This house believes that the West should keep out of the Arab world's revolutions.

<EDS Case Sharing> - Jason Rhee

 

This house believes that the West should keep out of the Arab world's revolutions.

 

 

Prop.

 

Definition

TH – World

West – countries like US or NATO

Keep out – not intervening

Revolutions – protests (both peaceful and violent) for democracy or pulling down the government

 

u  Serves for Western desires only

è   Western governments, or "the West", never intervene in the Middle East without pursing the tiniest bit of self-interest

ü   Western armies, since the days of Napoleon, descend on the region uninvited, promising reforms and change that are never consistent with people's aspirations and desires.

ü   And the promises never happen

è   Historic evidences

ü   Not even clear that the Libyan tyrant killed more of his people than Hosni Mubarak or Zine El Abidine Ben Ali

ü   But Western governments exhibit more concern for civilians in countries rich with oil or gas, as it happens)

²    Iraq and Bush

²     

 

u  Triggers even more civilian casualties

è   Lessons from history

ü   Hundreds of demonstrators have been killed in Tunisia, Yemen and Egypt, yes.

ü   But Western intervention only grew the civilian casualties by undergoing ridiculous missions

ü   more than 400 civilians were killed by NATO forces in Afghanistan in the past year alone—and NATO commanders were bragging that the figure represented a decline from previous years

ü    

è   No purpose left

ü   The West says that such losses were inevitable for “democracy”

ü   But whose democracy are we talking about here?

²    Without life, whatever kind of ideology is meaningless

²    Besides, Arab did not even ask for intervention

è   Wrongdoings of Western armies

ü   As reported in various medias, the inhumane actions done by (for ex, US army in Iraq : A helicopter firing at a crowd of civilians) is likely to happen again

è   Some American publications even tried to give credit for the Arab waves of democracy either to a retired professor in Boston or to workshops attended by some Egyptian youths.

u  Obvious Anti-West movements

è   Why would the American or other Western governments be eager to intervene in the region when they are clearly opposed and detested by the Arab people?

ü   IT brings:

²    Ineffectiveness of intervention

²    Provokes even more Anti movements

ü   Therefore there are only harms for the West for themselves

 

.

 

Opp.

 

u  Greatly beneficial for the Arab people

è   IT would be great if the Arab people could accomplish the revolutions all by themselves

è   But in reality, they are not quite able to

è   That’s why to pursue democracy, intervention is there for them

ü   create a vacuum which others less well disposed to our interests would be eager to fill

ü   Democratic government, freedom of assembly and expression, and respect for the rule

è   Fulfills the desires of the Arab people in a long perspective

è   If no intervention, the people will end up being harassed and tortured and eventually slaughtered by dictators, like what happened in Libya before NATO intervened

 

u  Exaggeration of civilian casualties

è   Civilian casualties occur, yes

è   But it is necessary for a greater good

ü   Purses democracy for exchange

è   And if there is no intervention, people will only suffer more and die more from the powerful army of the government

ü   @Long term perspective!!

è   And actually, it isn’t that harmful

ü   Compared to the expected amount of people who will continue to die, military intervention is rather a bargain

u  Beneficial for the West as also

è   Exhibit their participation into the world

ü   Creates a sound atmosphere within the country(the Western ones)

ü   And the world, too

è   Able to receive benefits in return that the West does not have

ü   France receiving right to develop oil fields from Libya

ü   And this is legitimate(Give and Take)