Resolved: The United States ought not provide military aid to authoritarian regimes.
Affirmative
It may seem intuitive that supplying military aid to nations ruled by autocrats that are hostile to the U.S. is a not a good idea. But that is not what this debate is about. This topic focuses on authoritarian regimes which are not necessarily overtly hostile. The reason for these governments seemingly cooperative positions and acquiescence to the U.S. is often based on a desire to maintain autocratic control. Like any government, autocratic regimes are interested in perpetuating themselves. To make that happen, they seek legitimacy by striking a balance between repression of challengers and allowing enough freedoms or benefits to the citizens to keep them from revolting. Quite often these rulers are so-called strong-man types or an elitist group that acts quickly to put down insurrection, while attempting to provide basic necessities and security from outside forces. Often, these autocratic governments exist in regions of the world the U.S. sees as strategic to its vital interests, for example, areas rich in oil or minerals, near vital shipping lanes, adjacent to overt enemies (including non-state enemies like terrorists) of the U.S. and its allies, etc. Therefore, the U.S. is anxious to maintain its influence and presence in these regions and so willing to strike bargains with autocrats.
It should be obvious that military aid would be used to support U.S. strategic and security interests and indeed, substantial sums of money are specifically earmarked for that purpose by the U.S. Congress. It should also be painfully obvious that providing funding for authoritarian regimes, even if the perceived strategic benefits appear to be great, is not readily supported by the American people. Nevertheless, the generosity of American citizens will support humanitarian or development assistance for poor or vulnerable people regardless of their rulers. Having said that, we can establish the fact the lines between development and military assistance are manipulated by the U.S. government in order to meet military objectives with minimal public outcry.
Apodaca 2005:
On the face of the data, one would assume that the majority of U.S. foreign assistance is given for development assistance. But, this fact conceals the United States’ reliance on Economic Support Funding (ESF). The United States’ government has been able to counter domestic and international objections to its billion-dollar military assistance program by reducing military aid and increasing ESF funding. ESF funding, although officially listed as economic aid, is generally recognized as military assistance since it is used to financially support those countries considered to be politically and strategically important to United States’ security interests. The largest category of economic assistance is the Economic Support Fund (ESF). On average ESF loans account for more than half of all U.S. economic assistance. The Economic Support Funds (ESF) program is categorized as economic development assistance, not military aid, even though its primary purpose is to support U.S. political and security interests. The ESF program is financial assistance for budget support so that recipient countries could use their own resources to build up their defense infrastructures. ESF is aid given for diplomatic, security, or political purposes and includes the sale or grant of military arms and equipment. The Economic Support Funds program is intended to promote political stability in countries deemed important to United States economic, political or military interests. Its military component is evident by the fact that the State Department, not USAID, controls its allocation and disbursement.[77-78]
This obfuscation of U.S. government funding is important to understand as the Affirmative debater researches the scope of U.S. military aid. We may be able to claim, the majority of all U.S. government foreign aid falls within the scope of this resolution.
"Quid Pro Quo" or "Cui Bono"?
Except for natural disasters, U.S. military aid is rarely given without strings attached. Indeed, the Negative side of this debate, will focus a lot of attention on the quid pro quo (this for that) of military aid. The U.S. is willing to overlook the lack of traditional democratic ideals in favor of some overriding interest which ultimately benefits the U.S. and its citizens. Thus, as stated by Miller & Sokolsky, "it builds the capabilities of partner countries, provides influence over their policies, and guarantees access to influential institutions and personalities in capitals across the globe". But, Miller and Sokolsky condemn the lack of accountability of these programs.
Miller & Sokolsky 2018:
Congress rubber stamps these requests with little regard for whether this assistance achieves U.S. foreign policy objectives. It does the same when the executive branch requests congressional approval of arms sales for cold hard cash. Such docility might be good industrial policy—after all, it creates jobs in key congressional districts, provides corporate welfare for America’s defense companies, and helps maintain the defense industrial base. But it makes for lousy foreign policy. The United States will continue to pour money down a rat hole until Congress and the executive branch better understand why these problems keep recurring and muster the political will to fix them.
Importantly, it is often justified with claims that U.S. influence in regions ruled by autocratic states is necessary to promote democratic ideals. It supports and perhaps provides a kind of 'proof' the U.S. brand of democracy is modeled globally. But the question is, how effective is military aid as a tool for democratic reform? Look to the Middle East.
