The Instigator
vmpire321
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
lannan13
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Resolved: The United States Federal Government should Terminate All Foreign Aid

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 3 votes the winner is...
vmpire321
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/11/2012 Category: Economics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,618 times Debate No: 22772
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)

 

vmpire321

Pro

Topic:
Resolved: The United States Federal Government should Terminate All Foreign Aid

Pro will be arguing that we should stop all aid.
Con will be argueing that we should continue to give aid.

Rules:
1. First Round is Acceptance
2. No New Arguments in the Last Round
3. No Ad Hominem
4. No Semantics/Abusive arguments
5. Dropped arguments can be counted as concessions.


My opponent can add any rules that we discuss and agree upon in the comments section/PM.

lannan13

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
vmpire321

Pro

Thank you, Con.


C1: Foreign aid hurts the USFG.


Throughout the past, aid workers have been kidnapped, killed, and disappeared while working in foreign lands. In just 2008 alone, 150 western aid workers were attacked [1].
In fact, many humanitarian aid groups have found it increasingly hard to deliver aid due to the risks and rising security issues [1].

In areas with security concerns, such as Pakistan, sometimes aid organizations allow the local government and institutions handle the aid - leading to corruption - and other problems like crippling economic growth [2].

Furthermore, we are spending billions of dollars every year. In 2008, the USFG spent 49.1 billion dollars in total on foreign aid, which eventually reduced to 44.9 billion dollars in 2009 [5].

For countries such as Pakistan, the USFG has sent nearly 30 billion dollars alone to, since 1948, when we began delivering aid [6].Not to mention Pakistan still in a horrible state after decades of aid,

Since 1950, Western nations have sent around 2.3 trillion dollars, intending to help improve the situation and lives of people [7]. There have been no changes in living standards, in places in Africa, even though $600 billion dollars has been poured in [7].
In places like Ghana, where the World Bank calls an aid success, half of the babies with diarrhea never receive re-hydration care.
Theft, bribery and corruption in the health care industry worldwide deprive millions of people of proper care and especially undermine the global fight against HIV/AIDS [8].

When such a large amount of this gets wasted, and can actually prove to be counter-productive.


C2: Foreign aid hurts the recipients


H. Mahood, a PhD scholar and lecturer writes:
"Foreign aid is bad for political process as natural resources become bad for natural resource-rich countries...Foreign aid and natural resources have the common features of exploitation by corrupt politicians." [3].
He also writes:
"Reinnika and Svensson studied the survey of primary schools in Uganda and found that only 13% foreign aid for education reached to the schools and rest was exploited. Knack documented the pattern of corruption with foreign aid, as aid dependence increased, accountability would decrease, domestic corruption to disburse the aid fund would increase and there would be weak institutions. Knack and Rahman found that the greater the foreign aid with respect to GDP the greater would be corruption levels and weak democratic and bureaucratic performance." [3]
As more foreign aid flows in, corruption in the government will increase.

Overall, foreign aid has little to no impacts on the countries. Lack of good coordination, high transaction costs, and failing government alignment has led to the undermining of the sustainability of national development plans, the distorting of priorities, and the diversion of scarce resources and/or establishing uncoordinated service delivery systems [4].

Peter Heller, a Deputy Director of the IMF’s Fiscal Affairs Department, says:
"Maureen Lewis on HIV/AIDS programs notes obvious dependency issues, including a reduced incentive for aid recipients to mobilize domestic resources; the potential for economic agents—whether in the government or the NGO sector—to tailor their priorities to the perceived interests of donors; a reduced pressure for governments to address inefficiencies in how public services are delivered; resistance by governments to a greater private sector role in delivering services; and the potential for increased corruption and rent seeking. Finally, countries relying heavily on aid inflows give up significant autonomy in decision making on budget priorities."

Basically, foreign aid takes away from the responsibility of the government, inviting laziness, corruption, and bad decision making. Also, aid allows bad governments to stay in power.

"In some circumstances external aid can fill so great a proportion of civilian needs for food, shelter, safety, and health services that significant local resources are thereby freed up for the pursuit of warr. This economic substitution effect of aid has a further political impact. When external aid agencies assume responsibility for civilian survival, warlords tend to define their responsibility and accountability only in terms of military control. Even if they started with a commitment to peacetime political leadership, as the international aid community takes over the tasks of feeding and providing health services and shelter for civilians these military-oriented leaders increasingly relinquish responsibility for civilian welfare. They focus on military ends and, over time, define their roles solely in terms of physical control (and the violent attainment and maintenance of that control). As this occurs, warriors struggling for victory over space and people lose all interest and competence in civilian affairs and become increasingly ill prepared to assume broad, responsible leadership in a post war period" [13]. Self-explainable - aid shifts the responsibility of leaders and allow them to wage war.

