Resolved: NATO presence improves the lives of Afghan citizens
Debate Rounds (3)
Resolved, NATO presence improves the lives of Afghan citizens. I have to agree with this topic for the following reasons:
1.There has been substantial improvement
2.NATO Afghan has been much better than Taliban Afghan
3.Terrorism and safety
My first contention is the fact that there has been substantial improvement in Afghanistan due to NATO. The Afghan war has had one of the lowest death per capita rates than any other war (with actual skirmishes). Additionally, the human rights abuses, particularly for girls, have vastly become less frequent. Cutting off their fingers and noses, raping them, even weatherboarding are only a few examples of the kinds of mistreatment they have unjustly received. Since 2002, the amount of human rights abuses in Afghan have dropped in nearly every area patrolled by NATO according to Time Magazine. Since 1996 to 2001, the Taliban banned girls and women from obtaining an education. Women now have been attending schools in increasing numbers, been allowing to vote, and have run for political office. The BBC reports, that now over 1 million women are now in school in Afghanistan. The only thing holding these women is the Taliban and abuses, but NATO broke that up in nearly every area they patrol, and now Afghanistan is taking steps to become a better country. According to a study done in 2007, both civilian and infant mortality rates have declined substantially since the end of the Taliban rule. Moreover, a study commissioned by the Ministry of Public Health indicates a 25 percent improvement in overall quality of health services since 2004. These studies also indicate that access to care has risen dramatically in the last several years. Clearly with human rights abuses becoming vastly less frequent, women getting education and rights, civilian and infant mortality rates going down, and health services becoming accessible in Afghan's lives it is clear there has been substantial improvement.
My second contention is the fact that a NATO rules Afghan is much better than a Taliban ruled one. This continues from my first contention. Now according to the (http://www.ciaworldfactbook.org...), the death per capita rate in Afghanistan was 19.8 at the time when the Taliban ruled. After the intervention by NATO, that number dwarfed itself to a minute 14.1, clearly showing improvements due to NATO. According to the Bureau of Democracy (human rights, and labor) the Taliban committed tens of thousands of human right abuses every year, they were in control of such as weatherboarding, stretching them until they almost died drowned them in urine, lit them on fire repeatedly, and countless other abuses. After NATO run the Taliban out of office, no human right abuses occurred under their influence, once again showing an improvement in Afghanistan due to NATO. According to the New York Times, out of the 8,813 Afghans killed, 4,412 were killed by either the Taliban directly or indirectly 3,985 killed by the United States and only 1,416 killed from NATO. This shows that many more Afghans were killed or injured each year when the Taliban was in control then NATO, showing improvement which is the focus of this resolution. Evidently with much less negative impact occurring in Afghan due to NATO, it has a positive impact which proves my point.
Now on to my third and final contention is the fact that terrorism rates and attacks have become less frequent and hazardous to the Afghan people. According to a poll done by the Huffington Post, 73% of the Afghans believe that terrorism in their area has decreased, 81% believe NATO is doing a better job than the Taliban did, and 78% believe they are just all around safer now then compared to the Taliban rule. According to the Wall Street Journal, at the time of 9/11, an average of about 1,272 attacks occurred each quarter in Afghanistan. As of 10/6/10, there was an average of 612 attacks on the Afghanistan people per quarter since NATO entered Afghan showing substantial improvement. According to NPR, an average of 8 people died each day under Taliban rule compared to an unsubstantial 3 people per day under NATO rule, that's nearly 3x less. Obviously with nearly 3x times less people dying each day in Afghanistan compared to Taliban rule, less than half the number of attacks per quarter, and the vast majority of Afghans believing they are safer and acknowledging safer times-compared to before-Afghan has become improved due to the presence of NATO.
Thank you and I hope you would vote for the PRO as I am in affirmation of this resolution.
The sources are in my points, if you read them.
