Chicago Debate League 2013/14 Core Files
NC Shell: Neo-Colonialism Kritik 447
Download 3.16 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- 1NC Shell: Neo-Colonialism Kritik 448
1NC Shell: Neo-Colonialism Kritik 447A) Thesis: Whereas European powers kept colonies to demonstrate their power, the United States uses neo-colonialism to exploit Latin America economically and constantly remind the region of its military dominance. WALSH, 91 [Lynn, prominent figure of the Socialist Party, the English and Welsh section of the Committee for a Workers' International, and editor of the Socialist Party's monthly magazine; “Imperialism, Neo-Colonialism and War” http://www.socialistalternative.org/literature/gulfwar/ch2.html] The 'new imperialism' of the post-war period is really a continuation, under present-day conditions, of the old imperialism. In the 19th century, imperialism was based primarily on the colonial empires of Britain, France, Belgium, Portugal, etc. The United States, while it did not have direct colonies like Britain and France, nevertheless wielded a dominant influence over various countries, particularly in Latin America. It never hesitated to use its economic weight and military power to maintain its sphere of influence and plunder the raw materials, minerals and manufacture of those countries. Although the US prided itself on being 'anti-colonial', having broken away from British rule, US capitalism was nevertheless imperialistic from the very beginning. In 1845, for instance, Congress annexed 390,000 square miles of Mexican territory (the equivalent in area of the original 13 American colonies). Not surprisingly, Mexico declared war on the US, and the Mexican war of 1846-48 followed. In his message to Congress in May 1846, President Polk asserted that the Mexican war was caused by the armed forces of Mexico having "invaded our territory and shed American blood upon the American soil". In the 1890s, when the expansion of American imperialism continued, the US invaded Cuba and the Philippines, annexed Hawaii and other islands (Puerto Rico, etc), and launched a military and commercial invasion of China to plunder the country. If they did not have formal colonial territories like Britain and France, the US nevertheless exerted de facto control of these conquered lands. In the post-war period, the old colonial powers were forced to retreat. The awakening of the colonial peoples, who demanded independent nation states and improvements in their economic conditions, gave rise to revolutionary struggles, which forced the colonial powers to retreat from direct domination. This was a big step forward. Colonialism, however, was replaced by economic neo-colonialism. Direct control by the Western powers, each through their own colonial administration, was replaced by the collective exploitation of the neo-colonial world by the advanced capitalist countries. This was reinforced by the military power of the Western powers, especially the power of US imperialism. 1NC Shell: Neo-Colonialism Kritik 448B) Link: Economic engagement with Latin America is never neutral or altruistic, but is always tailored toward advancing American hegemony and economic power. The needs of the poor and the activists in other countries get crushed under the mechanism of American neo-colonialism. MARSHALL, 11 [Andrew Gavinhead of the Geopolitics Division of the Hampton Institute; “The American Empire in Latin America: “Democracy” is a Threat to “National Security;” 12/14, http://andrewgavinmarshall.com/2011/12/14/the-american-empire-in-latin-america-democracy-is-a-threat-to-national-security/] Thus, the true threat – far from the “strategic sham” of Cold War rhetoric (as Zbigniew Brzezinski referred to it) – was the actualized and very realistic challenge to American domination posed by “nationalistic regimes” which support “the masses of the population” of various Latin American countries. Worse still, the masses were demanding “immediate improvement in [their] low living standards,” thus threatening the traditional elite-dominated system of control and subordination which had been established in Latin America for so many centuries. These “radical and nationalistic regimes” had to be prevented from meeting the demands of the masses. Almost as an afterthought, the document stated that – by the way – these “radical and nationalistic regimes” are given strength “by historic anti-U.S. prejudices and exploited by Communists,” as if to simply brush over the immediate imperial threat with the common rhetoric. The use of the word “prejudices” also portends to portray such views of the United States as unwarranted and unjustified, as if the United States were the victim. Indeed, for the strategists in the National Security Council, the threat of radical nationalism had the potential to victimize them of their vast imperial domains. Thus, the NSC-144 document listed a number of “Objectives” for the United States to undertake in this highly threatening situation where the poor masses of an entire continent no longer wanted to be subjected to the ruthless domination of a tiny domestic and foreign minority. These ‘objectives’ included: “Hemisphere solidarity in support of our world policies, particularly in the UN and other international organizations,” which, in other words, means towing the line with the United States in regards to American foreign policy around the world; “An orderly political and economic development in Latin America so that the states in the area will be more effective members of the hemisphere system and increasingly important participants in the economic and political affairs of the free world,” which can be roughly translated as supporting the development of a Western-oriented middle class which would support the elites and keep the lower classes – the masses – at bay; “The safeguarding of the hemisphere… against external aggression through the development of indigenous military forces and local bases necessary for hemisphere defense,” which implies allowing America to establish military bases throughout the continent – naturally for “defensive” purposes – in offensively defending America’s resources (which happen to be in other countries), as well as establishing local military proxies through which America can exert regional hegemony. Further objectives included: “The reduction and elimination of the menace of internal Communist or other anti-U.S. subversion,” which equates to purging and liquidating the countries of dissenters, a patently fascistic policy objective; “Adequate production in Latin America of, and access by the United States to, raw materials essential to U.S. security,” which means that American corporations get unhindered access to exploit the region’s resources; and “The ultimate standardization of Latin American military organization, training, doctrine and equipment along U.S. lines,” which implies making every country’s military structure and apparatus of internal repression dependent upon U.S. support, and thus, it would ensure a structure of dependency between domestic elites and the American Empire, as the domestic elites would need the military and police apparatus to repress the “masses” whom they rule over and exploit. Therefore, America would need to essentially subsidize Latin America’s systems and structures of repression.[3] In identifying “courses of action” to achieve America’s [Evidence continues next page, no text deleted] Directory: wp-content -> uploads -> 2011 2011 -> Voices of the Old Sea Norman Lewis 2011 -> Malevil Robert Merle 2011 -> The Elephant Keeper’s Children Peter Hoeg 2011 -> Jv packet •Mars Colonization Affirmative •Mars Colonization Negative 2011 -> Registration Form (Rev. 8-86) omb no. 1024-0018 2011 -> All America Looks Up to Virginia;” Virginia and the Declaration of Independence 2011 -> Rao bulletin 2011 -> Christopher Columbus was born between 25 August and 31 October 1451 in 2011 -> The Battle of Frenchtown (1855), Washington Territory: the Political and Demographic Context rev 9/4/11 2011 -> Seti aff •seti neg •Asteroids Aff Download 3.16 Mb. Share with your friends:
|