The us uses economic engagement as a disguise to hide their colonialist efforts towards Latin America

Aff Answers

Imperialism Good

Imperialism does more good than bad

Boot 03 (Max, Jeane J. Kirkpatrick Senior Fellow for National Security Studies, “U.S. Imperialism: A Force for Good” May 13, 2003, http://www.cfr.org/iraq/us-imperialism-force-good/p5959)

While the formal empire mostly disappeared after the Second World War, the United States set out on another bout of imperialism in Germany and Japan. Oh, sorry -- that wasn't imperialism; it was "occupation." But when Americans are running foreign governments, it's a distinction without a difference. Likewise, recent "nation-building" experiments in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan are imperialism under another name.¶ Mind you, this is not meant as a condemnation. The history of American imperialism is hardly one of unadorned good doing; there have been plenty of shameful episodes, such as the mistreatment of the Indians. But, on the whole, U.S. imperialism has been the greatest force for good in the world during the past century. It has defeated the monstrous evils of communism and Nazism and lesser evils such as the Taliban and Serbian ethnic cleansing. Along the way, it has helped spread liberal institutions to countries as diverse as South Korea and Panama.¶ Yet, while generally successful as imperialists, Americans have been loath to confirm that's what they were doing. That's OK. Given the historical baggage that "imperialism" carries, there's no need for the U.S. government to embrace the term. But it should definitely embrace the practice.¶ That doesn't mean looting Iraq of its natural resources; nothing could be more destructive of the goal of building a stable government in Baghdad. It means imposing the rule of law, property rights, free speech and other guarantees, at gunpoint if need be. This will require selecting a new ruler who is committed to pluralism and then backing him or her to the hilt. Iran and other neighbouring states won't hesitate to impose their despotic views on Iraq; we shouldn't hesitate to impose our democratic views.

Imperialism is needed to maintain order

FERGUSON 04 (NIALL, Professor of History at Harvard University, “A World Without Power” JULY 1, 2004, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2004/07/01/a_world_without_power?page=full)
Critics of U.S. global dominance should pause and consider the alternative. If the United States retreats from its hegemonic role, who would supplant it? Not Europe, not China, not the Muslim world -- and certainly not the United Nations. Unfortunately, the alternative to a single superpower is not a multilateral utopia, but the anarchic nightmare of a new Dark Age.¶ We tend to assume that power, like nature, abhors a vacuum. In the history of world politics, it seems, someone is always the hegemon, or bidding to become it. Today, it is the United States; a century ago, it was the United Kingdom. Before that, it was France, Spain, and so on. The famed 19th-century German historian Leopold von Ranke, doyen of the study of statecraft, portrayed modern European history as an incessant struggle for mastery, in which a balance of power was possible only through recurrent conflict.¶ The influence of economics on the study of diplomacy only seems to confirm the notion that history is a competition between rival powers. In his bestselling 1987 work, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000, Yale University historian Paul Kennedy concluded that, like all past empires, the U.S. and Russian superpowers would inevitably succumb to overstretch. But their place would soon be usurped, Kennedy argued, by the rising powers of China and Japan, both still unencumbered by the dead weight of imperial military commitments.¶ In his 2001 book, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, University of Chicago political scientist John J. Mearsheimer updates Kennedy's account. Having failed to succumb to overstretch, and after surviving the German and Japanese challenges, he argues, the United States must now brace for the ascent of new rivals. "[A] rising China is the most dangerous potential threat to the United States in the early twenty-first century," contends Mearsheimer. "[T]he United States has a profound interest in seeing Chinese economic growth slow considerably in the years ahead." China is not the only threat Mearsheimer foresees. The European Union (EU) too has the potential to become "a formidable rival." ¶ Power, in other words, is not a natural monopoly; the struggle for mastery is both perennial and universal. The "unipolarity" identified by some commentators following the Soviet collapse cannot last much longer, for the simple reason that history hates a hyperpower. Sooner or later, challengers will emerge, and back we must go to a multipolar, multipower world.¶ But what if these esteemed theorists are all wrong? What if the world is actually heading for a period when there is no hegemon? What if, instead of a balance of power, there is an absence of power?¶ Such a situation is not unknown in history. Although the chroniclers of the past have long been preoccupied with the achievements of great powers -- whether civilizations, empires, or nation-states -- they have not wholly overlooked eras when power receded.¶ Unfortunately, the world's experience with power vacuums (eras of "apolarity," if you will) is hardly encouraging. Anyone who dislikes U.S. hegemony should bear in mind that, rather than a multipolar world of competing great powers, a world with no hegemon at all may be the real alternative to U.S. primacy. Apolarity could turn out to mean an anarchic new Dark Age: an era of waning empires and religious fanaticism; of endemic plunder and pillage in the world's forgotten regions; of economic stagnation and civilization's retreat into a few fortified enclaves.

