Affirmative Case
Resolved: the United States has a moral obligation to mitigate international conflict.
Term Definitions:
Moral: 1. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character.
2.Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior
3.Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.
Obligation: 1. The act of binding oneself by a social, legal, or moral tie.
A. A social, legal, or moral requirement, such as a duty, contracts, or promise that compels one to follow or avoid a particular course of action.
B. A course of action imposed by society, law, or conscience by which one is bound or restricted.
Mitigate: To moderate (a quality or condition) in force or intensity; alleviate.
International: Of, relating to, or involving two or more nations
Conflict: An active disagreement between two parties.
Values:
In affirming this resolution I will uphold a global continuum, consisting of three global indicators. First, Global Comunitarianism, defined by the Oxford Companion to Ethics, as a model of global organization that stresses ties of affection, kinship, and a sense of common purpose, as opposed to the meager ties between individual nations. Second, Security as defined by Simon and Bowie in The Individual and Political Order, as defense of rights and protection of rights. Third, Environmental Ethic, as explained by the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, as the attempt to expand moral framework to nature to counter human chauvinism. These values are essential to individual nations as well as the global community, and lie in affirmation of the resolution.
Contentions:
1. The Lessons of Rwanda and Yugoslavia
Despite sharp disagreements among people in the United States, Europe and elsewhere over what went wrong in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, everyone agrees that when tragedies engulfed these lands the international community was sadly unprepared to halt "ethnic cleansing" and mass killings. Because these conclusions seem so familiar and unexceptional, we overlook their profound significance for the future of world peace, and for our own moral integrity.
It is too late to erase the disasters suffered by people in Yugoslavia and Rwanda; it is not too late to prevent future Rwandas and Yugoslavias. Communal conflict is smoldering from Sri Lanka to Chechnya, from Georgia to Mexico, from Sudan to the Philippines, from India to Burundi, and from Iraq and Turkey to Kosovo, Macedonia and Moldova. Unless we act now to discourage conditions that will give rise to violent bigotry and genocidal slaughters, we cannot claim to be morally responsible.
2. Global concerns subsume national concerns.
Any concern seen as a U.S. interest is going to affect the rest of the world. As the worlds only superpower, the U.S. will either affect or be affected by global questions, and thus, national concerns for the U.S. become global concerns.
3. The United States is a unique moral agent.
We are the worlds only superpower. Its a univocal world out there. The United States must act or mitigation efforts will fail. Prof. Leonard Kurtz wrote in the Fall issue of Asian Review:
There is reason the United States is called into these situations. American security is affected, thats true. But just as importantly only the United States can reasonably hope to succeed. Will any other nation be able to mitigate India-Pakistan hatred? Can any other nation be able to mitigate India-Pakistan hatred? Can any other state convince the paranoid xenophobes of North Korea to back down? Can world environmental and medical issues be solved with out our participation? The United States is unique; only America in todays world has both the military, economic, and diplomatic clout to create effective positive change on many of the most contentious international issues.
4. The United States promotes morality and happiness by reducing conflict.
How do we do that? By more actively fighting pollution and promoting international economic growth. As the worlds largest economy we control 32% of world output and even more of its pollution. If we act we can mitigate international conflict by setting the example and by lobbying with others to improve their economy while reducing pollution.
Thomas L. McNaughter, 1994 (Senior fellow in the Brookings Institute, The United States, Japan, and Asia: Challenges for U.S. Policy, p.187)
These trends would seem to bode well for countries interested in stability and economic growth. Globalizing economic forces have already begun to constrain state power and encourage international cooperation.
Zalmay Khalizad, Spring 1995 (Headed RANDs Project Air Force, Assistant for policy planning, The Washington Quarterly)
Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multiplicity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable, not as an end itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more receptive to American values - democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the worlds major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United states and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conductive to global stability than a bipolar or multipolar balance of power system.
Lets promote the continuum of values. Lets do the moral thing. Lets do our best to mitigate international conflicts.
Any other country too, but since the US usually smells a profit for themselves too...
