ADI 2011 Carter/Sydnor

1 Democracy Assistance Neocolonialism Starter K

Democracy Assistance Neocolonialism K
Democracy Assistance Neocolonialism K..................................................................................................................1

Democracy Assistance Neocolonialism K....................................................................................1
1NC.............................................................................................................................................................................4

1NC..................................................................................................................................................4
1NC.............................................................................................................................................................................5

1NC..................................................................................................................................................5
1NC.............................................................................................................................................................................6

1NC..................................................................................................................................................6
**Links** ...................................................................................................................................................................7

**Links** .......................................................................................................................................7
Link- Democracy Assistance......................................................................................................................................7

Link- Democracy Assistance.........................................................................................................7
Link- Governmental Action........................................................................................................................................8

Link- Governmental Action..........................................................................................................8
Link – Governmental Action......................................................................................................................................8

Link – Governmental Action........................................................................................................8
Link – Governmental Action......................................................................................................................................9

Link – Governmental Action........................................................................................................9
Link- Soft Power.......................................................................................................................................................11

Link- Soft Power..........................................................................................................................11
Link- Soft Power.......................................................................................................................................................12

Link- Soft Power..........................................................................................................................12
Link- Antiterrorism...................................................................................................................................................13

Link- Antiterrorism.....................................................................................................................13
Link- Antiterrorism...................................................................................................................................................14

Link- Antiterrorism.....................................................................................................................14
Link- State Action.....................................................................................................................................................15

Link- State Action........................................................................................................................15 **Impacts**..................................................................................................................................16
Impact- Extinction.....................................................................................................................................................16

Impact- Extinction.......................................................................................................................16
Impact- Extinction.....................................................................................................................................................17

Impact- Extinction.......................................................................................................................17
Impact- Democracy = Oppression............................................................................................................................18

ADI 2011 Carter/Sydnor

2 Democracy Assistance Neocolonialism Starter K

Impact- Democracy = Oppression..............................................................................................18 **Alternative**............................................................................................................................19
Rejection Alt / AT: Framework................................................................................................................................19

Rejection Alt / AT: Framework..................................................................................................19
Rejection alt / AT: Framework.................................................................................................................................20

Rejection alt / AT: Framework...................................................................................................20
Sub-Altern Strategies Alt..........................................................................................................................................21

Sub-Altern Strategies Alt............................................................................................................21
Alt- Solvency............................................................................................................................................................22

Alt- Solvency.................................................................................................................................22
**Answers To** ......................................................................................................................................................23

**Answers To** ..........................................................................................................................23 AT: Democracy Good .................................................................................................................23
AT: Mouffe – Colonialism .......................................................................................................................................24

AT: Mouffe – Colonialism ..........................................................................................................24
AT: Perm .................................................................................................................................................................25

AT: Perm ....................................................................................................................................25
AT: State Good ........................................................................................................................................................26

AT: State Good ............................................................................................................................26
AT: Democracy solves Liberation ...........................................................................................................................27

AT: Democracy solves Liberation .............................................................................................27
AT: Moral Imperative ..............................................................................................................................................28

AT: Moral Imperative ................................................................................................................28
**Aff Answers** ....................................................................................................................................................29

**Aff Answers** ........................................................................................................................29
Aff Answer – Perm Text + NB.................................................................................................................................29

Aff Answer – Perm Text + NB....................................................................................................29
Perm..........................................................................................................................................................................30

Perm..............................................................................................................................................30
Perm overcomes the link...........................................................................................................................................31

Perm overcomes the link.............................................................................................................31
Aff- Egyptians prefer Democracy.............................................................................................................................32

Aff- Egyptians prefer Democracy...............................................................................................32
Aff- Democratization Good – Great Power Wars Kill ............................................................................................33

Aff- Democratization Good – Great Power Wars Kill ............................................................33
Aff- Democratic Institutions = Liberation ..............................................................................................................34

ADI 2011 Carter/Sydnor

3 Democracy Assistance Neocolonialism Starter K

Aff- Democratic Institutions = Liberation ...............................................................................34
Aff– Transition Assistance Requires US Action......................................................................................................35

Aff– Transition Assistance Requires US Action.......................................................................35
Aff Answer: Demo Assistance Undermines Imperialism.........................................................................................36

Aff Answer: Demo Assistance Undermines Imperialism.........................................................36
Aff Answer: Demo Assistance Avoids the Link.......................................................................................................37

Aff Answer: Demo Assistance Avoids the Link........................................................................37

2 The imbrication of democracy with the globalisation of Western capitalist modernity has enormously complicated efforts by scholars aligned with the global justice movements to theorise democracy in global perspective. May.S. Volume 58. 2006. rather. Many critical theories of 'global democracy' unwittingly participate in the imperial globality to which Escobar refers when they fail to recognise the Western capitalist-modernist underpinnings of their proposals and knowledges. “Radical Democracy in Global Perspective: notes from the pluriverse. the West. and a network of other well-financed globetrotting public and private professional political organizations. was quick to intercede in their political and economic affairs. 'the dominant forms of representative democracy. and public and private institutions in the management of national election processes around the world—including those in the former Soviet allied states. selfdetermination and democratisation promoted through international law are not alternatives to imperialism. aid and trade with the West (albeit highly selectively applied).” Third World Quarterly. Democracy assistance is imperialism with a benign face. The Myths of ‘Democracy Assistance’: U. Issue 07 (December). and their imbrication in furthering imperial domination of the Third and Fourth Worlds. Iss 4. Gerald Sussman 06. the means through which informal imperialism operates against the wishes of the majority of the population of the post-colonial world'. primarily American. As James Tully argues. As communist party apparatuses in those countries began to collapse by the late 1980s and in almost bloodless fashion gave way to emerging political forces. Sydnor) One face of this imperial globality is the US-led drive to export Western-style liberal democracy as the only legitimate mode of governance globally and a precondition for recognition. Allen Weinstein. the U. especially the United States. Today. consultants. mass media. and development. MCJ One of the notable shifts in post-Soviet world politics is the almost unimpeded involvement of Western agents. government relies less on the CIA in most cases and more on the relatively transparent initiatives undertaken by such public and private organizations as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). Agency for International Development (USAID). but. who helped establish NED.ADI 2011 Carter/Sydnor 4 Democracy Assistance Neocolonialism Starter K 1NC Democracy assistance is a form of imperialism that subjugates the people it tries to liberate. Political Intervention in Post-Soviet Eastern Europe. Conway and Singh 11 (Janet and Jakeet. teaches urban studies and communications at Portland State University and has published widely on the international political economy of information technology.S. the U. The methods of manipulating foreign elections have been modified since the heyday of CIA cloak and dagger operations.”1 . Vol 32.S. Professor of Sociology at Brock University and Professor of Political Science at University of Toronto. Freedom House. noted: “A lot of what we [NED] do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA. but the general objectives of imperial rule are unchanged. George Soros’s Open Society. operating in the service of the state’s parallel neoliberal economic and political objectives.

The result is a Middle East with dehumanized natives living in non-democratic nation states that were drawn around them and in some cases through them. 24. Those national forces that toppled pro-colonial and pro-imperial regimes found themselves in defensive positions that turned them into regimes as ruthless as their colonial predecessors. make prospects of democracy in the decolonized Middle East even grimmer. . What started as a theoretical investigation shaped up as a history article that narrates how colonialism and subsequent imperialism/globalization have tampered with civil society. assumed the role that colonial writers had assumed at times of colonialism to paint a picture of the demonized natives . Nor is tradition the problem. GLOBALIZATION AND DEMOCRACY IN THE DECOLONIZED MIDDLE EAST”. The problem is not that indigenous peoples of the decolonized Middle East are not civilized enough for self-determination. Some peoples. 2000). The Middle East’s pre-colonial history featured intellectual. The Western imperialism maintained through democracy forces the decolonized “Middle East” to lack an identity and leaves them helpless within the mist of ruthless regimes to globalization which makes the process of democracy impossible Mohamad G.. The decolonized Middle East of the twenty-first century is a set of countries still in search of national identities.ADI 2011 Carter/Sydnor 5 Democracy Assistance Neocolonialism Starter K 1NC Middle East Democratization uses neocolonial logic. economic and political prosperity that preceded European colonialism by 5000 years.the Arabs and the Muslims (Shaheen. The problem is not Islam because Islam features democratic principles that are different from western democracy but not necessarily less sophisticated. television. are still in search of national independence. 4. Administrative Theory & Praxis Vol. “RECITING COLONIAL SCRIPTS: COLONIALISM. No. Colonial administrators carved up the Middle East. 2002: 739–762. and national identity—three things that are dear to democratization. MCJ In writing this article. history kept getting in the way of theory. It ties itself onto the logic of dehumanization and colonialism. Palestinians and Kurds for instance. with ruthless regimes that are either supported by the West or use defense from the West as an excuse for their continued domination of their people. Alkadry 02. Imperial cultural producers. which worry more about political stability than selfdetermination. He received his doctorate from Florida Atlantic University. oppressed its peoples. and installed regimes and states with no single national identity or common definition of citizenship that would unite their peoples. is an Assistant Professor of Public Administration at West Virginia University. Globalization forces. Western imperialism and defensiveness against it by anti-imperial regimes in the region have ensured that the peoples of the Middle East did not experience true processes of liberation. geographic boundaries.

or democracy. . local assemblies. although not necessarily military opposition. the rulers' power to exploit. directly democratic. decentralized. The urgent need to reassemble ourselves to take power away from criminals. nations and profit. face-to-face. We need to come up with a strategy for doing this. We must try to build a new society or risk perpetual war and global fascism. oppress. and German and Italian Fascism? Didn't we have to fight them? Similarly with our current war-mongers and empire builders. ways that are within our means and that can lead to victory. or exposing their hypocrisy. holding candlelight vigils. but fought in new ways. We have to gather ourselves together in directly democratic. a long-time activist/organizer in anarchist communities . and from which it will be next to impossible to escape.ADI 2011 Carter/Sydnor 6 Democracy Assistance Neocolonialism Starter K 1NC The alternative is SOCIAL REVOLUTION. I believe that there is a way to defeat this global ruling class. at home. and have discussed there in some detail its various implications. but it means that we have to reassemble ourselves socially on a massive scale. The war must be fought. If we fail to do this now. All the same. if you will. we can begin to take back control of our lives and communities. nor a winning. with American Fascism. or to seeking to get or reverse certain legislation.jamesherod. and get the ruling class off our backs. coalesced together into inter-regional associations by means of voluntary treaties. face-to-face deliberative assemblies at work. Without these social forms. certainly as long as they have any power left to continue killing? Moral appeals are useless against such people.php?sec=paper&id=9 ) How many centuries of mass murder does it take to prove that ruling classes dependent on and devoted to a system based on profit are impervious to moral appeal. to making moral appeals. Were moral appeals enough to defeat the Nazis. http://www. and in our neighborhoods. It certainly cannot be done merely by taking to the streets. to be sure. strategy. and are beyond redemption. They must be faced with real opposition. But by reorganizing ourselves into a multitude of small. we will shortly find ourselves living in a full-fledged world fascist empire a thousand times more powerful and sophisticated than the Nazis ever could have been. Herod 01 (James.“A Stake. which actually is not even an option for us. and wage war must be destroyed. we are necessarily restricted to all the various forms of reformism. Reject state-based democratic projects in favor of a revolution against our current social order. freedom. restricted to trying to work through NGOs or state and national governments. justice. Not a Mistake: On Not Seeing the Enemy”. given that it is so impossible for poor people to acquire the weapons. It is thus ineffective to even think about fighting a war in traditional terms. and to create another one to take its place.info/index. Our task is nothing less than to get rid of the social order we live in. As long as the world is organized on the basis of governments and corporations. murder. as this is not a possible. October. I have sketched out this strategy in my essay Getting Free [14]. This would give us a foundation from which to begin draining power and wealth away from the ruling class. to changing ruling class behavior. there will never be peace.

