Developmental Assistance should be prioritized over military aid in the Sahel region in Africa
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
The Review of Austrian Economics
galaxie8 forfeited this round.
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.
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
galaxie8 forfeited this round.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||1|