"...development aid can exacerbate social tensions, encourage bad policy making, make governments less accountable to voters, intensify competition for resources, and feed processes of structural violence in a country, ultimately empowering the very elites who benefit from exploiting marginalized segments of the country..." [14/15].
In Rwanda's situation, the aid that was sent directly resulted in a corrupt and genocidal government slaughtering an ethnicity.

C3: USAID has failed

USAID has failed in countries like Afghanistan and Iraq [9].

The NY times writes
"The foreign assistance arm of the U.S. government, the United States Agency for International Development, increasingly has been politicized, gutted of expertise and made subservient to short- term U.S. foreign policy interests." [10]
They also suggest that the US government should instead focus on improving and solving issues at home, and let future leaders to work on the international level.

USAID is horribly managed. The agency's monetary and personal resources are too thinly spread around the globe. Currently, it maintains a presence, with at least 1 permanent member, in 99 different countries, and in 26, there is no permanent staff [11]. Furthermore, their are too many layers of management between the Administrator and field programs, along with a lack of a strong and consistent leadership [11]. The design and implementation of plans within USAID is uncoordinated and confusing [11].

USAID also has overwhelming high prices and needs transparency. The agency requires overhead costs of up to 35%, compared to 3% for Global Fund [12]. Furthermore, USAID doesn't force its programs to report in quantitative amounts, allowing workers to only report on some health factors, empowering workers to hide failing areas [12].


Sources:

[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk...
[2] http://fpc.state.gov...
[3] http://www.waset.org...
[4] http://www.fightingmalaria.org...
[5] http://www.politifact.com...
[6] http://www.fas.org...
[7] http://www.econtalk.org...
[8] http://www.thebody.com...
[9] Laurence Jarvik, international relations professor, Johns Hopkins
[10] http://www.nytimes.com...
[11] http://findarticles.com...
[12] http://www.aidspolicyproject.org...
[13] Mary Anderson, President of the Collaborative for Development Action, Inc, DO NO HARM: HOW AID CAN SUPPORT PEACE OR WAR, 1999, p. 49-50

REMAINING SOURCES IN COMMENTS
lannan13

Con

Contention 1: Self Defense

----In order to protect our self against terrorism we need to attack before being attacked.

Guiora04 (Amos Guiora, Visiting Professor of Law and designated Professor of Law and Director of the Institute for Global

Security, Law and Policy at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, CASE WESTERN RESERVE

JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, "Terrorism on Trial: Targeted Killing as Active Self-Defense", 2004,AL)

Because the fight against terrorism takes place in what has been referred to as the "back alleys and dark shadows against an unseen enemy, " the State, in order to adequately defend itself, must be able to take the fight to the terrorist before the terrorist takes the fight to it. From experience gained over the years,it has become clear that the State must be able to act preemptively in order to either deter terrorists or, at the very least, prevent the terrorist act from taking place. By now, we have learned the price society pays if it is unable to prevent terrorist acts. The

question that must be answered -- both from a legal and policy perspective -- is what tools should be given to the

State to combat terrorism? What I term active self-defense would appear to be the most effective tool; that is, rather than wait for the actual armed attack to "occur"(Article 51), the State must be able to act anticipatorily (Caroline)against the non-State actor (not considered in Caroline).

----Targeted Killings is necessary for the safty of the people.

Wijze 09,(Stephen Wijze, Senior Lecturer in Political Theory at the University of Manchester, CONTEMPORARY

POLITICS, "Targeted killing: a ' dirty hands' analysis", Sept 2009, p. asp, AL)

Finally, and perhaps most significantly, a DH analysis provides a more plausible characterization of our moral

reality. The TK of Shehada is a case in point. An attempt to justify or condemn the TK of Shehada in a neater, less equivocal and less confusing account of our ethical obligations and culpabilities does so by doing violence to our moral sensibilities. It is more helpful and accurate to understand TK as an obligation arising from a duty of office to protect citizens, yet also accept that in so acting there was a very high moral cost.In short, a DH analysis reminds us that those who support and carry out such a policy must be aware of the high moral costs. The hope is that this realization will provide a further reason to refrain from so acting unless there really is no viable alternative.

----Targeted Killings break up the terrorist organizations and break down attacks.