American imperialism is awesome

Miller 11 (Harrison, head writer and research for The Miller Monitor, “Justifying Imperialism” December 21, 2011, https://sites.google.com/a/ncps-k12.org/amhnews-h-miller-2011/intellectual/justifying-imperialism)
United States imperialism began in the late 1800s and since its inception Americans have been debating the moral validity behind the idea. Through the tenacious leadership of American presidents, the United States has been influencing other countries in political, economic, and cultural ways. The effects of United States imperialism have been positive and justify the concept because the ideals of democracy have been spread to the nations of Panama and the Philippines, and Puerto Rico continue to be positively influenced by American politics, economy, and culture.¶ Since interaction began between America and Panama in the early twentieth century we have been able to see how both parties benefit from the United States intervention. America originally went into Panama because they wanted to build the Panama Canal. The Panama Canal would benefit the United States in trade because it was a good passageway between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans - it could save Americans time and money. However, Columbia owned Panama at the time, and would not let the United States build and use a canal in Panama; Panama, displeased with Columbia’s rule in their country, turned to the United States for help. Once independent, Panama granted America the canal and both nations walked away from the situation very pleased. America stayed in Panama to build and use the canal until 1977, when the Panamanians wanted to be fully independent. In 1989, however, the United States helped Panama overthrow the dictator Noriega and restored democracy to the Central American nation. The United States has stayed in Panama ever since, and the Panamanians are happy with their involvement because America has helped them maintain both liberty and democracy.¶ Panama is just one example; America has also maintained freedom and democracy in Puerto Rico. The United States originally became involved in Puerto Rico as a result of the Spanish American War. They gained Puerto Rico from the war, and helped Puerto Rico by guiding them and controlling the island's politics and economics for the first few years of independence. Times have changed, and, Puerto Rico has become a commonwealth; they have their own their own government, we support them economically. Politically, Puerto Rico’s government is democratic due to the exposure the island received in prior years from the United States. The democratic government ensures that all Puerto Ricans are free and equal and entitled to suffrage. Without America’s involvement, Puerto Rico might not have become the democracy that it is today; America spread democracy to them, and perhaps there is one less dictatorship because of that. ¶ Although America is no longer taking over other countries as much as they used to in the twentieth century, but a different kind of imperialism still exists – cultural imperialism. Cultural imperialism is the promotion of American beliefs in morals through the growth of our industry in other nations. While some say that cultural imperialism does not affect other countries positively, it is clear that there many benefits linked to cultural imperialism. Those who don't support imperialism believe that America needs to listen to Gandhi, who said that “I want the culture of all lands to be blown about my house as freely as possible. But I refuse to be blown off my feet by any”. While the quote has its truths, this is indeed and opinion that can easily be argued. Gandhi is saying that he is open to learning about other cultures, but doesn’t want to be forced to take part in one. However, America is not forcing anyone to take part in their culture and has not in the past; countries like France and China have limited American cultural programming through satellites and the Internet. With six billion people in the world, one culture taking over would be impossible. And even if it were possible, what constitutes American culture? It is my belief that our culture is just a homogenized cluster of all the cultures in the world, so in part, nations are scared to accepted a "tainted" version of their original culture? Cultural imperialism is spreading though American culture to those who want it, just as the most successful imperialism in the twentieth century resulted when countries were happy overall with American influence. The majorities of both Panama and Puerto Rico (based on a vote) are happy with the current involvement of the United States. The United States helped them economically and politically. They are both democratic, and cultural imperialism is just spreading other American beliefs through American movies goods, and brand names, to those who want them. ¶ After analyzing historical growth of the American empire, it is safe to say that there has been an overall positive affect of United States imperialism. Panama has been helped economically with the building of the canal, and the ideal of democracy made their government democratic. Puerto Rico also has a democratic government, and the United States economically supports them. Americans spread the ideal of democracy, and as a result these two countries are democratic. American cultural imperialism exists today for those countries who want to learn about American culture. Thus, the United States has positively affected other countries with the ideal of democracy, and continues to spread their culture to other countries today, justifying the validity of imperialism.