and patriotism. (Michael. The demos makes naval power effective and cheap. Although they are equal before the law and all citizens have a right to vote. vol. internationalist.S. or democratic. has shown little respect for democratic principles.”27 Exporting democracy is oppressive. military intervention in Russia): “The only thing which interests me in the Caucasus is the railway line which delivers oil from Baku to Batumi. 2006. Such a people and such a state find imperialism useful.of popular. too. are splendidly diverse in their goals. . profit and glory of the powerful majority. has relied extensively on providing aid to dictatorial regimes throughout the world (a policy it has yet to abandon). profit. Kant.” With respect to historic Anglo-American designs on Russia and eastern Europe. urban and rural.” Philosophy and Public Affairs. their states are driven by fear. Indeed. Volume 58. even if not of all the citizens.co.S. and Schumpeter are all advocates. mass media. Political Intervention in Post-Soviet Eastern Europe. their circumstances greatly differ. no. except perhaps in the Second World War. in a communication-intensive world environment. or representative republican government. resources.ADI 2011 Carter/Sydnor 7 Democracy Assistance Neocolonialism Starter K **Links** Link. democracy was the great imperial model of government. as either a means or an end. honour. and pacific. and power. “Kant. and development. divided as they are among rich and poor. are radically unequal in size.S. empire adds to the security. interventionism. Their characters are shaped in varying proportions by courage. caution. 12. isolationist. for two millennia between Thucydides and Machiavelli. glory. ambition.Democracy Assistance The framing of democracy assistance allows for neoliberal ends which allows for dictatorial regimes throughout the world Gerald Sussman 06. Liberal Legacies. teaches urban studies and communications at Portland State University and has published widely on the international political economy of information technology. 3http://fds. The natives can cut each other to pieces for all I care. Michael Doyle. and Foreign Affairs. a backhanded tribute to the sensibilities of ordinary people. it is now considered more politically legitimate to accomplish its neoliberal ends through the discursive framing of “democracy assistance. and valued.and theorists. Thucydides. But in the modern liberal version it becomes the great engine of peace. States. Issue 07 (December). Part I. Internationally.oup. The Myths of ‘Democracy Assistance’: U. fear.pdf) Nor were the liberals the first to conceive of the value of democracy. Professor of Liberalism Oxford University.com/www. unlike Schumpeter’s.uk/pdf/0-19-829678-9. MCJ U. Whereas the U. and self-advantage.S. feasible. nothing much has changed since British foreign secretary Lord Balfour declared in 1918 (the year of the British-French-U. is always cast in that light. both at home and abroad. In a dangerous world. yet its foreign policy rhetoric. Rousseau.oup. Doyle 3. How can we explain their differences and understand the multiple legacies of democratic foreign affairs? Thucydides’ citizens. Yet they expect democratic foreign relations to be-variously-imperialist.

Not a Mistake: On Not Seeing the Enemy”.peace.S. they are not irrational. development. but empire and profit. That is. and covert actions are the coldly calculated. and continuity in pursuing this objective." Amy Goodman: "Why would the Clinton Administration want to produce a war?" Hayden: "Boy. It wants these wars. torturing. and were not achieving the results they were supposed to. that they didn't help countries develop. Never assume competence on the part of these guys. lying. this repression. and now the Clinton administration's actions seem determined to produce a wider war." This was surely the bottom of the pit for the 'this is a mistake' crowd. and stop doing it. Yet most progressives seem to believe that if only they point out often enough and loud enough that the ruling class is murdering people. stealing. this seemingly ineradicable belief that the US government means well. the policies they criticize are not mistakes or aberrations. and to try to call to the attention of US Aid administrators. in that none of the theories I examined really seemed to explain the phenomenon. terrorist) wars against Nicaragua and El Salvador in the 1980s we heard this complaint again and again. was from Robert Hayden. October. This ruling class knows that it is committing atrocities. being interviewed by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now. Endlessly.[1] My favorite quote from that episode. This repression.jamesherod.Governmental Action The aff’s use of fiat is an example of the “We should” mentality. progressives talk as if the government is just making a mistake. they just don't get it. persistence. Progressives assume that their goals -. which positions us as consultants to the ruling class. well-being -are also the government's goals. and they hope to correct the government's course by pointing out the errors of its ways. they are not based on a failure to analyze the situation correctly.php?sec=paper&id=9) I spent several years in the early sixties studying Underdevelopment. and justice. wars. massacring. Brian Willson. the Theories of Development that were prevalent then (only in mainstream discourse. or is acting irrationally. I was able to overcome this naiveté. who was in the process of introducing a list of US {continued on next page) Link – Governmental Action (Herod 01 continued from previous page) interventions abroad!): "Many of us are continually disturbed and grief stricken because it seems that our U. and it doesn't care. I helped write a broad sheet once. peace. that the programs weren't working.info/index. Two years ago. It was frustrating. hope.. is the most common outlook. with the explosion and re-emergence of radical consciousness in late sixties. only to conclude that they didn't work. and causing poverty. He said: "But we have the Clinton administration that developed a diplomacy that seems to have been intended to have produced this war.they are the inevitable result of the US pursuit of empire and profit. It has been heard repeatedly during the past two years in the demonstrations against the World Bank and the World Trade Organization. and which was titled "Vietnam is a Stake not a Mistake". because it is obvious that the government's actions are not achieving these goals. this policy doesn't achieve justice (or democracy. against Vietnam. to convince it that its policies are not having the desired results. Here is a typical expression of this naiveté (written by an author. Fortunately for me. My response at that time was to argue. this bad habit of not seeing the enemy. And as I say. Unfortunately though. Director of the Center for Russian and East European Studies at the University of Pittsburgh. assassinations. So when they look at what the government is doing. So they cry out: "Hey. you have to go back to the simple principles of incompetence. I later learned) didn't really answer the question: Why are some countries poor? I would look at US Aid programs. and that it knows what it is doing? How can they not see that the government's goals are not peace and justice. they are not aberrations. throughout the 78 day bombing attack on Yugoslavia. they are not based on a failure of moral insight (since morality is not even a factor in their considerations). not facilitating. They just can't seem to grasp the simple fact that the government does this stuff on purpose. a long-time activist/organizer in anarchist communities. these bombings. not alleviating it. and informed actions of a ruling class determined at all costs to keep its power and wealth and preserve its way of life (capitalism).ADI 2011 Carter/Sydnor 8 Democracy Assistance Neocolonialism Starter K Link. much of the outpouring of progressive commentary on the event (that which didn't actually endorse the bombing that is) argued that "this is a mistake". they are hindering. apologize. they are not based on ignorance. So what has been the response of the 'progressive community' to the bombing of Afghanistan? As usual. April 19. this naiveté.[2] How can they not see that the US government acts deliberately. It has demonstrated great historical presence. does not see the real consequences of its actions. poisoning. that it will wake up. massacres. http://www. Throughout the low intensity (i. consistent. and often got in the way. which we distributed at a big anti-war demonstration in Washington DC in November 1969. The programs were not facilitating development and economic growth in the countries they were supposed to be benefiting. this tendency to think that the US government's policies and actions are just mistakes. welfare. government does not . in 1999. I could cite quotes like this by the dozen. These policies are not mistakes. In subsequent decades there has been no end to the commentators who take the 'this is a mistake' line. they get alarmed and puzzled. Making these kinds of demands on the state is a bankrupt political strategy. In this document we spelled out the imperial reasons which explained why the government was waging war. you know what? You've got me there. That is. this policy doesn't lead to peace!" or "Hey.e. It is currently seen in the constant stream of commentaries on the US assault on Colombia. but instead let me turn to our current "war". slaughtering. for much of the American Left (especially for its so-called progressive wing). 1999. or development)!" By pointing this out. Protesters complain that the WTO's policies of structural adjustment are having the opposite effect of what they're suppose to. Herod 01 (James. quite deliberately and rationally. rational. to help it to see its mistakes. knows that it is murdering. “A Stake. knows that it is destroying democracy. justice. they hope to educate the government. It was certainly the majoritarian belief among those who opposed the Vietnam War. intelligent. take notice.

(b) The US government understands perfectly that it expressly needs not to comply with international law in order to maintain its ability to act unilaterally. So Kevin Danaher says that "we should get control of the government. otherwise very sensible writers. US policy makers create injustice. on Afghanistan. The bombing is intensifying a humanitarian nightmare in Afghanistan. "The U. and reducing the risk of terrorism do not enter into the calculations of US policy makers.[5] He thinks that "No matter how cautious generals and political leaders are . the US government is being stupid. promoting democracy. including production. work exceptionally well. and terrorism. So for Mokhiber and Weissman to talk in this way. linguistic. certainly not in solving them." All three statements are true of course. So they are constantly advising and making demands that 'their' government should do this and that. sale.ADI 2011 Carter/Sydnor 9 Democracy Assistance Neocolonialism Starter K yet understand: (a) the historical social. since it is not interested in those problems. build a big new base in Uzbekistan. rather than continually defy. This unpredictable cycle of action and reaction has thwarted U. what makes them think that the government ever listens? I think this attitude -. but that of citizens making demands upon their government. exposes their failure to really comprehend the enemy we face. fighting Islamic fundamentalism. Arming every little client regime of the international ruling class with 'the latest in technological weapons" is necessary." They identify themselves as Americans. military solutions.S. and showing incompetence. 3. It is especially familiar with the ethnic. This is what it wanted to do.. because seeking justice. policy in southwest Asia for 50 years. it uses its expert knowledge to manipulate events within the country in order to advance its own goals. and economic issues that underlay most of the political and ecological problems of the world. as if they had anything at all to say about what our rulers do. in addition to raking in lots of profit for the arms manufacturers. beginning with the overthrow of Mossedegh in Iran in 1953. There are better ways to seek justice. If they would reject nationalism altogether.is rooted in part at least in the fact that most progressives still believe in nations and governments. and that this is "our" government. humanitarian nightmares. This is the normal stance among the bootlicking intelligentsia of course. [4] It's what I call the "we should" crowd -. cultural.anything and everything except what it is actually doing. "we" shouldn't do that. the bulk of which is definitely directed at the rulers. as legally agreed to. but irrelevant. it is "making a mistake". Hence all the moralizing.seize Afghanistan. and religious divisions within the country. I saw yet another variation on the theme just recently. and initiate draconian repression against internal dissent in order to achieve "domestic tranquility". bombing of Afghanistan should cease immediately. cultural. 11]. That is.all those people who hope to have a voice in the formation of policy. reducing human suffering. far from being "ill-equipped and wrong-headed". and use of the latest in technological weapons. Tirman however reviews the history of US intervention in the Middle East. complain that "bombing a desperately poor country under the yoke of a repressive regime is a wrongheaded response [to the "unspeakable acts of violence" committed on Sept. are simply ill-equipped and wrong-headed for solving fundamental social and economic problems. are in fact the causes of these very "social and economic problems". profit and empire. . avoiding humanitarian nightmares." It's the usual mistake: Tirman imputes policies to the US government which it does not have. US policy has not been thwarted. acting blindly. unseen and unintended [results] occur. nothing but bumbling incompetence.S. Rather. complicated further by 'unintended consequences' which thwart the goals of American foreign policy. and economic characteristics of every country it intervenes in." [3] He is wrong on all three counts. Furthermore. The US has succeeded in keeping control of Middle Eastern oil for the past half century. consciously and relentlessly. to advance its imperial aims. since it is the main creator of those problems. not at the ruled. Military might sustains the empire. "We" should do this. which in turn prevents them from looking for effective strategies to defeat that enemy. It is not interested in how these issues "underlay most of the political and ecological problems of the world". or Swedes. (c) Who says that the US government is trying to solve "fundamental social and economic problems"? These are not its aims at all. That is. The policy of bombing increases the risk of further terrorism against the United States. and (c) that military solutions. In their view. or Germans. and phrase the problem in this way. But what is it doing among progressives and radicals? Even if their stance is seen to be not exactly that of consultants. Let's take another example. or at least should be. it has been highly successful. John Tirman writes about "Unintended Consequences". keeping control of Middle Eastern oil. and this is what it did. declare unending war on the enemies of Empire everywhere.. and so on -. they could begin to see another way. and using any means necessary to do so. detailed knowledge of the social." they say. (a) The US government has an intimate. Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman. and states and governments. and this has been thoroughly documented in thousands of scholarly studies. Willson "does not yet understand" any of these things. Progressives argue that the US is "falling into a trap". They believe that this is "our" country. in maintaining the repressive apparatus needed to defend empire. and quite effective. in pursuit of the imperial objective of making profit. Quite the contrary. people whose stances are basically that of consultants to the ruling class. responding irrationally. But evidently Mr. The objectives that it does pursue. It never seems to occur to these analysts that the government may actually be awake.the "we should" attitude -. like so many other opponents of the "war". They discuss three reasons: "1. for its true aims. They argue that Osama bin Laden had hoped to provoke the US into doing just what it is doing. attacking Afghanistan. He seems to think that the US was (or "should be") trying to reduce US dependence on Middle Eastern oil. A variation of the 'this is a mistake' theme has appeared in commentaries on the present "war". at times as a bitter riptide which overwhelms the original rationales for engaging in armed combat. or Mexicans. 2. it is not an attempt to win over the ruled. assisting in economic development. international law and international institutions established for addressing conflict. or that it jumped at the opportunity offered it by the attacks of September Eleven to do what it had wanted to do anyway -. but an attempt to win over the rulers. unfettered by any constraints. The claim that the US defies international law because of a misunderstanding is absurd. throughout the world. and sees it as one long (continued next page) Link – Governmental Action (Herod 01 continued from previous page) blunder. even alert. (b) the need to comply with. namely profit and empire. political.

