failures may multiply. Violence and social disorder are linked to rapid population growth, and this demographic pressure shows no sign of abating. In the next 20 years, the world's population is projected to grow from around six billion to eight billion, with nearly all of the increase concentrated in poor countries. Some of the sharpest demographic stresses will be concentrated in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and the Palestinian territories -- all Islamic societies with powerful currents of anti-Western extremism. Only sub-Saharan Africa faces a demographic challenge even sharper than that of the Muslim world. There, an excruciating combination of high birth rates and
anything to boast about today? widespread aids infection threatens social disintegration and governmental collapse -- which in turn offer opportunities for terrorists to find sanctuary. Terrorism is only one of the threats that dysfunctional states pose. Much of the world's illegal drug supply comes from such countries, whether opium from Afghanistan or cocaine from Colombia. Other kinds of criminal business flourish under the cover of conflict as well. Sierra Leone's black-market diamonds have benefited a rogues' gallery of thugs, including President Charles Taylor of Liberia and Lebanon's Hezbollah. Failed

states also challenge orderly ones by boosting immigration pressures. And those pressures create a lucrative traffic in illegal workers, filling the war chests of criminals.

19

EVAZON

IMPERIALISM K ANSWERS

A2: Imperialism is expensive

The costs are comparatively less than waiting for the problems to worsen in a world without US imperial oversight. Mallaby, 2002 (Sebastian, columnist for The Washington Post, The Reluctant Imperialist FOREIGN AFFAIRS, March/April 2002, Vol. 81, Issue 2, Academic
Search Premier/Ebscohost)

The first obstacle to acknowledgment is the fear that empire is infeasible. True, imposing order on failed states is expensive, difficult, and potentially dangerous. Between 1991 and 2000 the United States spent $15 billion on military intervention in the Balkans. A comparable effort in Afghanistan, a much bigger area with deeper traditions of violence, would cost far more. But these expenses need to be set against the cost of fighting wars against terrorists, drug smugglers, and other international criminals. Right after
September 11, Congress authorized $40 billion in emergency spending -- and that was just a down payment in the struggle against terrorism. The estimated cost to the U.S. economy ranges from $100 billion to $300 billion.

20

EVAZON

IMPERIALISM K ANSWERS

US Key
The US is key. Rosen, 2003 (Stephen Peter, Prof. National Security and Military Affairs @ Harvard, An Empire, If You Can Keep It., National Interest, Spring2003, Issue 71,
Ebscohost/ Academic Search Premier)

The American empire did not emerge simply as the result of the growth of American power, but as a result of the collapse of Russian power, the decline of European and Japanese military spending relative to the United States, and the unwillingness of those countries to take military action or make military preparations in response to a host of security problems. A surprising number of major states are not now engaging in the self-help that Waltz says is at the heart of interstate relations, but are relying instead on the United States for their security.
The same phenomenon is at work today.

21

EVAZON

IMPERIALISM K ANSWERS

A2: Luttwak conflict burn out

Luttwak is wrong he dooms people to death, destruction, and social disruption. Pope, 95 (John M., World must make peace work, not war The Toronto Star, Aug. 22, p. A18, lexis)
It is no wonder that U.S. foreign policy is so purely jingoistic: American top-level advisers such as Edward Luttwak advocate war as a means of settling international disputes ( Is it time to give war a chance in the Balkans? Context, Aug. 13).

The idea that the Balkans war (or any war) should be allowed to "burn itself out" in order to bring peace is both morally despicable and logically incorrect. Letting war "run its course" without outside intervention is like allowing virulent disease to spread without treatment. The horrible consequences of war need to be resisted wherever possible in order to reduce the death, destruction, and social disruption it causes. Inaction is immoral. And, logically, even by Luttwak's own argument, outside intervention has worked in the past, especially during the Cold War era. In fact, with the input of serious political will, it should work even better now that conditions are in place for cooperation among the powerful nations. The tools for this include the U.N. and other influential international organizations. The fact is, we must keep trying to make peace efforts work. The argument that war has always been around is a ridiculous reason to embrace it as an avenue to peace.

22

EVAZON

IMPERIALISM K ANSWERS

A2: Vietnam OR Why Spanos' fetish is wrong

Their Vietnam fetish is shortsighted we must also remember the price of not intervening. Boot, 2002 (Max, ed. @ WSJ, The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power, p. 346-347) In considering whether, based on the lessons of the past, we should undertake small wars in the future, we ought to remember not only the price of a botched interventionVietnam, Beirut, Somaliabut also the price of not intervening, or not intervening with sufficient determination. Two examples come to mind: Nicaragua and Russia. In the former case, President Coolidge in 1925 withdrew from Managua the legation guard of 100 marines that had helped preserve stability for 13 years. Within a few months, Nicaragua was once again embroiled in revolution, and many more marines returned for a
much longer stay.

