The Instigator
galaxie8
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
judeifeanyi
Pro (for)
Winning
1 Points

Developmental Assistance should be prioritized over military aid in the Sahel region in Africa

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
judeifeanyi
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/11/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 672 times Debate No: 43751
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

galaxie8

Con

Political Stability is a prerequisite to successful military aid:

There is a clear lack of leadership in the Sahel region of Africa. In Mali alone there has been three violent leadership changes in the past four years. In addition there was the Lbyan uprising which overthrew Muammar Gaddafi’s regime after eight months of war. Although supplying the new governments aid to potentially start new institutions and projects may seem ideal, when faced with the knowledge that these countries stability are constantly changing we musn't ignore military concerns and allow for a stable government that will ensure that these projects are carried through, and the aid isn't lost in the change of political power, or lost due to financial fraud due to a currupt leader, as was seen in Mali recently. Although developmental aid is importnant, a stable government must be achieved first.

Military Aid more effectively fights terrorism:
The OECD declared that terrorism cannot be foughten by developmental aid, excluding decreasing poverty levels and indirectly affecting it. However, this does not target the root of the problem. Although 'solving' the issue of poverty is a primary concern, it does not as accurately adress the problem at hand since there is no force behind it and there is no real way to solve poverty permantly. The threat of terrorism is continuously increasing. The United Nations Security Council today called for increased cooperation between countries in the Sahel, West Africa and the Maghreb to combat the growing threat posed by terrorist groups, transnational crime and drug trafficking throughout the Sahel region. Clearly with the rising threat of terrorism, and the fact that this threat is not adressed by developmental aid, shows the dire need of developmental assistance in the Sahel region of Africa.

Developmental Aid Fails
Although the ideology behind developmental aid is great, its the logistics and bureacracy that cause its flaws. For example, it is estimated that a medical officer in Tanzania spends 50–70% of the time writing reports and missions. Also, often times developmental aid does not attack important issues, or they incorrectly survey areas, costing both sides of the aid millions. For example, in the mountains of Lesotho, an aid project was implemented to develop modern livestock management and crop production and to gain access to markets. However, those living in this area realized long ago that cash crop production was not competitive given the regions' poor conditions. Also, they were not interested in farming because they were migrants who worked in South Africa with access to markets. The project was undertaken anyway and resulted in no improvements and some losses. The newly constructed roads intended to provide local farmers with access to markets actually worked in reverse, driving out the remaining farmers as crops were brought into the region. Although developmental aid has a great premise, the execution of said aid has major flaws.

In addition, it is important to note that, according to the resolution, developmental aid will always be prioritized above military aid, leading to limited flexibility and adaptability. This has clear problems, for example in Mali, although there is a large problem with malnutrition and poverty, there are larger problems in the constant onslaught, terrorism, and general fighting. For this particular issue we may want to fund military aid at least equal to developmental aid, or maybe the roles may be temporarily until the fighting dies down and we can then focus more on restoring the region and implementing developmental assistance. Although this is not the main premise of my case, it is an important awknowledgement and side note.

Rescources: Al Akhbar English
Reuters
UN
The Review of Austrian Economics
judeifeanyi

Pro

The economist who wrote the topic scale of preference and opportunity cost should be well rewarded for the great thing he did because he explained that things are arranged in order of importance..to start with, this is my stand on this motion 'since there are more pressing needs than that of military dictators, then developmental arrivance should be encouraged first' because when we clearly look at this issues, we would find out that there are more pressing needs which supersedes military aid like that of poverty which has been the cankerworm that is retarding the pace of mali's developmental effort and this needs to be solved before even looking at the military aid or what so ever it maybe called..on 16 april 2o13,the punch newspaper carried it that mali as a country is starving and they need help from the world power, and other neighbouring states so my question is this, should hungry people be fighting military dictators? Indeed we should first tackle the issue of poverty in the nation first before talking of military dictators governing them..moreover, take Nigeria for instance, nigeria has a whole lot of problem like the water scarcity, lack of good roads,i.e lack of infrastructural development, not to mention but few and yet instead of fighting this ones that can be easily achieved, we now need to fight military dictators it is impossible...NIGERIA needs help in terms of development just as mali more than that of military aid because its problem supersedes the military issue and the military issue is not a fight to finish but a day..the con, has committed the fallacy of 'NON SEQUITUR' Which means it does not follow for even highlighting the problems of military aid in mali but he has failed equally to understand that the more help been granted in the pace of development, will even help the citizens bring democracy..I never said military aid is good but what I strongly believe is this, that third world countries like mali, Nigeria, ghana, and rest, have problem to tackle and needs more help than that of military whatever..I REST MY CASE
Debate Round No. 1
galaxie8