The Con contends that:
I) Situation is not improving
a) Human rights violations inherent in protracted armed conflict
1) War harms children
"Wars have always victimised children and other non-combatants, but modern wars are exploiting, maiming and killing children more callously and more systematically than ever… Children are being sucked into seemingly endless endemic struggles for power and resources (1)."
2) War harms women
"One of the major points cited in favor of the ongoing war against Afghanistan is the "liberation" of women, but when the bravest woman in Afghanistan (and one of the country's few outspoken female activists) is denouncing the degradation of women's rights under foreign occupation, when statistics and U.N reports show that the situation of women continues to worsen, and when civilian casualties continue to rise, what is the liberation the occupying powers have in mind? A "liberation," surely, that has far more to do with securing the interests of the United States than with the realities, needs, and interests of Afghan women (2)."
b) Human rights abuses committed by both NATO and Taliban
1) Lack of accountability in civilian casualties
"The military logs bear out Amnesty International's longstanding concerns that there is no coherent or consistent system for accounting for civilian casualties. The leaked records support Amnesty's concerns about improper reporting of civilian casualties, a lack of investigations into casualties that are recorded, and poor coordination between different national forces about incidents and even over investigations that do take place (3)."
2) Lack of judicial process
"Though the site is physically much improved from the old Bagram prison, this is still a long way from a just process. For the hearings to be minimally fair, the detainees should be able to contest the evidence against them and have access to a lawyer…But detainees have no lawyers… the culture of secrecy in Afghanistan borders on the absurd. As one U.S. official acknowledged to me, when the contents of a man's pockets can be classified secret, even from him, then something is wrong (4)."
c) Security not improving
"The United Nations' findings appeared at odds with Pentagon assertions this week claiming slow-but-steady progress in Afghanistan - an assessment challenged by U.S. lawmakers during hearings on Capitol Hill. The report, which Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon submitted to the U.N. Security Council this week, said Afghanistan's overall security situation "has not improved" since his last report in March (5)."
II) NATO Afghanistan has not been much better than Taliban
a) Afghans say NATO as bad
"Despite statistics suggesting insurgents are disproportionately responsible for civilian harm, our analysis found that Afghans blamed international forces as much, if not more, than insurgents. Few spoke warmly about the Taliban. But the vast majority described international forces as equally brutal toward civilians, and equally, if not more responsible for civilian casualties, detention abuses and other concerns (6)."
b) NATO presence props up corrupt regime
"The Karzai government in Afghanistan has also come under both domestic and international criticism due to rampant corruption and an inability to improve security and overall living conditions for its citizens (7)."
c) Still not safe for refugees to return
"The conditions for the persecuted Hazara minority in Afghanistan, in particular, are unsafe and not improving, according to Riz Wakil a Hazara community spokesperson…'For over 100 years under different Pashtun rulers and under the Taliban, Hazara have been persecuted and were forced to leave. It is the same under the Karzai government and the nose of the US-NATO forces', Riz Wakil, another Hazara community representative, commented (8)."
The Con agrees with Ernest Hemmingway when he said ""Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime." The war in Afghanistan has failed in 9 years to bring about a peaceful resolution to the conflict, has failed to bring stability and peace to the region or the world. We are not more secure, and Afghan citizens suffer terribly for our refusal to end this war.
Napoleon Bonaparte once said ""Do you know what astonished me most in the world? The inability of force to create anything. In the long run, the sword is always beaten by the spirit." Would that we could finally learn the lesson of the dictator, and cease to perpetuate the fraud of peace through war. Then, perhaps we could begin to work toward the real peace that looks not to our own needs first, but to the needs of the people we claim to be liberating. NATO's presence in Afghanistan is preventing real progress toward lasting peace. For this reason, I urge you to vote Con.
I won first place in Novice PF debate on this topic with my partner Samuel Tekie. :)
I'm very sorry again and hope that you would just skip this round and I will move on.
Thank you very much!!
jingzhezhang forfeited this round.
rkkell forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.