Arizona Debate Institute 2011
Opening Topic Lecture
Dr. Dave Hingstman
Resolved: The United States
Federal Government should
substantially increase its
democracy assistance for one
or more of the following:
Bahrain, Egypt, Libya, Syria,
Tunisia, Yemen.
The “Arab Spring” region
Assembling an affirmative case on this
topic, or how to give
the gift that keeps on giving
• Choosing some kind of “democracy assistance.”
• Deciding who will “deliver the assistance.”
• Determining a “recipient” for the assistance.
CIRCLES OF “DEMOCRACY
ASSISTANCE”
Diplomacy and
direct intervention
Economic, political
and security funds
Political and civil society
capacity building
Election assistance
Election Assistance
• Helping to keep elections fair and honest
• Giving advice about election procedures
• Polling voters about their political opinions
Political capacity building
• Building political opposition and encouraging
gender, class and ethnic minority inclusivity
• Strengthening local governance
• Encouraging the development of “checks and
balances” (executive, legislative, judicial)
• Developing formal accountability
Civil Society Capacity Building
• Civic education to make participation work
• Building independent media & free speech
• Encouraging intermediary groups like civic
organizations, churches, clubs, and PTAs
• Helping to enforce the rule of law
Economic, political and security aid
• Development aid to start new enterprises and
increase economic growth
• Funds to allow existing governments to buy off or
kill off opposition
• Weapons sales and military/police training to deal
with internal or external threats
Diplomacy and direct intervention
• Negative conditionality on aid and trade
• Positive conditionality on aid, trade, or
international recognition
• Military intervention and post-conflict rule
• Condemnation and sanctions
• Covert support for subversive opposition
Why is the meaning of “democracy
assistance” so hard to pin down?
• Foreign policy “experts” disagree: neoconservatives vs.
realists vs. liberal internationalists
• US political ideologies disagree: conservative, moderate,
liberal, radical left
• Political communities disagree: EU social policy vs. US
libertarianism
Debate strategic tradeoffs
and “democracy assistance”
affirmative choices
• Element of surprise! Arguments against politics
cases may not apply to this affirmative
• Kritik leverage. The less the aid interferes with
local autonomy, the easier it is for the affirmative to
argue that the plan can rethink traditional
assumptions and be accepted.
• Solvency leverage. More interference means more
influence and bigger material changes.
Who delivers the assistance? The
question of agency
US A.I.D.
or D.O.D.
US State
Dept
We the
people
International
NGOs
US NGOs
US Department of State programs
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL)
• funds external nongovernment organizations
• provides small short-term grants for civil society
organizations focused on democracy and human rights
protection
• has the best ability to administer and assess outcomes
• contacts allows coordination with other aspects of US
policy, particularly military
US Department of State programs
Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI)
• Provides direct support to independent civil
society groups, media, and human rights monitors
• Does not require host government approval,
although has caved in to local pressures at times
• More flexible than USAID projects, but smallerscale, shorter-term with less money
US Department of State programs
Public Diplomacy & Public Affairs
• communication with international audiences,
cultural programming, academic grants,
educational exchanges, international visitor
programs, and antiterrorism education
US Agency for International
Development programs
Office of Democracy & Governance (DG) within Bureau for
Democracy, Conflict & Humanitarian Assistance (DCHA)
• Distributes most of nonmilitary assistance to
countries in the Middle East & North Africa
($400 million vs. $70 & $53 for MEPI & DRL fy11)
• Supports US AID country missions on democracy &
governance programming, administering the Governing
Justly and Democratically (GJD) objective
• Activities require cooperation of host government
US Department of Defense programs
Center for Complex Operations
• Can help post-conflict states to stabilize during
political transitions
• May be able to help civil-military relations
• Cooperates with development agencies like
USAID in Afghanistan and Iraq
US Department of Defense programs
International Military Education & Training (IMET)
• Trains personnel from other countries in military
procedures and civil-military relations
• Emphasizes respect for democratic values, human
rights and the rule of law
• Generally described as “security assistance”
US Nongovernmental Organizations
National Endowment for Democracy (NED)
• Funded directly by US Congress with
bipartisan support beyond the executive branch
• Focused on Egyptian and Tunisian political
transition support & Libyan opposition groups
• Strongly associated with neoliberal democracy
promotion among left-critical writers.
