Gonzaga Debate Institute 2010

Geneva Conventions – Democracy Module – Undermine Democracy

And, the privatization of the military undermines democracy- it creates a system that the executive systematically circumvents congress and the pubic while giving private corporations the ability to outgun our military

Scahill 7 (Jeremy, Puffin Foundation Writing Fellow at The Nation Institute, is the author of the bestselling Blackwater, The Independent, Aug 10, http://www.uruknet.info/?p=35239 ) ET

If you think the U.S. has only 160,000 troops in Iraq, think again. With almost no congressional oversight and even less public awareness, the Bush administration has more than doubled the size of the U.S. occupation through the use of private war companies. There are now almost 200,000 private "contractors" deployed in Iraq by Washington. This means that U.S. military forces in Iraq are now outsized by a coalition of billing corporations whose actions go largely unmonitored and whose crimes are virtually unpunished. In essence, the Bush administration has created a shadow army that can be used to wage wars unpopular with the American public but extremely profitable for a few unaccountable private companies. Since the launch of the "global war on terror," the administration has systematically funneled billions of dollars in public money to corporations like Blackwater USA , DynCorp, Triple Canopy, Erinys and ArmorGroup. They have in turn used their lucrative government pay-outs to build up the infrastructure and reach of private armies so powerful that they rival or outgun some nation’s militaries. "I think it’s extraordinarily dangerous when a nation begins to outsource its monopoly on the use of force and the use of violence in support of its foreign policy or national security objectives," says veteran U.S. Diplomat Joe Wilson, who served as the last U.S. ambassador to Iraq before the 1991 Gulf War. The billions of dollars being doled out to these companies, Wilson argues, "makes of them a very powerful interest group within the American body politic and an interest group that is in fact armed. And the question will arise at some time: to whom do they owe their loyalty?"Precise data on the extent of U.S. spending on mercenary services is nearly impossible to obtain — by both journalists and elected officials—but some in Congress estimate that up to 40 cents of every tax dollar spent on the war goes to corporate war contractors. At present, the United States spends about $2 billion a week on its Iraq operations. While much has been made of the Bush administration’s "failure" to build international consensus for the invasion of Iraq, perhaps that was never the intention. When U.S. tanks rolled into Iraq in March 2003, they brought with them the largest army of "private contractors" ever deployed in a war. The White House substituted international diplomacy with lucrative war contracts and a coalition of willing nations who provided token forces with a coalition of billing corporations that supplied the brigades of contractors.

Geneva Conventions – Democracy Module – Emerging Democracies

PMC’s hurt emerging democracies – they undermine the aim to redistribute power and resources.
SALZMAN 9 (“PRIVATE MILITARY CONTRACTORS AND THE TAINT OF A MERCENARY” REPUTATION ZOE New York University School of Law INTERNATIONAL LAW AND POLITICS [Vol. 40:853 May 14, http://law.nyu.edu/ecm_dlv4/groups/public/@nyu_law_website__journals__journal_of_international_law_and_politics/documents/documents/ecm_pro_058877.pdf)KM

Just as the private military industry poses a threat to established democratic regimes, it also potentially impedes the emergence of new democratic states. When private contractors become involved in a conflict, there is necessarily a danger that security will become a commodity that only the rich can afford.105 This tendency can undermine democratic movements that aim at a redistribution of resources and power.106 Fundamentally, private contractors “serve a commercial rather than a humanitarian purpose. . . . [T]hey are not drawn towards the interests of the poor, but towards those who can pay.”107

Geneva Conventions – Democracy Module – Emerging Demo

Emerging democracies solve all impacts – they offer pragmatic solutions to counter ideological standoffs between major powers – Kazakhstan proves.
Nazarbayev 9 (Nursultan, president of the Republic of Kazakhstan, “The promise of emerging democracies” September 8,

Sharing common values of freedom and peaceful development, democracies firmly support each other. That is why since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks that shocked the entirety of mankind, Kazakhstan has stood shoulder to shoulder with the United States in the fight against international terrorism and today provides much-needed assistance for the stabilization of Afghanistan. As an emerging democracy practicing cooperative leadership, Kazakhstan is able to encourage dialogue even among adversaries. Our recently concluded third annual Congress of Leaders of World and Traditional Religions is only one example, with spiritual leaders attending from almost every faith and nation to promote tolerance and understanding. Likewise, our quest to establish an international nuclear fuel bank to be governed by the International Atomic Energy Agency, which would allow nations like Iran and others to openly and honestly pursue their energy agendas, finds support among leaders in the United States, Russia and China. Recently, Israeli President Shimon Peres proposed Kazakhstan as the site for a historic meeting with key leaders from his country, Saudi Arabia and the Islamic world. This is how emerging democracies can make a difference. In the absence of the entrenched and sometimes dogmatic divisions of the past, young entrants on the global stage of freedom can offer an environment for pragmatic solutions. Mr. Obama understands this. Two weeks after his election, he called to discuss regional cooperation, nonproliferation measures and energy cooperation. At that time, and many times since in public statements, he has favored pragmatism as the basis for civilized statecraft. Some have suggested this is an inadequate approach for charting the new direction in foreign policy that Mr. Obama has promised. However, I believe those criticisms are misconceived. Pragmatism is necessary in nation-building and more likely to evoke a positive response from allies than an ideological crusade. Emerging democracies understand this challenge, undertaking in decades an experiment that has engaged America for much more than 200 years. Cooperative leadership is the important role we can play and the example we can set for others.