mosques. but with a rather different message. namely." [6] The widespread belief that the US government has good intentions. Now it is bombing Afghanistan to smithereens -. radio stations. 2001." said Mohammed Sardar. It would take a twenty-first century Freud to unravel this one. the leading civil rights lawyer in Mexico. When asked by Goodman to put the murder in the larger context of what was happening in the world.ADI 2011 Carter/Sydnor 10 Democracy Assistance Neocolonialism Starter K Tirman is aware of course that this (oil) is the true aim of US policy. his voice ragged with anxiety and anger.[8] . but the people are dying and there is no one to listen to us. remote villages. like in Afghanistan. old folks homes. has got to be one of the greatest phenomena of mass delusion in history. food depots. fuel supplies. Instead. Red Cross warehouses. electrical systems. Dorfman replied: "Because the US is in Afghanistan and it needs all its allies behind it. To have created such an illusion as this is surely one of the greatest feats of propaganda ever seen. I must get to President Bush and the others and tell them they are making a terrible mistake. "The terrorists and the leaders are still free. leftists. clinics. about the assassination of Digna Ochoa. with both eyes open. airports -.hospitals. 46." Pardon me? A blind eye? Isn't the US government in the business. of murdering labor leaders. because he quotes directly from US officials who state this objective explicitly. on October 25. Here is a government that has already bombed two other countries to smithereens just in the past ten years. was being interviewed on Democracy Now by Amy Goodman. a belief held onto tenaciously in spite of decades of overwhelming empirical evidence refuting it. but somehow this doesn't sink in. he finally asks in exasperation: "What will be next in this series of haunting mistakes?" Ariel Dorfman." Excuse me! Is he kidding? It's quite probable that Bush did call Fox. roads." "The world must know what is happening in Afghanistan. schools. progressives. to tell him that while the world's attention was focused on Afghanistan. neighborhoods.and a victim of the assault escapes to plead for help from the very people who are attacking him. dams. in the form of How to Read Donald Duck: Imperialist Ideology in the Disney Comic. author of a creative critique of US imperialism. telephone exchanges. An Afghani man from Kabul escaped into Pakistan carrying a packet of letters addressed to the world's leaders. and civil rights activists all over the world? Dorfman went on to say that now would be "a good moment that President Bush could call his friend Vicente Fox and say: 'I want the murderers of Digna Ochoa put on trial'. "handwritten messages from his panic-stricken community. first Iraq and then Yugoslavia (not to mention endless interventions abroad since its inception [7]). now would be a good time to kill Digna Ochoa y Placido. they are going to turn a blind eye to all the abuses of authority that are happening. UN offices. water systems.

terms. it means strengthening America’s military superiority over other countries.S. that “globalization makes our economy. doesn’t have a “mixed” record in the world. capital.” and that an overarching goal of U. in every society.” U. The U. justice and prosperity” and this will “serve both our interests and the interests of a struggling world. p.S. designed to exploit the cheap labor and natural resources of other countries.rwor.” and claims that critics are wrong “to think that the world’s poor will benefit by rejecting the ideals of free markets and liberal democracy” (Audacity. better access to markets and labor. http://rwor. Obama argues his foreign policy would start from the goal of fighting “to strengthen America's position in the world.S.” (p. “position” in the world has led (continued on next page) . what does Obama actually stand for? What’s his vision of U.” and spreading “free markets. he argues. military superiority and its right to wage preemptive war. How is this just? Why should a country with 4. especially powers which could challenge U. hegemony.S.S.S. in his words. Obama rejects the charge that such U. record around the world as “mixed. “based on false assumptions that ignore the legitimate aspirations of other peoples. the document’s economic principles can best be understood as capitalist globalization on U.” to “expand the zones of freedom. However. capitalism.” Third.Soft Power Soft power is just an attempt to smooth over the core contradictions of capitalism.S. personal safety. So it’s not surprising that Obama’s agenda sounds eerily similar to core elements of the Bush doctrine as articulated in the Bush National Security Strategy (2002) which declares that American-defined “values of freedom are right and true for every person. is a force for good in this globalized world: “no other nation on earth has a greater capacity to shape that global system.” and “any return to isolationism…will not work.S.S. global strategy. 280) This ignores the actual workings of imperialism as demonstrated by over 100 years of history. But the world’s profound and growing injustices give lie to this attempt to prettify and cover up the actual workings of global capitalism. Now. 303).S.” All this has been deepened in recent decades--not alleviated--by the expansion and acceleration of capitalist globalization. that the U.html) for a deeper discussion of the dynamics and impact of global capitalism today.S. Strengthening America’s position in the world means strengthening its status as the world’s only imperialist superpower. 315). and our security all captive to events on the other side of the world.) And what does it mean and where does it lead to “strengthen America's position in the world. the U. military bases in 130 foreign countries. in relation to its global rivals. has been trying to carry out in Iraq through privatizing Iraq's economy and opening its vast oil resources up to U.” and briefly mentions the slaughter of 500. third world countries. our health.org/a/086/obama-en. carried out at gunpoint. and free trade to every corner of the world..” (The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream.” Combined with the NSS’s insistence on U.” (Obama's website). These are the same concerns confronting the Bush administration and shaping its actions. Tactical Differences & Common Goals”. and ensuring that trade and financial agreements favor the U. and economic well-being” and that a “global system built in America’s image can alleviate misery in poorer countries. WHAT DOES STRENGTHENING “AMERICA'S POSITION IN THE WORLD” MEAN? Obama’s foreign policy rests on three premises: First. he ascribes such crimes (which he treats as isolated “mistakes”) not to the deepest dynamics of global imperialism.org/a/060/flatworld-en. imperialism to dominate and exploit hundreds of millions of people throughout the world. and would adopt policies to ensure its functioning and operation--including by attempting to deal with the very deep contradictions and obstacles it faces today. whose interests does he represent? A close look at Obama’s platform and writings--and decoding the buzzwords and phrases of his mainstream politics--shows that he actually agrees with many of the key tenets of Bush’s worldview. This is the obscene. it has a long and consistent track record of murderous interventions and wars: since World War 2.S.S. has used direct military force against other countries more than 70 times. in the Middle East in particular? Does he want to--and is he capable of--ending the war in Iraq and preventing war with Iran? Is he for repudiating the Bush global agenda and reversing the direction the Bush administration has been taking this country and the world? More fundamentally.S. Obama characterizes the U. All in order to strengthen the ability of U. policy is creating “a balance of power that favors freedom. the richest 1 percent held 32 percent of the wealth in 2001.-led capitalist globalization is “American imperialism. “Barack Obama & the Bush Doctrine: Shared Assumptions. Today the GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of the poorest 48 nations is less than the combined wealth of the world’s three richest individuals. but to short-sighted.S.S.S. Today half the planet — nearly three billion people — lives on less than two dollars a day. that Obama consciously argues for and defends the capitalist system. It means. and Obsolete World: A Critique of Thomas Friedman's The World is Flat ” (http://www.000 Iraqis have been killed--are hardly minor aberrations or exceptions to the rule. nightmarish reality of “free markets” and a “global system built in America’s image.7 percent of the world’s population control 32. Everest 7 (Larry.S. “misguided” policies. foreign policy.S. Revolution #86. and against states or movements which threaten U. This too is a core goal of the Bush doctrine. 12/6/06). Unjust. Accessed 6/27/10) The question is. as well as the dominant position of a handful of industrialized countries over the billions living in the Third World. April 29.000 Indonesian communists at the behest of the CIA in the 1960s (Obama lived in Indonesia in his youth).S. political-military control of key areas of the world.ADI 2011 Carter/Sydnor 11 Democracy Assistance Neocolonialism Starter K Link. and there are now over 700 U. having greater control of global resources. This is precisely what the U.html. What does all this mean? First.. (See Raymond Lotta. throughout the world and especially in poor. capitalism in particular. pages 305. “A Jagged.6 percent of the world’s wealth and consume 25 percent of its energy? (And within the U. Second. can move “the international system in the direction of greater equity.” as Obama puts it? First. So Indonesia--and Iraq today where over 600. and overall objectives--even while having certain differences over how to advance those objectives. How is the further strengthening of all this any good for the people? WHERE DOES IT LEAD? Upholding global capitalism and strengthening the U.) ( New York Times. U. It means strengthening the economic position of the U. after the operation of capitalism for hundreds of years. not others.S. the 20 percent living in the developed nations consume 86% of the world’s goods.

” to the tune of the Beach Boys Barbara Ann? (“Obama would consider missile strikes on Iran. on global military dominance and reach. because I don't think we can make the same assumptions about how they calculate risks.S. imperial interests and maintain hegemony .S. targets (or allies with which the United States has mutual defense arrangements).S. September 25. John McCain recently singing “bomb. we will probably need a somewhat higher budget in the immediate future just to restore readiness and replace equipment. “once we get beyond matters of self-defense…. 308-309) But. as I watch how this thing has evolved. "[U]s launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in. I think we would have to consider going in and taking those bombs out. 2004). but argues that the U. given the depletion of our forces after the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. bomb. .” Obama argues the U.” (p. now needs even more military spending than the record levels spent by the Bush administration so far: “Indeed.’s “right” to take unilateral action “to eliminate an imminent threat to our security. That requires a smarter balance between what we spend on fancy hardware and what we spend on our men and women in uniform. It is far too dangerous to have nuclear weapons in the hands of a radical theocracy. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran… realistically. establishment) in targeting Iran as a center of Islamic fundamentalism and a rising force in the Middle East/Central Asia.S. First.” and “we should take no option. I'd be surprised if Iran blinked at this point.” This is consistent with a major part of the Democratic Party critique of the Bush doctrine which agrees that the U. troops into these areas and argues for a larger military: “Most likely this challenge will involve putting boots on the ground in the ungovernable or hostile regions where terrorists thrive.S. comes primarily from those parts of the world on the margins of the global economy where the international ‘rules of the road’ have not taken hold…" (p. his logic will drive him to support preemptive strikes. then. Obama says: "I think there are certain elements within the Islamic world right now that don't make those same calculations… I think there are elements within Pakistan right now--if Musharraf is overthrown and they took over.S. having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. group or individual that is actively preparing to strike U. September 25. 2004) These concerns also lead Obama to join the Bush regime (and the whole U. and he says. needs hegemony. it will almost always be in our strategic interest to act multilaterally rather than unilaterally when we use force around the world.” He argues. possibly through preemptive war.Soft Power (Everest 07 continued from previous page) Obama to many of the same policy conclusions as the Bush regime.” Chicago Tribune. 307) Obama has some differences with the Bush regime over how to advance U. While Obama may favor placing more emphasis on sanctions and diplomatic pressure at the moment (and the Bush regime itself is currently employing these weapons as well). needs to work with at least some other world powers to achieve it. “The world must work to stop Iran's uranium enrichment program and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. For example. including military action. and has or will have the means to do so in the immediate future. he argues.” (pp. power in the key strategic region of the Middle East/Central Asia (home to 80 percent of the world’s energy reserves) that the Bush regime does. and to meet the challenges presented by potential rivals like China.” (speech to the pro-Israel America Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)). That should mean growing the size of our armed forces…” (p.S. off the table.S." Chicago Tribune." How much different is this than Sen." But he then says: "On the other hand.ADI 2011 Carter/Sydnor 12 Democracy Assistance Neocolonialism Starter K Link. bomb Iran.S. while he supports the U.” he limits it to when “as an imminent threat is understood to be a nation. Israel and world peace. He says: "The growing threat. 307) Obama sees many of the same challenges to U. he says: “We need to maintain a strategic force posture that allows us to manage threats posed by rogue nations like North Korea and Iran. Obama also foresees having to send U. 305) He shares the Bush Regime concern that "violent Islamic extremists" are a vastly different kind of adversary than the Soviet Union in the Cold War and must be dealt with differently." ("Obama would consider missile strikes on Iran. Obama calls Iran “one of the greatest threats to the United States.