Colonialism is key for democracy in underdeveloped nations

Ishiyama ‘11

[John T. Ishiyama, “6. Democratization and the Global Environment”, Comparative Politics: Principles of Democracy and Democratization, April 20 2011, Wiley interscience]

An oft- cited additional “ international ” factor affecting democratic development, particularly in the developing world, is the legacy of colonialism. On the one hand, there is the extremely Eurocentric view that the spread of democracy is the political outcome of the spread of European values and traditions via colonialism (for a discussion, see Huntington, 1984 ). This is because, theoretically, the colonial power may have transmitted some of its culture and language to the colony, which in turn may have led to the emergence of a “ cooperative ” political culture, or may have left institutions that were conducive to democracy in place when the colonizing powers exited (Weiner, 1989 ). However, some scholars (Barro, 1999 ; Quainoo, 2000 ) have found no relationship between colonial heritage and democracy, while others (Lipset et al ., 1993; Clague et al. , 2001 ) fi nd that being a former British colony increases the probability that a country becomes democratic. In particular, several scholars have argued that the type of colonizer was important in explaining whether a country was able to develop into a democracy after the end of colonial rule. Myron Weiner (1989) , for instance, noted that by 1983 every country in the Third World that emerged from colonial rule since World War II with a population of at least one million (and almost all the smaller countries as well) with a continuous democratic experience was a former British colony. This would suggest that there was something about British colonial rule that made it different from the colonial administration of other European states, such as France and Belgium. Khapoya (1998) , for instance, distinguishes between two main types of colonial rule in Africa: indirect rule and direct rule. The British generally used a system of indirect rule, where the emphasis was not on the assimilation of Africans to become “ black Britishers, ” but rather to share skills, values, and culture, to “ empower ” the Africans with the ability to run their own communities. Thus, instead of assimilating the Africans as British citizens, society was segregated between the natives and the whites living in the colony. The British also employed an indirect system of administrative rule. Generally this meant that the colonial authorities would co - opt the local power structure (the kings, chiefs, or headman) and via invitations, coercion, or bribery, incorporate them into the colonial administrative structure. In return, these local elites were expected to enforce laws, collect taxes, and serve as the “ buffer ” between the natives and colonial authorities. A positive consequence of this system of indirect rule (a system used elsewhere in the British Empire, such as in India and Malaya) was that it provided native elites with important experiences in self - rule. Further, many British colonies adopted practices that mimicked British practices such as experience with electoral, legislative, and judicial institutions (Clague et al. , 2001 ). Given this level of preparedness, then following World War II, Britain was much more willing than other colonial powers to grant independence, which in turn made the newly independent states more willing to retain the institutions the British had put into place. Thus, from this perspective, Britain seems to have left its colonies in a better situation to develop democracy later than non - British colonies.