Con

galaxie8 forfeited this round.
judeifeanyi

Pro

It seems like my co-debater is afraid, or has little or no argument to present..but thats not withstanding, like i earlier said, there are some pressing needs which needs assistant before considering the dictators of a thing..now ponder on this, ghana as a nation do not boosting economy, and why won't there be developmental assistant first before considering other bad goverment like that of dictators? Indeed, developmental aids should be considered first
Debate Round No. 2
galaxie8

Con

I apologize for my delayed response, but as for my argument:

As to my opponent's suggestion that we should focus on military on food aid so we can decrease poverty, although this is flawless in theory, logistically this hasn't worked out, for ultimately, there are two ways that food aid is being administered; through emergency food aid and through selling internationally grown food after failed harvests, and neither way accurately attacks the problem at hand. According to the Economist, published on July 7th of 2012, “Though they are getting better at responding fast when an alarm is raised, emergency food aid often makes only a marginal difference. What the Sahel really needs is to make itself able to cope with the recurrent threat of famine.” Due to the low overall impact from emergency food aid, it is illogical to prioritize it over more pressing concerns, such as security. In addition, according to the Economist published in December of 2010, “ Imported food is almost always available after failed harvests, but it is costly. Crippling poverty means that some families go hungry even after good harvests. Moreover, the Sahel's population is growing at 2.6%, more than twice the global rate, outpacing economic growth.” Since the affirmative implies a continuation of the present aid policy which is heavily dependent on providing food, it is clearly inefficient and misguided since it lacks a focus on improving wages, continuing the cycle of poverty in the Sahel.

In addition, although I'd admit there is problems with military aid, but no less than developmental aid in the bueraucracy, but it does present the notion that faults of both are almost equal, thus neither should be prioritized over each other. And in addition, the purpose of military aid does not have to put a dictator into office through pure brute strength, actually, since most of the aid comes from the UN and US it is highly unlikely that such a person would be put into office, the purpose of military aid would be to make sure that that DOESN'T happen, that no dictator is put into office that would be corrupt and steal the aid supposedly used towards developmental assistance projects, and this should be just as important, if not more so, than beginning projects that in an ideal world would lead to decreased poverty under a just leader wouldn't loose it in financial fraud.

Also, my opponent continously presses the issues of Nigeria, however there is insuing violence in that region, which has 'scared' away some companies who were interested in helping Nigeria develop in exchange for some natural rescources. For example, according to National Security Research Division in 2009, “Today, Shell Nigeria’s activities include investing in the community; supporting microenterprises; and providing health care, education, and agricultural services.” “Shell contributed $158.2 million to the NDDC and spent an additional $25.2 million directly on development projects.“

Clearly Nigeria does not need an abundance of additional aid towards developmental assistance, but it would rather be preferable to prioritize military aid to allow for more companies to partner with area, since many companies, such as Willbros, have left Niger and stopped funding them due to dangers in the region that “exceed our acceptable risk levels.”

In order for Nigeria to receive the highest possible amount of aid, it must be granted military aid in order for the danger levels to be stable for interested companies.

(I'm not entirely confident about the Non-squitur term however, being a novice PF debater, so if you dpn't believe that I have adressed that, feel free to mention it, I've started this to learn all I can, also for future referance, I am female)


judeifeanyi

Pro

I admit it, but i still beg to disagree with you on this motion..it is quite unfortunate that you are somehow speaking against yourself on this motion miss..please don't misunderstand the theory of nigeria's poverty and its origin..
To start with, nigeria's problem can never be linked to that of military infact, check their last two president they are never related to military or something of that nature rather their problem is corruption and bad leadership by civilians. So don't misunderstand me please..lets ask ourselves, the insurgent acts which has chased away almost all the companies that are investing in nigeria is it from the military aid? The answer is No it is due to ethnicity which lead to boko haram menace and has retarded the pace of their development..in that same country, the unemployment issue is high, in a state there, they have 77.7% unemployment rate and yet you still insist that military aid should be looked at first? Talk of their economy which is where i will emphasize on, they have deficit balance of payment as it was recorded by the cnn on 7th may 2o13..let me not base in nigeria as a point of reference, lets clearly look at ethiopia.the lack good infrastructure they only have palm oil as their major source of economic bouyancy and what you are telling readers is that they should look at military aid first? This third world countries need assistance in all ramification first before talking about the military aid..now when i use philosophy words and explain it, don't call it novice rather call it that you do not understand
Debate Round No. 3
galaxie8

Con

galaxie8 forfeited this round.
judeifeanyi

Pro

Like i earlier said, my co-debater has no argument to present. I still maintain that other pressing needs should be solved first before the military aid because we ought to solve things that may choke us up first before considering the military incursion which adds little or no harm in our society
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by amik10 3 years ago
amik10
galaxie8judeifeanyiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: F/F