funding of its terrorist operations more difficult! The hegemon defines the main part of the agenda--who terrorizes--and the debate is over how he and his allies should deal with those he identifies as terrorist. Washington and Pennsylvania. which is yet another act of terrorism. diminishing in scope and intensity from Britain to the others. and it continues to give virtually unconditional support to an Israeli state that has been using force to achieve its political objectives for decades. we haven't seen any that discuss how a "coalition of the willing" might be formed to bring the United States under control. government can best deal with the problem. The United States has terrorized or sponsored terror in Nicaragua. But with the onset of the bombing campaign.globalresearch. Vietnam. It has for many years provided a safe harbor to the Cuban refugee terror network. Ignoring legal niceties--despite its supposed devotion to the "rule of law". with the help of Oxfam and other groups. Leftists here regularly discuss the terrorism issue starting from the premise that the United States is against terrorism and that the issue is how the U. Zaire. and they urge seeking cooperation from the Arab states to crush terrorists within their own states. and David. Brazil. South Africa. although much less understood. http://www. although the U. In fact. and Israel.5 percent of those facing winter and starvation). power and self-righteousness. underwritten. to compel it and its British ally to cease terrorizing Iraq.ca/articles/HER110A. accepting the basic and widely agreed-upon definition of terrorism as "the use of force or the threat of force against civilian populations to achieve political objectives." or only 3. “Who Terrorizes Whom?”. and Britain as well. this has stopped as the aid workers have been force to withdraw. Some of them even propose that the United States and its allies intervene not to bomb.S. Znet. Indonesia/East Timor. Cuba. threatened the Afghans with bombing--itself an act of terrorism--and by such threats succeeded in blocking the flow of food supplies to a starving population. even the Left has trouble escaping the hegemonic definitions and frames. They discuss how bin Laden money routes can be cut off. and has sponsored.-dependent governments toe their master's line. and/or underwriting and providing a "safe harbor" to state or nonstate agents who terrorize.S. Angola. Right now this country is supporting a genocidal terrorist operation against Iraq via "sanctions of mass destruction" and regular bombing attacks to achieve its political objectives.000 people. and weakening further in the Third World. Even in its response to the September 11 terrorist events the United States resorted instantly to its own terrorism. but to build a new society in Afghanistan. was feeding 3. and speaking of this as an "age of Euro-American tyranny" with tyrants who are merely "civilized and advanced terrorists" (Ausaf. the World Food Program. resolutions when they have not suited its interests" and a "bandit sheriff" (The Hindu. This is notorious at this moment in history as regards "terrorism" and "antiterrorism. in the spirit of the Kosovo "new humanitarian" intervention. In these more remote areas the press speaks a different language. to force it to stop using and threatening violence. it is underwriting the army and paramilitary forces in Colombia. Uruguay.000 killed in New York. assure that what the United States does will neither be called terrorism.S. Haiti. Guatemala. So they propose lawful routes. But there is a third indisputable truth.S. And it stands alone in both using and brandishing the threat to use nuclear weapons. let alone universally reported: namely. Professor Emeritus of Finance at the Wharton School @ U Penn. actions against Afghanistan have and will cause many.Antiterrorism Framing the US as an innocent victim of terrorism prevents awareness of and confrontation with imperialist atrocities. A second truth is that the bombings were willful acts of terrorism.S. The airdrops will--at their very best--feed 130. and elsewhere. Or to make U. Herman and Peterson 2001 (Edward S. nor elicit indignation remotely comparable to that expressed over the events of September 11-however well its actions fit the definitions." Since the September 11 attacks. India).-the United States immediately began to threaten to "take out" states harboring terrorists. and a major one. October 18. nor aggression. (A spokesman for Oxfam International stationed in Islamabad recently stated that "Prior to this crisis. that from the 1950s the United States itself has been heavily engaged in terrorism. Nowhere in this document is it suggested that the United States is itself a (continued next page) . who openly terrorize the civilian population. the United States has also been the world's greatest terrorist and sponsor of terror. Indonesia. broadcast and justified to the whole world by a subservient media machine. Annenberg School for communication at U Penn.. as the popular phrase puts it." And let us also recognize that "sponsorship of terrorism" means organizing. In the Middle East. They are worried that the United States will go about solving the problem too aggressively. El Salvador. But another sad fact is that in this country. and even Nazi Germany (see Christopher Simpson's Blowback). but the crime of aggression. among other places.7 million [Afghan] people. Turkey. Pakistan). On October 7 the United States then began to bomb this impoverished country--not just a further act of terrorism. independent journalist and researcher. The same bias extends to other Western countries. will seek vengeance.N. if nervously. two truths have been indisputable and universally reported.html Accessed 7/1/10 GAL) One of the marks of exceptional hegemonic power is the ability to define words and get issues framed in accord with your own political agenda.ADI 2011 Carter/Sydnor 13 Democracy Assistance Neocolonialism Starter K Link. engage in "nation-building". as the greatest and now sole superpower. such as resort to the United Nations and International Court of Justice. not justice.S. calling the United States a "rogue state par excellence repeatedly defying international rulings whether by the World Court or by U. A good illustration of this Left accommodationism is displayed in the "New Agenda to Combat Terrorism. One is that the hijacker bombings of the World Trade Center and Pentagon were atrocities of a monumental and spectacular scale (and media coverage of that day's events alone may have generated more words and graphic images than any other single event in recent history). for most of the population the bias disappears and U." recently issued by the Institute for Policy Studies and Interhemispheric Resource Center in their Foreign Policy in Focus series. terrorism is called by its right name. many more deaths than the 6. and to make it stop supporting terrorist states like Colombia. But U. All serious observers recognize that the U. While some of these proposals are meritorious. and it has done the same for a whole string of terrorists in flight from. and protected other terrorist states and individual terrorists.

political and military support for repressive regimes. perhaps with Left advice." Wall Street Journal. but also providing the long. After one of us (Herman) authored books entitled The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism (with Noam Chomsky) and The Real Terror Network. Given the current trajectory of world events. but the acceleration of western imperial power" (New Statesman. terrorist role merges into serious misreadings of ongoing events: for example. though its justice might be endangered by dubious means and excessive ends.S. although claiming that its justice "is in danger of being negated by the injustice of improper means and excessive ends. an Iraqi attack on the United States would also be a highly just war. Maybe this way one can help curb extremist responses.S. "The Secret Behind the Sanctions: How the U. As John Pilger notes." Though writing in the liberal Nation magazine. with 7. citizens by and large are caught within the epistemic bind of NOT KNOWING THAT THEY DO NOT KNOW.S. 16. so close to the oil industry and military-industrial complex. 15. as does Pilger. Intentionally Destroyed Iraq's Water Supply. one loses the opportunity to educate people to a fundamental truth about terrorism and even implicitly denies that truth in order to be practical.S. regional conflicts allowed to take ugly turns.S. 29. or safe harbor of terrorists." On the contrary. U. Oct." however defined. Thus Richard Falk takes this for granted in declaring the U." This takes as gospel official propaganda claims. the New Agenda claims that one effect of September 11 was that "defense policy was redefined as defending America and Americans rather than as force projection. The other reason for leftist accommodation is pragmatic." The report refers to the "destructive and counterproductive economic sanctions on Iraq. although it is acknowledged that this country has supported "repressive regimes.S. (By Falk's logic." The Progressive. often serves as a physical reminder of U. attack on Afghanistan "the first truly just war since World War II" (The Nation.ADI 2011 Carter/Sydnor 14 Democracy Assistance Neocolonialism Starter K Link. But we want to call attention to the fact that there is a cost to using that mode.000 political prisoners and in the midst of a low-intensity war against Islamic insurgents ("U. September 2001). Calling for "reorienting U. and its allies only the victims of terror. as the attack was itself a violation of international law. policy for years thereafter in which terrorism has been very prominent.S. not terrorists and sponsors of terror. Nowhere does the IPS/IRC document mention Colombia.S. This is a matter of establishing basic truth. Indicates New Military Partnership With Uzbekistan.S. be dissuaded from being an imperialist power! The reasons for this Left accommodation to what we must call the Superterrorist's antiterrorist agenda are mainly twofold. If one wants to be listened to quickly and possibly influence the course of policy right now--and be far safer personally and professionally--it is better to take the conventional view of terrorism as a premise and discuss what the United States should do about it. represented by the archipeligo of overseas military bases. The recent publicity given the U." Oct. military abroad. we believe that we need a greater focus on ALL the terrorists and sponsors of terror.S. Falk makes the war "just" despite the fact that its justice was already negated at the time he made his claim. We believe it is of the utmost importance to contest the hegemonic agenda that makes the U.S.) This is imperialist apologetics carried to the limit. and those that work in it should do this understanding what they are taking for granted and its costs. And discussing the Bush administration's non-negotiable demands on the Taliban. the latter featuring the gigantic U.S. he (and we) consider the notion of the United States as an antiterrorist state a sick joke.S. the rest of the world held in fear--all because the dead body of a single. Turkey or Indonesia. Such bases are only "unnecessary" to analysts who are unable or unwilling to confront the reality of a powerful imperialism in fine working order and in a new phase of expansion.S. In fact. and. These analysts seem to believe that the United States can easily. policy toward that country (Thomas Nagy. Thanks to the effectiveness of the U. which would be no more than a media circus. by taking it as the starting premise that the United States is only a victim of terrorism. Others see things differently. business. and after following U. and less pragmatism. and was from its start killing civilians by bombs directly and via its important contribution to the already endemic mass starvation. "destructive" sounds like buildings knocked down and fails to capture the fact of a million or more human casualties. policy along the lines of respecting human rights. where the United States is currently supporting "repressive regimes. which they are doing under the guise of antiterrorism. entire nations devastated.-sponsored terror network that emerged in the years after 1950." but doesn't suggest that this constitutes terrorism. leftists understand that people will have difficulty understanding what they are talking about if they start their discussions of controlling terrorism with an agenda on how to control Superterrorist's terrorism. Apart from this." "Repressive" is softer and less invidious than "terrorist. 2001). might have an agenda incompatible with a just war. We find that we can't do that. that "in the name of fighting global terrorism. Oct. On the other hand. "The ultimate goal is not the capture of a fanatic. and very good articles have been written in the pragmatic mode. 15.Antiterrorism (Peterson 01 continued from previous page) terrorist state. propaganda system. Oct. Delhi University professor Nirmalangshu Mukherji points out that "it is hard to believe that thousands are going to be killed and maimed. so that even leftists are swept along with the general understanding that the United States is fighting terrorism and is only a victim of terrorism.run basis for systemic change that will help solve the problem of "terrorism. . essentially unworthy person is given such high value.'s deliberate destruction of the Iraqi water supply also suggests something more than "destructive and counterproductive" is needed to properly describe U." This claim that such bases are "unnecessary" completely ignores their ongoing important role in facilitating the global expansion of U." This practice of leaning over backwards to downplay the U. sponsor of terrorism." the New Agenda report states that "the unnecessary projection of U. it never occurs to Falk that the rightwing Republican regime of Bush and Cheney. One is the power of hegemonic ideas. 2001). when in fact September 11 has given the proponents of force projection just the excuse they need to project force. ignores the fact that the United States is right now in the process of building new ones in "repressive" states like Uzbekistan. the US is basically interested in using the opportunity to establish [a] permanent military presence in the area" that is notable for its geo-political importance ("Offers of Peace. Thus. 2001). 2001). amazingly. which it should do in a gentler and kinder fashion. Some swallow the New Imperialist premise that the United States is the proper vehicle for reconstructing the world.S. she proposes.