International Nongovernmental
Organizations
Foundation for the Future
• Half of its funding from USFG, but also from other
Western and Arab governments
• Perceived as independent (based in Jordan) and is
accepted by certain civil society groups that won’t
US money directly
• $35 million has been promised in the past but not
delivered and Foundation is running short
We the People
• In a critical affirmative, the legitimacy and
wisdom of state action is in question
• The participants in a debate round can express
their feelings and educate others about what
happens in other places by bearing witness and
refusing complicity with oppression
• Assistance might be given through transnational
grassroots efforts that bypass the state
Debate strategic tradeoffs and
“delivery agent” affirmative choices
• Agency is key to advantage claims and solvency
proofs. Each agent has characteristic strengths and
weaknesses.
• Negative teams often will choose to advocate
agents not discussed by the affirmative. Policy
debate is comparative.
RECIPIENTS OF DEMOCRACY
ASSISTANCE
Egypt
Tunisia
Libya
Yemen
Bahrain
Syria
Egypt and democracy assistance +
• Mubarak overthrow and military promises of
upcoming elections makes assistance key now
• Viewed in the region as the “bellwether” state of
the Arab spring that must succeed
• Relative openness of Egyptian society allows for
greater possibilities for gender, religious, and
ethnic inclusiveness
Egypt and democracy assistance • $65 million of US Economic Support Funds
reprogrammed for democracy assistance in FY 2011
• Concerns exist about antagonizing the military
government with aggressive support of local NGOs. US
has existing strategic relationship with the Egyptian
military that affects Israel and the Palestinians directly.
• Muslim Brotherhood participation may be an issue in
new programs
Tunisia and democracy assistance +
• After Ben Ali’s overthrow, Tunisians will elect a
constituent assembly in October.
• US had almost no aid presence in Tunisia before
and USAID is scrambling to support democratic
development ($20 million) and post-crisis
stabilization ($12 million in fy11)
• Tunisians seem to be exercising their speech and
other liberties.
Tunisia and democracy assistance • Because the US and Tunisia did not enjoy good
relations before Ben Ali’s overthrow, the extent of
its influence through aid is unclear.
• Because Tunisia was a very closed society,
conservative Islamic elements may have great
sway over the election and social control.
• Unlike Egypt, Tunisia is not well connected to
large-scale social advantage claims or “Middle
East stability.”
Libya and democracy assistance
• Gaddafi continues to hang on to Tripoli, although
some are predicting that the rebels will be
victorious soon.
• NED has funded civil society groups in the rebel
stronghold of Benghazi.
• Democracy assistance would likely focus on postconflict transition stability
• Gaddafi’s links to terrorism and oil may allow for
large advantage claims
Yemen and democracy assistance
• Saleh is in Saudi Arabia recovering from wounds received
in an attack on June 3
• If he is removed, democracy assistance would focus on
political transition in a manner similar to the Egyptian &
Tunisian aid programs
• US-Yemen relations have been based on anti-terrorism
cooperation, so that may be the focus of advantages and
negative case arguments
• USAID & DoD have given a small amount of economic
support & counterterrorism funds in the past, but the
need is great
Bahrain and democracy assistance
• With the help of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain has suppressed
its Arab Spring opposition movement, at least for the
moment.
• US fears loss of its 5th Fleet base which is used to
contain Iran
• Shia religious sentiments in opposition groups raise
question of Iranian involvement
• But Obama criticized the arrest of opposition leaders
on May 19, and USFG has attempted to provide
democracy support through MEPI
Syria and democracy assistance
• Assad’s security forces have counterattacked against rebels
near the Turkish border
• Any USFG democracy assistance would be for opposition
members & human rights activists
• USFG policy now is to increase criticism and tighten
economic sanctions
• Proximity to Israel, Iraq, Turkey, Lebanon and Iran allows for
big advantage claims and negative case arguments
• Non-state-based opposition works well given the scope of
alleged human rights violations by the Syrian regime
Debate Strategy and Choice of
Recipient
• Choose a recipient [country, group, culture]
who best proves your assistance advantage
• Choose a recipient who is likely to accept or
reject the assistance
• Choose a recipient who preempts your
opponent’s argument ground