Miller & Sokolsky 2018:
In reality, U.S. military assistance promises more than it delivers. There is scant evidence outside of a few isolated cases that U.S. material support to Middle Eastern countries has fulfilled any of these purposes. Recipients of U.S. funding and weapons have largely failed to make major strides in their capabilities and, in some instances, may have even regressed.
The empirical evidence supports the Affirmative position. In effect, it is a means to extend U.S. influence and control around the globe with the side benefit of guaranteeing work and prosperity at home. But as the world turns more and more autocratic, the rationale for military aid to these regimes is not yielding the democratic reforms the American people believe.
Miller & Sokolsky 2018:
Likewise, U.S. attempts to explicitly link military assistance and arms sales to a recipient country’s domestic political behavior have not borne much fruit. For instance, the Obama administration’s suspension of some types of military assistance to Egypt in 2013 did not lead to “credible progress” toward democratic reforms. Nor did putting a $4 billion arms package for Bahrain on hold yield an improvement in that country’s human rights environment. Importantly, these failures have more to do with a lack of political will in Washington, in which the U.S. capitulated before its coercive measures could have the desired effect, than any inherent limitation in what withholding weapons shipments can accomplish. But the frequency with which the United States folds in these standoffs suggests a structural problem in U.S. assistance mechanisms that undermines its efficacy as a tool of influence.
We can measure the success of our military aid programs through improved security, continued access to vital resources, and peace and stability in the world order. If this is not the reality of today's world it turns the Negative's support for the status quo and we must ask, "cui bono" (who benefits?).
The Politics of Self-Interest
U.S. foreign policy has long been based upon several political theories of international relations which attempt to explain the dynamics of how and why nations behave the way they do, individually and collectively, and why they do or don't arrange themselves into cooperative relationships. The prevailing political theories tend to become entrenched and may span decades. The U.S. State Department has shifted from a political realist view during the cold war to a neoconservative view of international relations.
Walt 2012:
Since the end of the Cold War, U.S. foreign policy has been largely run by a coalition of neoconservatives and liberal internationalists. Both groups favor a highly activist foreign policy intended to spread democracy, defend human rights, prevent proliferation, and maintain American dominance, by force if necessary. Both groups are intensely hostile to so-called "rogue states," comfortable using American power to coerce or overthrow weaker powers, and convinced that America’s power and political virtues entitle it to lead the world. The main difference between the two groups is that neoconservatives are hostile to international institutions like the United Nations (which they see as a constraint on America’s freedom of action), whereas liberal interventionists believe these institutions can be an important adjunct to American power. Thus, liberal interventionists are just "kinder, gentler neocons," while neocons just "liberal interventionists on steroids."
A broad generalization would claim neocons are ideologically conservative, promoters of American capitalism, supportive of human-rights and vehemently anti-communist. The international policy is well-summed up in the Reagan-era expression, "peace through strength" and so the continuance of U.S. hegemony is the key to security. In the 1980's the influence of the neocons is seen in the promotion of U.S. interests in Central America with it's notoriously repressive autocratic regimes.
Apodaca 2005:
By dividing oppressive governments into authoritarian or totalitarian categories the Reagan Administration was able to overlook the outrages committed by friendly human rights violators. Reagan’s Representative to the United Nations, Jeanne Kirpatrick proposed a dictatorship and double standards theory. This theory declares that not only are authoritarian regimes friendly to the United States, thereby furthering U.S. security interests, but also, as the Reagan administration claimed, they are less repressive and more receptive to democratic transformation and liberalization. Authoritarian, unpopular, repressive governments were in transition to democracy. Therefore, in a twisted of logic, the United States was actually supporting human rights by providing military and economic assistance to friendly, yet repressive, governments. [70]
Moving in the post-9/11 era and the protracted War on Terror we witness the expansion of neocon political theory in the Middle East as a response to terrorism. But support for human rights continues to be a rhetorical device to elicit public support for continuation of U.S. regional dominance.
Apodaca 2005:
Foreign aid is used by the United States to maintain the geopolitical status quo. In effect, the United States has bought its hegemonic position. Unquestionably, foreign aid as a policy tool is designed to serve the United States’ own interests. Typically, the United States has used foreign aid to maintain friendly relations with foreign governments, to facilitate cooperation, and to build strong alliances. Foreign aid is used to win friends and to influence Third World nations. The aid given by the United States to Turkey, Israel and Egypt are notable examples. Of course, at times, there were other objectives for foreign aid, such as democracy or human rights goals, but less often then the United States government’s rhetoric would suggest. Although foreign aid may have a humanitarian effect, the primary reason for its allocation is self-interest. [79]
Today, many see the attempt to spread democracy through military aid as a strategic error which has contributed to massive instability in the Middle East, protracted war, and the continued aggression of international terrorism. The Affirmative contends, that U.S. military aid for autocratic regimes has failed to make the world more democratic, uphold human rights, or made the world safer. It has only served U.S. self-interests.