said that this institutional design was intended to give each group “a piece of the pie. Chamber of Commerce’s Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE) and the AFL-CIO’s American Center for International Labor Solidarity (Solidarity Center). along with labor. Only the alt alone will solves Gerald Sussman 06. Acting as the umbrella organization for U. They got paid off. the International Republican Institute (IRI) and National Democratic Institute (NDI)—representing the two parties—as well as to the U. the Chamber of Commerce. and development. 2006. Issue 07 (December).State Action The State fails because republicans and even the most liberal democrats get paid off for democracy promotion.”2 .S.ADI 2011 Carter/Sydnor 15 Democracy Assistance Neocolonialism Starter K Link. “democracy assistance” programs. The Myths of ‘Democracy Assistance’: U.S.S. teaches urban studies and communications at Portland State University and has published widely on the international political economy of information technology. MCJ Among the principal targets of NED are the so-called transitional states formerly part of the Soviet bloc. Volume 58. One of the congressional leaders behind the creation of NED. NED channels most of its congressionally-allocated funds to two main subgroups. Both the Republicans and Democrats assume a post-“containment” strategy toward central and eastern Europe (CEE). Democrats and Republicans. which are chartered to support electoral and civil society initiatives in target countries. Political Intervention in Post-Soviet Eastern Europe. and even “liberal” Democrat John Kerry chastised George Bush during the 2004 presidential political campaign for not putting more money into NED. formerly chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. mass media. Dante Fascell.

S.Extinction US imperialism threatens to throw the world into deepening environmental crisis. These are symbolized by the Bush administration’s refusal to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to limit nuclear weapons development and by its failure to sign the Kyoto Protocol as a first step in controlling global warming. and planetary ecological destruction. are beginning to gain momentum again. .’ not during my seven years as secretary or since. weakening U. London. far from ceasing." The nation with the greatest conventional military force and the willingness to use it unilaterally to enlarge its global power is also the nation with the greatest nuclear force and the readiness to use it whenever it sees fit—setting the whole world on edge. and deepening ecological decline. foreshadow what is potentially the most dangerous period in the history of imperialism. Third world revolutions. seemingly unstoppable. if needed. Iraqi resistance. drive for planetary domination.S. such as North Korea. Other potential forces are emerging in the world. We have been and remain prepared to initiate the use of nuclear weapons—by the decision of one person.zcommunications. The nation that contributes more to carbon dioxide emissions leading to global warming than any other (representing approximately a quarter of the world’s total) has become the greatest obstacle to addressing global warming and the world’s growing environmental problems—raising the possibility of the collapse of civilization itself if present trends continue. growing nuclear threats." Terrorist blowback from imperialist wars in the third world is now a well-recognized reality. and elsewhere. head of the Dept of Sociology at the UO and editor of the Socialist Review. that could eventually challenge U. with all means”even the most extreme authoritarian and. Secretary of Defense (in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations) Robert McNamara stated in an article entitled "Apocalypse Soon" in the May–June 2005 issue of Foreign Policy: "The United States has never endorsed the policy of ‘no first use. “Naked Imperialism” http://www. With the United States brandishing its nuclear arsenal and refusing to support international agreements on the control of such weapons. regionally and even globally.org/naked-imperialism-by-john-bellamy-foster) "[W]hat is at stake today is not the control of a particular part of the planet—no matter how large—putting at a disadvantage but still tolerating the independent actions of some rivals. increasing polarization between the global rich and the global poor. but the control of its totality by one hegemonic economic and military superpower. such as the European Community and China. New nations.S. violent military ones”at its disposal.ADI 2011 Carter/Sydnor 16 Democracy Assistance Neocolonialism Starter K **Impacts** Impact. symbolized by Venezuela’s Bolivarian Revolution under Hugo Chávez. economic hegemony. are entering or can be expected soon to enter the "nuclear club." The unprecedented dangers of this new global disorder are revealed in the twin cataclysms to which the world is heading at present: nuclear proliferation and hence increased chances of the outbreak of nuclear war. generating conditions of imperial overstretch. generating rising fear of further terrorist attacks in New York. Foster in 6 (John Bellamy. The United States is seeking to exercise sovereign authority over the planet during a time of widening global crisis: economic stagnation. power. the president—against either a nuclear or nonnuclear enemy whenever we believe it is in our interest to do so. Such vast and overlapping historical contradictions. The result is a heightening of international instability. attempts to tighten its imperial grip on the Middle East and its oil have had to cope with a fierce. rooted in the combined and uneven development of the global capitalist economy along with the U. As former U.S. U.S. nuclear proliferation is continuing.

Eckhardt. but of putting an end to life itself! This is surely carrying selfdestruction to some infinite power beyond all human comprehension. Wright concluded that 'Probably at least 10 per cent of deaths in modern civilization can be attributed directly or indirectly to war… The trend of war has been toward greater cost. 1980. even as armed violence in the form of imperialism has been directed toward its maintenance. fundamentally. both of which take the form of racial differences in life expectancies. in the sense of creating structural violence. The atomic age has ushered in the possibility. of killing not only some of us for the benefit of others. since there can never be enough imperial territory to provide for all' (p. which was characterized by armed violence contributing to structural violence: 'World-empire is built by conquest and maintained by force… Empires are primarily organizations of violence' (pp. But imperial violence came first. When this structural violence of 'disparity between states' created by civilization is taken into account. so that structural violence caused 'only' 20% of all deaths in 1980 (Eckhardt. 1980. This is surely selfdestruction carried to a high level of efficiency. but always with the support. 251-252). armed violence in the form of revolution has been directed toward the reduction of structural violence. JOURNAL OF PEACE RESEARCH. and some would say the probability. 1190). then the need for civilized peoples to respond to the ethical challenge is very urgent indeed. 247). or superfluous. But. European empires were thrown up all over the world in this processof benefiting some at the expense of others.ADI 2011 Carter/Sydnor 17 Democracy Assistance Neocolonialism Starter K Impact. 85). and primarily a function of armed violence in its imperial form. 15-16) Modern Western Civilization used war as well as peace to gain the whole world as a domain to benefit itself at the expense of others: The expansion of the culture and institutions of modern civilization from its centers in Europe was made possible by imperialistic war… It is true missionaries and traders had their share in the work of expanding world civilization. both absolutely and relative to population… The proportion of the population dying as a direct consequence of battle has tended to increase' (pp. 1983c). The structural situation has been improving throughout the 20th century. however. Lentz Peace Research Laboratory of St. then Wright's estimate was very conservative indeed. the imperial logic of the aff results in extinction. To be sure. Assuming that war is some function of civilization. The importance of dominance as a primary motive in civilized war in general was also emphasized for modern war in particular: '[Dominance] is probably the most important single element in the causation of major modern wars' (p. past and present. This 'disparity between states'. 969). 965. of armies and navies (pp. Eckhardt. 1983c). Louis. before revolutionary violence emerged to reduce it. . if we do. nor even of killing all of us to no one's benefit. Why we should care is a mystery. then civilization is responsible for one-third of 20th century deaths. Eckhardt 90 (William. p. It's too much. February 1990. Life itself may depend upon our choice. and so far as structural violence was a function of armed violence.Extinction Even if they are not on face a violent form of democratic promotion. 'The struggle for empire has greatly increased the disparity between states with respect to the political control of resources. 246. It is in this sense that structural violence was basically. So far as structural violence has constituted about one-third of all deaths in the 20th century (Eckhardt & Kohler. as the Existentialists might say. has killed 15-20 times as many people in the 20th century as have wars and revolutions (Eckhardt & Kohler. There is obviously room for more improvement. immediate or in the background. 1983c). then the violent nature of civilization becomes much more apparent. not to mention the disparity within states.

but such a political solution seems highly unlikely. and there is also a large Christian population to the south—potential persecution victims. “Democracy in Egypt–further oppression?”. then democracy (government of the people and by the people) simply establishes and legitimizes oppression of the minority. then democracy will continue to establish and legitimize oppression of whoever the minority is. Asia and Africa. Big changes seem about to happen not only in Egypt but a number of other majority Islamic nations in the Middle East. There have been sporadic outbreaks of violence in Nigeria.ADI 2011 Carter/Sydnor 18 Democracy Assistance Neocolonialism Starter K Impact.Democracy = Oppression If the majority has an extremist ideology guiding them. Only a Sudanese-type split could save that nation from Uganda-style carnage to come. is the creator of “What I was Thinking”. The showdown with fundamentalist Islam that I fear most is in Nigeria (for the sake of its own people. Martin Weber 11. but nothing like the meltdown I fear will happen there. Surveys show that Nigeria has by far the most oppressive mindset among its Muslim population (specifically the men). 2011 We may then conclude that if the majority has an extremist mindset. February 4. Then woe be to those who violate Sharia in an Islamic fundamentalist democracy. not for its international implications other than its oil production). .

discourses. McLaren & Jaramillo. Quebec. Operating in this way. always encountering new ways to irritate dominant forms of power. colonial. Such proponents assert that critical theory is well-served by drawing upon numerous liberatory discourses and including diverse groups of marginalized peoples and their allies in the nonhierarchical aggregation of critical analysts {Bello. Chile. 2003a. Butler. directly call into question some of the work of Horkheimer. McLaren & Martin. male. it does not determine how we see the world but helps us devise questions and strategies for exploring it. an awkward detective always interested in uncovering social structures. Adorno. In this context. Critical researchers need to view their work in the context of living and working in a nation-state with the most powerful (continued next page) . Thus. changing in light of both new theoretical insights and new problems and social circumstances. an evolving criticality is always vulnerable to exclusion from the domain of approved modes of research. diverse theoretical traditions have informed our understanding of criticality and have demanded understanding of diverse forms of oppression including class. and cultural dynamics interact to construct a social system (Beck-Gernsheim. 2003. Critical theory is never static. some of the theoretical discourses. Nicaragua. 2003). poststructuralism. & Puigvert. race. and epistemologies that prop up both the status quo and a variety of forms of privilege. discourses. to provide more evocative and compelling insights.ADI 2011 Carter/Sydnor 19 Democracy Assistance Neocolonialism Starter K **Alternative** Rejection Alt / AT: Framework Imperial colonialism operates upon objectivity and value-neutrality. religion and other social institutions. matters of race. it is important to note that we understand a social theory as a map or a guide to the social sphere. ideologies. perpetually searching for new and interconnected ways of understanding power and oppression and the ways they shape everyday life and human experience. Flccha. religious. Eds Norman Denzin and Yvonna Lincoln) In this context. criticality and the research it supports are always evolving. 2004). and Venezuela to Liberia (when its real purpose is to acquire geopolitical advantage for future military assaults. 2002. ideologies. sexual. Thus. In the epistemological domain. Gomez. The forms of social change it supports always position it in some places as an outsider. education. Graduate School of Education and Information Studies @ UCLA and Joe. McGill University in Montreal. imperial. class. cultural. 2003). The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. and gender. In a research context. and ability-related concerns. professor and Canada Research Chair at the Faculty of Education. Humphries. Proponents of an evolving criticality possess a variety of tools to expose such oppressive power politics. Canada. postmodernism. & Puigvert. Advocates of an evolving criticality argue—as we do in more detail later in this chapter—that such neocolonial power must be exposed so it can be opposed in the United States and around the world. Voting negative exposes this process and allows for transformation. The American Empires justification in the name of freedom for undermining democratically elected governments from Iran (Kincheloe. class elitist. The list of concepts elucidating our articulation of critical theory indicates a criticality informed by a variety of discourses emerging after the work of the Frankfurt School Indeed. in this context we seek to provide a view of an evolving criticality or a reconceptualized critical theory. In the present era. gender. Indeed. McLaren and Kincheloe in 5 (Peter Professor of Education. 1997). heterosexist. the post-discourses—for example. Clark. 2002. In this context. critical theorists become detectives of new theoretical insights. 2003b. The evolving notion of criticality we present is informed by. A critical social theory is concerned in particular with issues of power and justice and the ways that the economy. and postcolonialism. it is always evolving. 2003. Third Edition. economic leverage in international markets. and Marcuse. and access to natural resources) must be exposed by critical-ists for what it is—a rank imperialist sham (McLaren. while referring to themselves as critical. and colonial privilege often operates by asserting the power to claim objectivity and neutrality. while critiquing. the owners of such privilege often own the "franchise" on reason and rationality. white. emerging forms of neocolonialism and neo-imperialism in the United States move critical theorists to examine the wavs American power operates under the cover of establishing democracies all over the world.