In revolutionary Russia, Woodrow Wilson and David Lloyd George missed a prime opportunity in 1918-1919 to help topple the nascent Bolshevik regime. There is reason to believe that with slightly more Western help the Whites could have won the civil war-and in all likelihood changed the course of twentieth-century history immeasurably for the better. These examples are worth balancing against the Vietnam analogies that inevitably, tiresomely pop up whenever the dispatch of American forces overseas is contemplated.

23

EVAZON

IMPERIALISM K ANSWERS

A2: Nation-building fails

We must be realistic about what can be achieved imperialism is key to state building which is different from nation building the alternative is death and chaos. Boot, 2002 (Max, ed. @ WSJ, The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power, p. 346)
That does not mean that U.S. administration is entirely futile. American

troops can stop the killing, end the chaos, create a breathing space, establish the rule of law. What the inhabitants do then is up to them. If the American goal is to re-create Ohio in Kosovo or Haiti, then the occupiers are doomed to be disappointed. But if the goals are more modest, then American rule can serve the interests of occupiers and occupied alike. Put another way, "nation building" is generally too ambitious a task, but "state building" is a more realistic objective. The apparatus of a functioning state can be developed much more quickly than a national consciousness. Successful state building starts by imposing the rule of law-as the U.S. did in the Philippines and the British in India-as a precondition for economic development and the eventual emergence of democracy. Merely holding an election and leaving is likely to achieve little,
as the U.S. discovered in Haiti after 1994. An analogy may help illuminate what U.S. troops can and cannot do. No

one expects a big city police department to win the "war on crime." The police are considered successful if they reduce disorder, keep the criminal element at bay, and allow decent people a chance to live their lives in peace. In the process a few cops are likely to die, and while this is a tragedy to be mourned, no one suggests that as a result the police should go home and leave gangsters to run the streets.

24

EVAZON

IMPERIALISM K ANSWERS

A2: They dont want us there Its not imperialism if they dont resist
The people want the US to intervene your evidence is about the local thugs looking to exploit their power. Boot, 2002 (Max, ed. @ WSJ, The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power, p. 344-345) Many of these interventions also delivered tangible benefits to the occupied peoples. Although American imperial rule was subject to its share of abuses, U.S. administrators, whether civilian or military, often provided the most honest and efficient government these territories had ever seen. Haiti offers a particularly dramatic example. The 1920s, spent under marina occupation, saw one of the most peaceful and prosperous decades in the countrys long and troubled history.
Of course U.S. administrators, in the manner of colonialists everywhere, usually received scant thanks afterward. As Kipling wrote: Take up the White mans burden And reap his old reward: The blame of those ye better, The hate of those ye guard. But the

bulk of the people did not resist American occupation, as they surely would have done if it had been nasty and brutal. Many Cubans, Haitians, Dominicans, and others may secretly have welcomed U.S. ruleif not while the occupation was going on, then afterward, when local thugs took over from the Americans.

25

EVAZON

IMPERIALISM K ANSWERS

Cultural Imperialism Good Solves Terrorism

Cultural Imperialism is key to solve terrorism. Tracinski, 2001 (Robert, An Empire of Ideals The Ayn Rand Institute, Oct. 8, http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7392) Everyone has finally awakened to the deadly threat posed by terrorism, and some are even willing to admit that the source of this threat is Islamic fundamentalism. But almost no one is prepared to name the long-term answer to that threat. The long-term answer--the only means by which we can eventually secure world peace--is cultural imperialism.
"Cultural imperialism" is not exactly the right term. That is a smear-tag created by the academic left, which hates everything good about Western culture and tries to dismiss that culture's worldwide popularity by blaming it on some kind of coercive conspiracy. The same purpose is served by another leftist smear-tag, "cultural genocide," which sounds like mass-murder but actually refers to people in the Third World choosing to adopt Western manners and attitudes, the poor things. The inventors of these smears are the same people who clamor for a "multicultural" society, ostensibly a society that tolerates many different cultural influences--except, of course, any influence coming from the West.

The real phenomenon that the phrase "cultural imperialism" refers to is the voluntary adoption of ideas, art and entertainment produced in civilized countries. It refers to the most benevolent kind of "empire" that could be imagined: an empire of common ideals and attitudes; an empire spread purely by voluntary persuasion; an empire whose "conquest" consists of bringing the benefits of civilization to backward regions. Western "cultural imperialism" is the march of progress across the globe.

26