Impacts
The first impact is the increase in authoritarianism. Despite the broad foot-print of U.S. presence in the world since the end of World War II and continuing after the collapse of Soviet Communism, the spread of authoritarian regimes has increased, bolstered perhaps, by continued support by the U.S. toward non-hostile despots who by the fortune of geography or struggle are in a position to support U.S. interests.
Kasparov & Halvorssen 2017:
At present, the authoritarianism business is booming. According to the Human Rights Foundation’s research, the citizens of 94 countries suffer under non-democratic regimes, meaning that 3.97 billion people are currently controlled by tyrants, absolute monarchs, military juntas or competitive authoritarians. That’s 53 percent of the world’s population. Statistically, then, authoritarianism is one of the largest — if not the largest — challenges facing humanity.
The second impact is quality of life.
Kasparov & Halvorssen 2017:
If injustice and oppression aren’t bad enough, authoritarian governments bear an enormous social cost. Dictator-led countries have higher rates of mental illness, lower levels of health and life expectancy, and, as Amartya Sen famously argued, higher susceptibility to famine. Their citizens are less educated and file fewer patents. In 2016, more patents were filed in France than in the entire Arab world — not because Arabs are less entrepreneurial than the French, but because nearly all of them live under stifling authoritarianism. Clearly, the suppression of free expression and creativity has harmful effects on innovation and economic growth. Citizens of free and open societies such as Germany, South Korea and Chile witness advances in business, science and technology that Belarusans, Burmese and Cubans can only dream of.
The third impact is terrorism.
Gries, et al 2014:
In the introduction we already alluded to the fact that existing research strongly suggests that activist US foreign policy behavior is associated with more anti-American terrorism. The augmentative effect of US military aid on anti-American terrorism may be due to the idea that ‘the friend of my enemy is my enemy’. For instance, Neumayer and Plumper (2011) argue that it may be attractive for terrorist groups to internationalize a domestic conflict by targeting foreign allies that stabilize the government they oppose. Even though these terrorist groups ultimately have domestic ambitions, attacking the USA as a foreign sponsor may stir up domestic support for their cause and improve terrorist mobilization. It may also weaken the local government that is militarily dependent on the USA, given that US support is likely to decrease with terrorism directed against it because anti-American terrorism ought to raise the costs of military supporting a foreign country.[85]
Impact Framing
The Affirmative contends states have a duty to protect human rights and the judge should prefer the protection of rights above all other criteria. Support for human rights should never be limited to political boundaries, but we have a duty to recognize that humans live within political boundaries for the protection of their natural rights and so the actions of nations inside and outside of their borders has significant impact on the liberties and rights attributable to all human beings. Failure to check authoritarianism exposes the structural deficiency of existing institutions of world governments to address the problem.
Kasparov & Halvorssen 2017:
Tragically, world institutions and organizations have failed to properly address authoritarianism. Western governments sometimes protest human rights violations in countries such as Russia, Iran, and North Korea — but routinely ignore them in places such as China and Saudi Arabia, in favor of upholding trade deals and security agreements. The United Nations, established to bring peace and justice to the world, includes Cuba, Egypt and Rwanda on its Human Rights Council. Here, a representative from a democracy carries the same legitimacy as a representative from a dictatorship. One acts on behalf of its citizens, while the other acts to silence them. Between June 2006 and August 2015 the Human Rights Council issued zero condemnations of repressive regimes in China, Cuba, Egypt, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.
Blind support of authoritarian regimes to serve U.S.-centric interests denotes tacit support of regional conflicts and possible genocide.
Miller & Sokolsky 2018:
But access should not be confused with influence—and “relationship maintenance” should not be treated as an end in itself. Washington has become so fixated on doling out billions of dollars for this purpose that it often forgets what this assistance is for in the first place: securing U.S. interests. More often than not, our allies and client states take the money and use their weapons in pursuit of policies inimical to U.S. interests or kvetch about American unreliability. Saudi Arabia, which has used American-supplied weapons to visit ruin on Yemen and strengthen Jihadist groups there, is a poster child for this phenomenon. So, too, is the UAE, which is an accomplice in Riyadh’s immoral and strategically disastrous campaign in Yemen and used American-supplied weapons in Libya in support of a renegade general.
