The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

Resolved: The United States should suspend all assistance to Pakistan.

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/22/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,545 times Debate No: 21392
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




Resolved: The United States should suspend all assistance to Pakistan.

Point 1: Foreign Aid Causes a Vicious Cycle of Dependency
Tom Wright, "Will US Suspension of Pakistan Aid Work?," Wall Street Journal, December 13, 2011

Large sums of aid have been wasted in many inefficient projects in the past few years. The aid that we are providing Pakistan with, has not become not productive at all, and has made Pakistan, enter into a cycle of complete dependency. Reduction in public investment, infrastructure deficiencies, and lack of social services are the main gifts of aid. Tom Wright argues that to enhance aid effectiveness there is need to break the vicious circle of dependency and rehabilitate the economy through prudent macro-management policies.

Point 2: Pakistan helps Terrorist Groups when Convenient

"Pakistan troops rush to Taliban-Infiltrated Area," MSNBC, June 25, 2011

A "stable dysfunctional relationship" is one in which the parties damage each other but maintain the relationship because they also nurture each other. This is just like the U.S.-Pakistani relationship. These clashes have added to the force when in November 2011 there was a killing of twenty-four Pakistani soldiers by NATO forces which sparked a fresh crisis in the relationship. It has allowed U.S. incursions into Pakistan and provided some of the intelligence on which drone strikes are sometimes based. On the other hand, the Afghan Taliban can hide, rest, regroup, rearm, train and organize in Pakistan, especially in North Waziristan. This greatly hinders the drive to end the insurgency in Afghanistan. Which further harms our own relationship.

Point 3: Pakistan Intelligence uses Terrorists as Assets

Office of the Attorney General, "Audit of US/Pakistan's Livelihood Development Program in the Upper Regions of the Tribal Areas," US Agency for International Development, December, 2011

Pakistan is unapologetic. This was stated by Pakistan, when admitting to errors and holes in their own intelligence.
In the toxic anti-Americanism now flowing through Pakistan, that could be a death sentence. Public outrage arises not only from the violation of sovereignty but from a suspicion that the army's denunciations are a smoke screen for a secret deal that permits US Special Forces to kill Al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan unmolested. How could bin Laden live for five years undetected in a leafy suburb under the noses of an army that has received an exorbitant amount of money and arms from the United States, and he was living around 5 miles away from a military school! The answer is simple, it was convenient for Pakistan to use him as an asset, so in fact they did.


Thanks for starting this debate...I hope we'll both have fun

Suspending aid drives Pakistan toward other sources
As The Council on Foreign Relations reminds us, the last time we walked away was disastrous. "As relations with the United States deteriorated, Pakistan pursued ties with the Taliban‐‐part of its "strategic depth" initiative to counter India and bring "stability" to Afghanistan after the Soviet occupation. It also continued an aggressive nuclear program too, complete with disastrous global proliferation." However, a Pakistani change in heart would not have to be so dramatic to have adverse effects on America. For example, if Pakistan were to align itself with China, China could leverage Pakistan into antagonizing India. According to the Washington Quarterly, "As India struggles to emerge as a global power with an ambitious foreign policy agenda, China can effectively scuttle Indian ambitions by continuing with its diplomatic and military support to Pakistan. Much to India's chagrin, China has given ample indications in the recent past that it wants to follow that path." The Quarterly also shows that should we suspend aid, this turn to China would happen. Reacting to the U.S. move to suspend some aid in July 2011, Islamabad's ambassador Masood Khan, was quick to suggest that ‘‘China will stand by us in difficult times as it has been doing for the past years.' Pakistan could also be driven to Saudi Arabia, a known hotspot for terrorists who could use nuclear bombs. According to Bruce Riedel of the Brookings Institute, In October 2003, then Crown Prince Abdullah visited Pakistan for a state visit. Several experts reported after the trip that a secret agreement was concluded that would ensure Pakistan would provide Saudi Arabia with nuclear technology and a bomb if Saudi Arabia felt threatened by a third party nuclear program in the future. Riedel found also however that no country can match America in its assistance to Pakistan, so as long as the assistance remains, this is not a threat

Pakistan controls U.S and NATO supply routes

The Council on Foreign Relations shows that Pakistan's assistance is crucial in our efforts in Afghanistan. We cannot fight in Afghanistan without the 80 percent of fuel and dry goods shipped through Pakistan. A responsible withdrawal of U.S. forces depends on an Afghan
political solution that Pakistan will influence. The Brookings Institute finds that 80% of NATO troops in Afghanistan could not survive without resources coming from the port of Karachi. As Lisa Curtis, of the Asian Studies Center stated "The U.S. must avoid abrupt action like stopping all aid, which would come at a steep price to U.S. interests in the region. Pakistan could react by cutting off NATO supply lines that run through Pakistan to coalition troops in Afghanistan. It could also expel U.S. intelligence officials from the country, thus denying the U.S. access to valuable information that helps the CIA track terrorists. Peter Brooks of National Security Affairs finds If Islamabad closes southern supply routes, and we can't boost flow from the north, we'll have to look at reducing coalition forces and operations in Afghanistan, possibly resulting in a premature withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Suspending is too rash, better alternatives exist
Suspending aid has the massive detriments mentioned above, as well as the imminent threat of nuclear war. Alternatives, such as applying conditions, suspending some aid, etc. are far more beneficial and will not threaten national security

Suspending aid will destabalize govenment
There are multiple impacts to this.
First, Pakistan's economy will suffer, as it is not able to function without aid
Second, The government willl be in danger of collapse
Third, this could be an oppurtunity for extremists to take control of a nuke-possesing country
Debate Round No. 1


imabetterthanyou forfeited this round.


narenraju forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Oldfrith 4 years ago
I'll do this topic with you, I just can't do it right now
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I think pro sufficiently showed the aid is good to aid our causes in the middle east and his arguments where logical. I likes his Pakistan Afghanistan argument. Con wins.