has accused the U. that fail to critique the blinders of Eurocentrism. Obviously. The points that are deemed most important in one time period pale in relation to different points in a new era. like historian Arthur Schlesinger (cited in Chomsky. Smith (2003) argues that such imperial dynamics are supported by particular epistemological forms. in the 21 st century. have likened the invasion of Iraq to Japan's "day of infamy'' that is. the use of military force to destroy an invented or imagined threat) of the type that was condemned at Kuremburg. The United States is an epistemological empire based on a notion of truth that undermines the knowledges produced by those outside the good graces and benevolent authority of the empire. for instance.ADI 2011 Carter/Sydnor 20 Democracy Assistance Neocolonialism Starter K Rejection alt / AT: Framework (McLaren continued from previous page) military-industrial complex in history that is shamefully using the terrorist attacks of September 11 to advance a ruthless imperialist agenda fueled by capitalist accumulation by means of the rule of force (McLaren & Farahmandpur. Thus. to the policy that imperial Japan employed at the time of Pearl Harbor. that cultivate an elitism of insiders and outsiders. With theoretical innovations and shifting Zeitgeists. It is highly suspicious—as we detail later—of theories that fail to understand the malevolent workings of power. It is uninterested in any theory—no matter how fashionable—that does not directly address the needs of victims of oppression and the suffering they must endure. 2003). an evolving criticality does not promiscuously choose theoretical discourses to add to the bricolage of critical theories. ever-evolving set of concepts included in our evolving notion of criticality. corporate and governmental agents become more sophisticated in the use of such episto-weaponry with every day that passes. <P306-307> . David G. U.S. Chomsky (2003).2003).S. Others. critical theorists must develop sophisticated ways to address not only the brute material relations of class rule linked to the mode and relations of capitalist production and imperialist conquest (whether through direct military intervention or indirectly through the creation of client states) but also the epistemological violence that helps discipline the world Smith refers to this violence as a form of "information warfare" that spreads deliberate falsehoods about countries such as Iraq and Iran. government of the "supreme crime" of preventive war (in the case of its invasion of Iraq. The following is an elastic. and that fail to discern a global system of inequity supported by diverse forms of ideology and violence. they evolve.

74 Faced with a resurgent imperial globality that cloaks itself in the legitimising language of democracy. If possibilities do remain for rehabilitating the radical potential of democracy. capitalist-friendly versions of liberal democracy that facilitate imperial globality. Iss 4.” Third World Quarterly.ADI 2011 Carter/Sydnor 21 Democracy Assistance Neocolonialism Starter K Sub-Altern Strategies Alt Conway and Singh 11 (Janet and Jakeet. perhaps they will be found by looking to subaltern spaces of colonial difference. often for opposing purposes. Vol 32. provincialising and displacing hegemonically imposed meanings with alternative meanings rooted in subaltern practices and traditions. and offer a distinct vision of the pluriverse from subaltern worlds. many oppositional writers and social movements are articulating their own traditions of 'radical democracy' as alternatives to the low-intensity.76 We have argued here from a modernitycoloniality perspective for looking to the practices of movements on the exteriority of modernity for clues about rethinking democracy in light of the multiple crises of Western modernity. In this confrontation of modernity with colonial difference we have suggested that subaltern traditions of radical democracy rely on alternative conceptions of difference and political articulation across difference. Sydnor) The concept of 'democracy' is deeply hegemonic today. but which has deeply de-democratising aims and effects. “Radical Democracy in Global Perspective: notes from the pluriverse. in theory and practice. May.75 In this context Wendy Brown asks: 'What possibilities are there. Professor of Sociology at Brock University and Professor of Political Science at University of Toronto. such that it is mobilised and struggled over by many different actors. Walter Mignolo argues that democracy serves as a kind of 'connector' concept that is needed for 'border thinking'. emphasise the possibility and desirability of disarticulating the modern state. for resurrecting or rehabilitating the radical promise and potential of democracy?'. . or the practice of confronting.

Ash-shura serves several goals in society that make it similar to communitarian thought in many respects (Braithen. In Islamic tradition. 24. Second. He received his doctorate from Florida Atlantic University. and property (Hudson. democratic outcomes matter most.ADI 2011 Carter/Sydnor 22 Democracy Assistance Neocolonialism Starter K Alt. GLOBALIZATION AND DEMOCRACY IN THE DECOLONIZED MIDDLE EAST”. there is more emphasis on democratic institutions and process while in the Arab Middle East. “RECITING COLONIAL SCRIPTS: COLONIALISM. 4. Ghadban argues that the more radical Islamists have called for the adoption of not only democratic procedures. liberty. This interaction also makes ash-shura a better catalyst for self-determination than most contemporary forms of democracy. The most important of these goals is the building of a community and the interaction between community and individual (Al-Nahawi. based in liberalism. Alkadry 02. for western democracy. 1996).Solvency Ash-shura is a better alternative action for self determination compared to contemporary forms of democracy in the “Middle East”. Mohamad G. the role of government is the provision of social and economic justice (Ghadban. 2002). in western democracy. but the ultimate outcomes of justice and freedom. First. 2001). Administrative Theory & Praxis Vol. MCJ There are two main distinctions between western democratic traditions and Islamic traditions. is an Assistant Professor of Public Administration at West Virginia University. government’s role is the protection of individual rights to life.. No. 1984). 2002: 739–762. .

' The United States thus simultaneously asserts the right to lead. the assumption that under republicanism/liberalism. the "people" somehow control the state seems naïve at best. American exceptional status is also invoked to 'plead the authority of its internal law to mitigate its international legal obligations. History. do the democracy gangsters outbid the security collectivists. the cabinet committed Parliament. Scholar at Mises Institute “Kantians With Cruise Missiles: The Highest Stage of 'Liberal'” December 23. That they have attacked and do attack nondemocratic states may stand as further proof of their moral bona fides. one might well expect them to do so.antiwar. Next – and unforeseen by Kant. Britain's entry into World War I. Into the valley of rationalization ride the Kantian imperialists. This problem can now be sidelined.com/stromberg/s-col. Let us hear no more about how much more "democratic" than Germany the UK was in 1914. and the press.com/stromberg/s-col. given the incentives to which I have already alluded and the functionally oligarchical character of "democratic" systems. But even as it is a basis for the attribution to the United States of a special right to propose rules of international conduct. An imperial power always has a great mission entrusted to it by God. which focused on neutral rights and consensus about the rights of noncombatants.. wars. making possible greater effective military power. The sheer genius of the new liberal imperialism lies in its decoupling of the allegedly inherent peacefulness of "democratic" states from any real pursuit of actual peace. One critic refers to the new position as "liberal millenarianism. Just ask that power's apologists. It ignores the incentives presented to politicians(6) and the ability of small cliques effectively to control policy from the top. http://www. is Exhibit A. Stromberg 3 (Joseph R. or Philosophy. politicians.html . one might expect republican/liberal/democratic states to be in better stead economically for undertaking imperialist projects and. Democratic peace theory is rooted in self-justifications for American imperialism and exceptionalism. Stromberg 3 (Joseph R..(8) Another critic notes how the new liberal imperialism rides on the corrosive heritage of American exceptionalism: "The sense that the United States has a special moral status and mission has resulted in an intensive engagement by the United States in foreign affairs. where three ministers committed the cabinet. . Further. http://www. predicated on a belief that America has a unique mission to lead the world. the cabinet and Parliament did not. The key is now said to be that such nice states never attack each other. Many of the people died. rule over more productive economies out of which more revenue may be extracted. Wars can be popular and the process is easily manipulated.html."(9) This looks like nothing more or less than an imperial claim to world-rule. That such a tendentious doctrine should arise at just this historical moment owes less to the real Immanuel Kant than to the practical need of US policymakers to have justifying doctrines to peddle.antiwar. in general. Sydnor) It appears that classical liberals like Kant were simply wrong to assume that states with popular input into decision-making would choose peaceful policies. Scholar at the Mises Institute. but also to be exempted from the rules it promotes. so. liberal states. But popularity cannot be the final judge of the justness of a war. whatever the trimmings. “Kantians With Cruise Missiles: The Highest Stage of 'Liberal'” December 23. can be quite popular. too. if properly "sold" by intellectuals." nicely capturing the sheer scope of its claims. by allowing greater economic freedom.ADI 2011 Carter/Sydnor 23 Democracy Assistance Neocolonialism Starter K **Answers To** AT: Democracy Good Democratic peace theory ignores incentives to manipulate popular opinion in favor of wardemocracy also provides the economic basis for undertaking imperialist projects. Sydnor ) First. On this basis. Just as the 20th-century collective security theorists undid the older international law. and Parliament committed the people to "the meaningless catastrophe of 1914-18" (in Joseph Schumpeter's phrase).

Conway and Singh 11 (Janet and Jakeet.27 for not engaging with the transformations wrought by political-economic globalisation.28 and more generally for failing to problematise the imbrication of liberal democracy with capitalist modernisation and the production of inequality both within and beyond the West. as well as the role of the state in this history and hegemony. From a postcolonial perspective radical democracy has been criticised for failing to account for the distinctively Western character of the liberal democratic revolution and its imbrication with colonialist practices. May. Vol 32.26 for occluding the West's colonial history and global hegemony in the present. Professor of Sociology at Brock University and Professor of Political Science at University of Toronto. Sydnor) From the foregoing we can see that the Mouffean tradition of radical democracy has largely ignored questions of coloniality. .ADI 2011 Carter/Sydnor 24 Democracy Assistance Neocolonialism Starter K AT: Mouffe – Colonialism Radical liberal democracy perpetuates colonialism and oppresses the global masses.” Third World Quarterly. particularly in the Third World. “Radical Democracy in Global Perspective: notes from the pluriverse. Iss 4.