And failure to protect human rights risks an increase in transnational terrorism.
Gries, et al 2014:
Disrespect for human rights alone may lead to increased terrorist activity. As argued by Walsh and Piazza (2010), human rights violations undermine government legitimacy and reduce domestic and international support for a government, all of which may give rise to and facilitate terrorist activity. Indeed, Walsh and Piazza (2010) find that states that violate their citizens’ physical integrity rights experience terrorism more frequently than countries that respect them. To the extent that respect for human rights correlates with democratic institutions, the evidence by, for example, Krueger and Laitin (2008) that democracy leads to less terrorism points in the same direction. Human rights violations in combination with US aid may also matter to the specific case of transnational anti-American terrorism. Arguably, the combination of US aid and local repression creates additional grievances that are specifically directed against the USA.[86]
Providing military aid to authoritarian regimes is a failed policy which undermines human rights by supporting, encouraging and legitimizing repressive governments. Providing military aid to authoritarian governments exacerbates the risks of terrorism which is a gross violation of human rights in and of itself. Finally, there is no justification for the belief that support of authoritarian regimes promotes the increase of democracy or American values abroad.
The Value Framework
Finally, I would like to share a little about the traditional value - criterion framework. The common value of justice defined as giving each her due could be a value. The violation of human rights and the perpetuation of repressive regimes fails to deliver just desserts for ordinary citizens. Of course this is also a failure of governmental legitimacy on many levels. Governments have a fiduciary duty to protect the natural rights of the citizens under the social contract. Moreover, support of authoritarianism decreases the ability of citizens to overthrow the repressive regime. This particular analysis is strongly weighted toward minimizing human rights violations or promoting human dignity. I hope this analysis serves as a good background to get you started.
For more information on this and other LD topics, click here.
Sources:
Apodaca, C (2005), U.S. Human Rights Policy and Foreign Assistance: A Short History, Institute of International Relations and Area Studies, Ritsumeikan University, RITSUMEIKAN INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS Vol.3, pp.63-80 (2005). http://home.sogang.ac.kr/sites/jaechun/courses/Lists/b11/Attachments/1/u.s.%20human%20rights%20policy%20and%20foreign%20assistance.pdf
Draitsler, E (2015), US and imperialism by militarisation, The Herald, 30 December 2015. https://www.herald.co.zw/us-and-imperialism-by-militarisation/
Gries, T; Meierrieks, D; Redlin, M (2014), Oppressive governments, dependence on the USA, and anti-American terrorism, Oxford Economic Papers, 2015, 83–103. http://www.socialcapitalgateway.org/sites/socialcapitalgateway.org/files/data/paper/2017/03/18/terrorismgriesetal2015-oppressivegovernmentsdependenceontheusaandanti-americanterrorismoep.pdf
Jayawickrama, J (2018), Humanitarian aid system is a continuation of the colonial project, Al Jazeera, 24 Feb 2018. https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/humanitarian-aid-system-continuation-colonial-project-180224092528042.html
Kasperov, G; Halverssen, T (2017), Why the rise of authoritarianism is a global catastrophe, The Washington Post, February 13, 2017. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/democracy-post/wp/2017/02/13/why-the-rise-of-authoritarianism-is-a-global-catastrophe/?utm_term=.a3a89b821e6b
Miller, A; Sokolsky, R (2018), What Has $49 Billion in Foreign Military Aid Bought Us? Not Much, Feb 2018, American Conservative, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
https://carnegieendowment.org/2018/02/27/what-has-49-billion-in-foreign-military-aid-bought-us-not-much-pub-75657
Walt, SM (2012), What if realists were in charge of U.S. foreign policy?, Foreign Policy, Apr 30, 2012. https://foreignpolicy.com/2012/04/30/what-if-realists-were-in-charge-of-u-s-foreign-policy/
Sargent, D (2018), RIP American Exceptionalism, 1776-2018, Foreign Policy, July 23, 2018. https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/07/23/rip-american-exceptionalism-1776-2018/
Tseng H-K; Krog, R (2017), No Strings Attached: Chinese Foreign Aid and RegimeStability in Resource-Rich Recipient Countries, Department of Political ScienceGeorge Washington University. https://www.aeaweb.org/conference/2017/preliminary/paper/ZKsQeFh2
Thank you for writing this! It will help my novice LD student immensely. This is a complex issue and your analysis about the roots of terrorist activity being sown in soil that is undemocratic is especially powerful!
ReplyDelete