Wilnera 10(Alex S. Wilnera, Center for Security Studies at ETH Zurich (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology), STUDIES IN CONFLICT AND TERRORISM, "Targeted Killings in Afghanistan: Measuring Coercion and Deterrence in Counterterrorism and Counterinsurgency", Vol. 33, No. 4, 2010, p. asp, AL)

The literature on targeted killings suggests that their use diminishes the coercive and operational capability of violent, non-state groups in a number of ways. The constant removal of leadership leaves an organization in general disarray -- replacement takes time and command and control mechanisms are weakened as a result. Ariel Sharon, Israel' s prime minister at the height of the Al Aqsa Intifada, explained his country' s use of targeted killing as such: "the goal is to place the terrorists in varying situations every day and to ' unbalance' them so that they will be busy protecting themselves. " By removing particular individuals that fill critical positions within organizations and forcing others to seek refuge, a group' s ability to coordinate acts of violence is substantially disrupted. In the meantime,communication between leaders and operators breaks down, complicating both short-term tactical planning andlong-term strategic planning.


Contention 2 Terrorists

----Those who participate in terrorist acts are

Guiora04 (Amos Guiora, Visiting Professor of Law and designated Professor of Law and Director of the Institute for Global

Security, Law and Policy at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, CASE WESTERN RESERVE

JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, "Terrorism on Trial: Targeted Killing as Active Self-Defense", 2004,AL)

One of the critical questions that must be answered is whether suicide bombers and those involved in terrorist infrastructure are legitimate targets. If the answer is yes, then we must examine how they can be fought, given that they are not soldiers in the traditional sense of the word. In the present conflict, terrorists who take a direct role are viewed as combatants, albeit illegal combatants not entitled inter alia to POW status, but indeed legitimate targets. Furthermore, the legitimate target is not limited to the potential suicide bomber who, according to corroborated and reliable intelligence is "on his way" to carrying out a suicide bombing. Rather, the legitimate target is identified as a Palestinian that plays a significant role in the suicide bomber infrastructure; that is, "doers" and "senders" alike.

----Terrorist Impose Such Economical and moral costs that TK is warrented.

Guiora04 (Amos Guiora, Visiting Professor of Law and designated Professor of Law and Director of the Institute for Global

Security, Law and Policy at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, CASE WESTERN RESERVE

JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, "Terrorism on Trial: Targeted Killing as Active Self-Defense", 2004,AL)

The international law principle of military necessity is also relevant to an analysis of targeted killing; that is, that the terrorist targeted presents a serious threat to the public order. It is important to add as a caveat that terrorism does not threaten the existence of a State.Neither a particular attack undertaken by a terrorist nor a series of attacks willbring about the destruction of a State. As horrible as 9/11 was, the government of the U.S. was never at risk of collapsing. As horrific as the attacks Israel has suffered, the continued existence of the State has never been an issue. The bombing in Madrid, while clearly contributing to the defeat of the ruling Spanish government, did not andcould not endanger the very existence of Spain. Such is the case with terrorist attacks throughout the world over theyears. Nevertheless,terrorism does exact significant social, economic and political costs to which the State must respond. The issue is therefore to whom and how the State responds. The terrorists involved in suicide bombings

undoubtedly present the most serious disturbance to public order (economy, daily life, public safety). Therefore, once these individuals are defined as legitimate targets and there are no alternatives, the military necessity test,

which requires a need to protect or ensure public order, is clearly met.


.

Debate Round No. 2
vmpire321

Pro

Extend all arguments. I believe my opponent made a mistake and posted a LD topic speech.
lannan13

Con

*Sorry Ms. McComas has her foot up my glutius maximus with NFL. I can't go on sorry to say, Vmpire forever.*
Debate Round No. 3
vmpire321

Pro

Well, my opponent concedes.

Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 4
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
XD it's not even on topic.

Moreover, it wasn't even a coherent case, presuming it IS on topic.
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 5 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
Yeah, lol
He's taking a very creative angle with this debate.
Posted by vmpire321 5 years ago
vmpire321
actually, targetted killings is the current topic.
Posted by vmpire321 5 years ago
vmpire321
actually, targetted killings is the current topic.
Posted by vmpire321 5 years ago
vmpire321
Wasn't that the last LD topic>
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 5 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
Did he just post a case about targeted killing? Wtf?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by seraine 5 years ago
seraine
vmpire321lannan13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession.
Vote Placed by Wallstreetatheist 5 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
vmpire321lannan13Tied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: lannan13 posted a completely different resolution's case. Yeah... and Pro had very strong arguments about the complete harm the politicized system exerts.
Vote Placed by Travniki 5 years ago
Travniki
vmpire321lannan13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Foreign Aid....supports....TERRORISM!!!!!!