“To decide once every few years which member of the ruling class is to repress and crush the people through parliament —this is the real essence of bourgeois parliamentarism. Democratic voter turnout during the primaries. The State and Revolution.org/english/wv/920/obama. Thus we stand in implacable opposition to the dual parties of capitalism. Accessed 6/27/2010 . http://www. The Spartacist League stands for forging a working-class party like the Bolshevik Party to overturn. 12.S. cannot be reformed. 920. Sept. Imperialism”. Sydnor) The Democrats’ rhetoric about “hope” and “change” is meant to refurbish illusions that the shell game of bourgeois electoral politics can work in the interests of the working masses. the Democrats put on a more kindly face and do the same thing. It cannot be pressured into being more peaceful or humane. indeed. including among black people and youth. Lenin’s Bolsheviks showed in leading the October Revolution of 1917 that it can and must be defeated through workers revolution. Break with the Democrats—For a revolutionary workers party to fight for socialist revolution! . “Obama Offers Facelift for U. But while the Republicans may revel in inflicting suffering on working people and the oppressed.html. As Lenin captured it in his 1917 work. Workers Vanguard ‘8 (No. And. as well as petty-bourgeois would-be reformers like the Green Party. by socialist revolution. the highest stage of capitalism. has been very high.iclfi.” This system of imperialism. this rotting capitalist order.ADI 2011 Carter/Sydnor 25 Democracy Assistance Neocolonialism Starter K AT: Perm State-based democratic reform will never work – only the alt solve.

In the context of late modern life in European cities. Iss 4. In the movements under discussion here. the emergence of everyday networks of survival and resistance. Mouffe's early articulation of radical democracy stretched Western political imaginations in this direction. conceptions that take democracy seriously as ethics and practice. and grounded in actually existing communities. often aligned against states. Tormey and Robinson. and the public/private distinction prioritised by liberalisms. May. Conway and Singh 11 (Janet and Jakeet. act and engender new types of struggles. the politicisation of everyday life has to do with reclaiming land and life ways.47 The terrain of everyday life is where many of the movements emerge. that is.” Third World Quarterly. Sydnor) The approaches we cite here tend to favour conceptions of democracy as grounded in 'the social'. . “Radical Democracy in Global Perspective: notes from the pluriverse. This is not everyday life understood in the individualised ways of modern urban subjectivities. Professor of Sociology at Brock University and Professor of Political Science at University of Toronto. and appreciate the role of the political economy in the formation of everyday relations. Vol 32. not the configuration of liberal democracy. and the complex articulation of identities and beliefs. for example. but in collectivities of the social majorities whose survival depends on their solidarity. away from the more narrowly economistic struggles prioritised by Marxisms. rooted in relationships of respect and reciprocity. however. defending and enlarging spaces of communal self-reliance and self-governance. see everyday life as a field in which social identities and activities are constructed immanently.48 These are politics of collective cultural and ecological survival.ADI 2011 Carter/Sydnor 26 Democracy Assistance Neocolonialism Starter K AT: State Good Transformative politics must begin with the social and oppressed people’s struggles. including liberal democratic regimes and other colonising forces facilitated by them.

16). namely Islam. discrimination and segregation. Mohamad G. Alkadry 02. Ghadban. Murad..ADI 2011 Carter/Sydnor 27 Democracy Assistance Neocolonialism Starter K AT: Democracy solves Liberation Democratization process shows that stagnation will have no progress towards liberation. Islamic nations and the colonization of these nations by the West. 2000). Self determination is vital to push away from western forms of democracy. 1981). is responsible for halting the process of democratization in Muslim nations. GLOBALIZATION AND DEMOCRACY IN THE DECOLONIZED MIDDLE EAST”. 2002. then poverty is driven by culture and heritage and is not an outcome of years of exploitation. Islamic traditions are still relevant for bringing about a democratic revival in the decolonized Middle East and peoples of the Middle East yearn not only to western forms of democracy but a return of Islamic forms of self determination—namely ash-shura (consultation) and ash-sharîca (Islamic law) (Braithen. According to their study. Nouwaihid. This conclusion is tantamount to arguing that if most African American neighborhoods are poor. Clague. Gleason. Murad. . 1996. even when controlling for literacy and socioeconomic development” (p. is an Assistant Professor of Public Administration at West Virginia University. A more qualified conclusion of their study would be that nations with Islamic heritage tend to share a common colonial and imperial experience that led these nations to the same fate—stagnation at the moment of national independence with no progress toward liberation. 1981. and Knack (2001) ignore the history of Islam. Gleason. Islamic traditions present some of the earliest and largest manifestations of self determination in the world (Al. and Knack (2001) conclude “cultural beliefs and institutional inheritances are important determinants of the viability of democracy in poor countries. 4. Clague. Contrary to the conclusions of their empirical analysis. Administrative Theory & Praxis Vol. No. countries with Islamic heritage tend to lack democratic institutions and therefore cultural heritage. 2002: 739–762. “RECITING COLONIAL SCRIPTS: COLONIALISM. 1995. MCJ In their empirical study of several nations’ progress toward democracy. He received his doctorate from Florida Atlantic University.Aqqad. 24.

" Yet others emphasize the normative commitment of the United States to promote democracy "against all odds" -. regardless of its effectiveness. February 14. but argue that good organizations will go without funding if U. To withdraw such funding would be "part of an overall picture that is harmful.ADI 2011 Carter/Sydnor 28 Democracy Assistance Neocolonialism Starter K AT: Moral Imperative The moral imperative to promote democracy in Egypt is not for its actual development.a moral imperative unrelated to actual developments in Egypt. aid is cut. 2011 . Many democracy organizations claim to be under no false pretenses that democracy and governance funding will bring about democracy in Egypt. Some activists emphasize that the mere presence of such funding. sends an important signal to the Egyptian government and civil society. is an assistant professor in the department of government at Wesleyan University.5:15 PM. “Why Obama shouldn't increase democracy aid to Egypt” Posted Monday. . In addition the signal of giving fund is vital to the perception and without this perception it would be harmful to the overall picture of Egypt Anne Mariel Peters 11.S. MCJ There is also the possibility that the best effects of democracy and governance projects are not a function of their intended outcomes.

Instead of proclaiming the ideological and illusory character of so-called 'formal bourgeois democracy'. this does not mean that we have to resign ourselves to democracy in its present form. amid the upheavals the world is witnessing. why not take its declared principles literally and force liberal democratic societies to be accountable for their professed ideals? This is the path advocated by those who favour 'radical and plural democracy'. as the traditional idea of revolution entailed. Mouffe 92 (Chantal. Dimensions of Radical Democracy: Pluralism. This radical alternative is precisely what has been shown to be disastrous by the tragic experience of Soviet-style socialism. once we acknowledge that what constitutes modern democracy is the assertion that all human beings are free and equal. but the fact that its political principles are a long way from being implemented.ADI 2011 Carter/Sydnor 29 Democracy Assistance Neocolonialism Starter K **Aff Answers** Aff Answer – Perm Text + NB PERM: ADOPT THE PLAN AND RETHINK ASSUMPTIONS OF DEMOCRATIZATION. For those who refuse to see 'really existing' liberal democratic capitalism at the 'end of history'. The perm is a much more radical project that recognizes the strengths of democracy and actualizes ideals necessary for radical change. Professor of Politics and International Relations at University of Westminster. the general tendency on the Left has been to denounce them as a sham and aim at the construction of a completely different society. radical democracy is the only alternative. Sydnor) On the eve of the twenty-first century. p. Such a perspective does not imply the rejection of liberal democracy and its replacement by a completely new political form of society. and recognize its strengths as well as reveal its shortcomings. and it needs to be discarded. Citizenship. However. In other words. If the Left is to learn from the tragic experiences of totalitarianism it has to adopt a different attitude towards liberal democracy. but a radicalization of the modern democratic tradition. 1-2. by employing the symbolic resources of that very tradition. Indeed. Community. The alt’s rejection of liberal democracy results in mass violence. even in those societies that lay claim to them. Because of the wide gap between those professed democratic ideals and their realization. and I shall argue that this is the only hope for the renewal of the left-wing project. The problem therefore is not the ideals of modern democracy. This can be achieved through an immanent critique. it becomes clear that it is not possible to find more radical principles for organizing society. the task of rethinking democratic politics is more urgent than ever. the objective of the Left should be the extension and deepening of the democratic revolution initiated two hundred years ago. .

to support more indirect forms of democracy support. up until then. she worked for the German Technical Cooperation agency (GTZ) on programmes of democratic governance and institution-building. many donors (such as the EC) are increasingly focusing on those areas where success is most likely to be achieved. with some success (for example female genital mutilation). In their relationship with the government. . and although it remains clear that national. they claim to be ‘waiting for succession’ while pragmatically focusing on confidence-building with the regime.S. Broadly speaking. most donors tend. although we probably shouldn’t. May 2010. “The Middle East Is Changing.php. Most have abandoned the idea of short-term breakthroughs. After the end of the 2004/5 protests and recent decreases in Egyptian democracy. the most promising democratic experiment actually succeeded? What if we had pushed King Hussein of Jordan to continue with the “democratic transition” he initiated in 1989? (Jordan in 1992 had the distinction of having the best-ever Freedom House ratings of any Arab country). We can engage in counter-factuals. the Arab world sputtered through two lost decades. Project Report Assessing Democracy Assistance. some in the intention of using the latter as an entry point to get to the former (such as the Ford Foundation). MCJ Never before has the gap between Arab reality and American policy seemed so vast. Policy?”. Pragmatic actions can work within embracing social movements and grassroots. every authoritarian regime now lives in fear of the next revolt. MCJ Donors’ overarching strategic approaches can be divided in two groups: those trying to influence mindsets and support reforms mainly within the governmental structures. Rather pessimistic that anything meaningful can be achieved in the current stalemate. systemic reforms cannot be carried out without the political establishment. Donors for supporting democracy are switching their approach to long-term institution building with a focus on empowering civil society building of grassroots. But Is U. and those who concentrate on building capacities outside of the political establishment. This does not sound particularly conducive to securing American interests in either the short or long run. What if we (and the French) had stood by Algerian democracy in 1991? What if what was. Director of Research at the Brookings Doha Center and Fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution. Another trend among donors is a switch from civil and political rights towards a stronger focus on economic and social rights (for example FES). Put differently. She holds an MA in International Relations from the University of Göttingen. “Assessing Democracy Assistance: Egypt”. many feel that they have hit a brick wall with the government and the ruling National Democratic Party (NDP). in practice the reality is somewhat more nuanced. While this division roughly reflects the typical focus of governmental and non-governmental donors respectively.org/arguments/2011/03/despite-uprisingsrealpolitik-still-reigns. is a researcher at FRIDE and prior to joining FRIDE in 2004. such as women’s and children’s rights. Germany. there is little illusion among international donors as to what can be achieved in Egypt in the current climate.democracyjournal. Instead. civil society capacity building and grassroots empowerment. In doing so. And the next revolt will come. they profess to be ‘trying to slowly open up taboo topics’. in one way or another.ADI 2011 Carter/Sydnor 30 Democracy Assistance Neocolonialism Starter K Perm The Middle East wants democracy Shadi Hamid 11. Some donors are therefore switching their approach towards a stronger focus on long-term institution building. Kristina Kausch 10. meaning comparatively apolitical areas. The Arab reality is clear— Arabs want democracy and will accept nothing less. http://www.

and engaged. and three broad tasks confront it: It must integrate the rising powers into that order. but this is only part of a larger global drama of crisis and transformation that includes the world economy’s struggle to find a path to stable growth. stable. and particularly China—into the ranks of the great powers.php. Even today. and it must forge a “milieu-based” grand strategy that structures the general international environment in ways that are congenial to its long-term security. . only to be ignited suddenly and spread across regions. is the Albert G. G. Finally. and the rise of developing countries—India. the prospects for successful transitions increase when the Western democracies and the wider international community are working together—and when the international order is open. Issue #21. it must make sure that China has the right incentives and opportunities to participate. cooperative.org/21/a-world-of-our-making-1.democracyjournal. It has reminded us that opposition to authoritarian rule can lay dormant for decades. Summer 2011. “A World of Our Making”. the United States remains the critical player in the rebuilding of international order. the Arab spring has reminded us that while the outside world cannot dictate or direct the flow of change in North Africa and the Middle East. Milbank Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University in the Department of Politics and the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. Brazil. John Ikenberry 11. The Arab world is embroiled in turmoil. It has reminded us that while the world’s democracies have had their share of troubles in recent years—and that some democratic transitions have failed—the deep forces of history continue to favor freedom and the popular control of government. conflicts driven by resource scarcity. http://www. amidst these grand shifts in the global system. looming environmental threats. ensuring continuity.ADI 2011 Carter/Sydnor 31 Democracy Assistance Neocolonialism Starter K Perm overcomes the link Democracy assistance is consistent with locally-determined transitions. It is in this sense that there is a new urgency for a renewed American commitment to international order building. MCJ This spring’s dramatic upheaval in the Middle East has sent the world many messages. It has reminded us how quickly and unexpectedly political order—both within countries and internationally—can be shattered.

February 4. This would seem to portend trouble in Egypt. “Democracy in Egypt–further oppression?”. I think the Muslim Brotherhood (an ultra-conservative Muslim political party) is positioned to muster the organization. This might seem to offer hope that moderation will prevail in a new government by the people and for the people. But Pew Research reports: “In nearly all of the [Islamic Middle] countries surveyed. 77% want robbers to be whipped or have their hands cut off. . leadership and vision to rally the overwhelmingly conservative Islamic populace of Egypt into forming a Sharia-based government. support for harsh punishments such as stoning people who commit adultery.” Specifically in Egypt. whippings and cutting off of hands for crimes like theft and robbery and the death penalty for those who leave the Muslim religion coexists with support for democratic governance.Egyptians prefer Democracy Egyptians prefer the use of democracy compared to any other government Martin Weber 11. 82% favor stoning for people who commit adultery. is the creator of “What I was Thinking”. and (ominously) 84% want the death penalty for people who leave the Muslim religion. This might follow a weak interim coalition headed by Mohammed ElBaradei–who seems to be more of a dialoguing diplomat than a streetwise strategist. Despite being suppressed by President Hosni Mubarak.ADI 2011 Carter/Sydnor 32 Democracy Assistance Neocolonialism Starter K Aff. 2011 Among its results: Egyptians prefer democracy to any other kind of government (by nearly 3 to 1).

org/21/a-world-of-our-making-1. this milieu-based approach to grand strategy is necessary. East Asian countries. Beyond this. and establishing partnerships that might be useful for various contingencies. promoting trade and democracy in various regions of the world.Democratization Good – Great Power Wars Kill Democratization works well within a liberal world order G.democracyjournal. John Ikenberry 11. http://www. and other sorts of political stakeholders who seek to preserve the stability and openness of the system. does appear to have unique characteristics that encourage integration and discourage opposition and resistance. including China. . Issue #21. John Ikenberry 11. East European countries and states within the old Soviet empire have joined NATO. With a positional grand strategy. a great power seeks to diminish the power or threat embodied in a specific challenger state or group of states. Many countries have also experienced growth and rising incomes within this order. the liberal order is also relatively easy to join. seen in comparative perspective. Milbank Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University in the Department of Politics and the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. MCJ It is useful to distinguish between two types of grand strategy: positional and milieu oriented. Through its many multilateral institutions. have joined the World Trade Organization (WTO).ADI 2011 Carter/Sydnor 33 Democracy Assistance Neocolonialism Starter K Aff. Comparing international orders is tricky. a great power does not target a specific state but seeks to structure its general international environment in ways that are congenial with its long-term security. “A World of Our Making”. In the post-Cold War decades. the liberal international order facilitates integration and offers support for states that are making transitions toward liberal democracy.democracyjournal. The complex interdependence that is unleashed in an open and loosely rule-based order generates expanding realms of exchange and investment that result in a growing array of firms. Summer 2011. Failing to reconcile democratization with US security makes the situation worse. Imperial Japan. With a milieu-oriented grand strategy. G. Summer 2011. interest groups. Examples are Nazi Germany. http://www. My point is that under conditions of unipolarity. “A World of Our Making”. in a world of diffuse threats. is the Albert G. Great powers wars could result. MCJ Second. and with pervasive uncertainty over what the specific security challenges will be in the future. Milbank Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University in the Department of Politics and the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. the character of liberal international order itself—with or without American hegemonic leadership— reinforces continuity. is the Albert G.php. This might entail building the infrastructure of international cooperation. but the current liberal international order. and perhaps—in the future— Greater China. countries in different regions of the world have made democratic transitions and connected themselves to various parts of this system. the Soviet bloc.org/21/a-world-of-our-making-1. Issue #21.php.

2002). GLOBALIZATION AND DEMOCRACY IN THE DECOLONIZED MIDDLE EAST”. No. Imperialism and globalization are perhaps more relevant in the Middle East than any other region in the world (Alkadry & Khalil. modernization under pressures of foreign intervention. These three forces have acted. .Democratic Institutions = Liberation Modernization makes oppression inevitable. “RECITING COLONIAL SCRIPTS: COLONIALISM. Alkadry 02. 4. 1956). 24. to constrain the ability of peoples of the decolonized Middle East to attain democratic institutions and ultimately move from a moment of national independence moment to a moment of liberation. which impeded the increase in political participation in the region (Bill & Springborg. and defensive modernization (Bill & Springborg. Democratization is the best path. imperialism. One could argue that many of the countries of the Middle East in the post-colonial era faced a process of defensive modernization. Issawi. Participation and building democratic institutions was not possible under British and French colonial influence (Issawi.. Administrative Theory & Praxis Vol. There are three forces that have acted against popular sovereignty and self-determination of the peoples of the Middle East: direct colonization. 1956). 1990. 2002: 739–762. Mohamad G.ADI 2011 Carter/Sydnor 34 Democracy Assistance Neocolonialism Starter K Aff. He received his doctorate from Florida Atlantic University. MCJ Democratization in the Middle East has been compromised by several forces. together in some cases and independently in others. is an Assistant Professor of Public Administration at West Virginia University. 1990).

there is still no democracy in Iraq. Even the mildest imperialism will be experienced by many as a humiliation. The counterfactual offers a way out. since autocracy is pervasive in the Arab world. but it is inescapable. 169) The heavy burden being imposed on the United States does not require that the United States remain on hairtrigger alert at every moment. (Jean Bethke. we do know the answer to the counterfactual in the case of Iraq.org/publications/policyreview/3449176. a simultaneous denial and affirmation of self-rule that is impossible either to fully accept or repudiate. everywhere (the infamous "failed state" syndrome)—the drain on American power and treasure will reach a point where it can no longer be borne. in Bosnia. and since America has encouraged and accepted democracies in many other regions. At this point in time the possibility of international peace and stability premised on equal regard for all rests largely. As Michael Ignatieff puts it. Liberal imperialism is thus a moral and logical scandal. there. we could confidently forswear empire. Imperialism is OK when it democratizes Kurtz 03 Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University (Stanley. So the reality of Iraqi dictatorship tilts an admittedly precarious moral balance in favor of liberal imperialism. But in contrast to early modern colonial history. though not exclusively. Many persons and powers do not like this fact. If large pockets of the globe start to go bad—here. the "most carefree and confident empire in history now grimly confronts the question of whether it can escape Rome's ultimate fate. or in the sort of "advice" given to Americans by some of our European critics. on American power. April/May. . But it does oblige the United States to evaluate all claims and to make a determination as to whether it can intervene effectively and in a way that does more good than harm—with the primary objective of interdiction so that democratic civil society can be built or rebuilt. After many decades of independence. America's fate is tied inextricably to the fates of states and societies around the world. “Just War Against Terrorism” pg. This approach is better by far than those strategies of evasion and denial of the sort visible in Rwanda. If democracy did not depend on colonialism.html) Our commitment to political autonomy sets up a moral paradox. Those who attribute this fact to American policy are not persuasive."9 Furthermore.hoover. Yet imperialism as the midwife of democratic self-rule is an undeniable good.ADI 2011 Carter/Sydnor 35 Democracy Assistance Neocolonialism Starter K Aff– Transition Assistance Requires US Action US intervention is critical to world peace – there is no substitute Elshtain 03 Laura Spelman Rockefeller Professor of Social and Political Ethics at the University of Chicago Divinity School. “Democratic Imperialism: A Blueprint” http://www.

change was rooted in democratic civilsociety organizations that employed nonviolent methods. The line put forward by Osama bin Laden and like-minded self-styled jihadists has long been that US-backed dictatorships can only be defeated through terrorism and adherence to a reactionary and chauvinistic interpretation of Islam. as with the US invasion and occupation of Iraq. civil resistance movements played a major role tend to have freer and more stable democratic systems. the branch of the Saudi military used primarily for internal repression. Zunes 11 (Stephen. In nearly three-quarters of the transitions. In addition. On the other extreme. of the nearly 70 countries that had made the transition from dictatorship to varying degrees of democracy in the previous 30 years. . only a small minority did so through armed struggle from below or reform instigated from above. a Washington-based organization with close ties to the foreign policy establishment. Sustainable civil societies resist imperialist domination. the study noted that countries where nonviolent. Al-Qaeda’s first attack against US interests was in 1995 against a residential compound in Riyadh used by US soldiers responsible for training the Saudi National Guard.org/2011/02/17/credit-the-egyptian-people-for-the-egyptian-revolution/) Indeed. Professor of Politics at University of San Francisco. Its power has even been acknowledged even by such groups as Freedom House. Its 2005 study observed that.” http://stephenzunes. this revolution strikes a blow to the two extremes in the nearly decade-long battle between Islamist extremists and US imperialists. “Credit the Egyptian People for the Egyptian Revolution. These are hardly the first countries to have seen dictators overthrown through nonviolent action. The people of Egypt and Tunisia have powerfully demonstrated that both of these violent militaristic ideologies are wrong. the line put forward by American neoconservatives and their supporters has long been that democracy could only come to the Middle East through US military intervention. Hardly any new democracies resulted from foreign invasion.ADI 2011 Carter/Sydnor 36 Democracy Assistance Neocolonialism Starter K Aff Answer: Demo Assistance Undermines Imperialism Democracy assistance promotes civil society.

pdf) An important point to note in all of this is that instruments and approaches employed in promoting democracy are necessarily constitutive of the political relationship that the external actors have with countries and with different political constituencies within those countries. even.” Political Studies. the promoters’ perspective must also take account of the implications different approaches have for political self-determination and hence for the end of democratic self-rule. Professor of Politics at the University of Warwick. “From Evaluating Democracy Assistance to Appraising Democracy Promotion. there is the view that true democratisation by definition has to come from within society. Afghanistan and Iraq now seem to offer further confirmation. attempts to impose democracy from outside might be doomed to fail. And so outside special circumstances.ADI 2011 Carter/Sydnor 37 Democracy Assistance Neocolonialism Starter K Aff Answer: Demo Assistance Avoids the Link Democracy assistance is a consensual relationship. building a civil society that changes the US’s relationship with the people of that country.warwick. It indicates a shift from imperial democracy promotion to assistance. The implications for the possibilities of political selfdetermination by countries can differ quite drastically from one approach to another. . Historical surveys of US military intervention by Mark Peceny (1999) and Minxin Pei and Sara Kasper (2003) support this inference. Burnell 07 (Peter J. To illustrate.ac. Democracy assistance projects of the most consensual kind appear much less liable to be self-limiting in this way.uk/897/1/WRAP_Burnell_PoliticalStudiesproofWord. are a necessary condition if the new democracy is to stand much chance of being maintained. But it is worth bearing in mind that although the argument for a double shift might address weaknesses that have been identified in the policy processes of the democracy promoters and facilitate more effective strategies. Democratisation is not something that can be done to a people or for a society. popular struggle. In many accounts the reasoning is more functionalist: processes that are endogenous to the society. as does much of the record of European decolonisation in Africa. http://wrap. 4 Democracy promotion strategies that fall somewhere between the soft and hard ends of the power continuum are the most difficult to call in terms of their compatibility with democratic self-determination. or else the democracy’s authenticity and legitimacy will be impaired.