Resolved: The United States should suspend all assistance to Pakistan
Debate Rounds (4)
I stand in affirmation of the resolution and wish for a worthy challenger
Thanks for starting this and I hope it will be helpful to both of us
I will begin with the following observations
Pakistan has rejected military aid.
When the United States decided to cut 800 million in funding in pakistan the leader of the pakistani government stated that he no longer needs United States aid.
Taliban recieves weapons from Pakistan soldiers
There have been numerous cases in which the New York times reported that the Taliban had recieved various weapons from Pakistan soldiers. Removing Aid would resolve this issue.
Pakistan's ISI releases US secrets
From Cbs news it has been recorded that the ISI released US mission plans to the Taliban and other insurgency groups resulting in the failures of the missions.
It is for these reason I stand on the Pro side of today's debate, any disputed points should be brought up in the next rebuttal or i must assume that my opponent agrees with them.
And on the side note thank you for accepting this debate I expect it to be a good one.
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
As you can see my opponent no longer has any standing points so I must resort to my own case.
1. Pakistan does not want and\or need our help.
2. Pakistan gives US weapons to the Taliban making the war on terror considerably harder.
3. Pakistan ISI releases crucial secrets such as mission plans and technology. In example they gave China full access to the US Navy Seal team 6 helicopter parts which, were extremely top secret due to there ability to avoid radar at low altitudes.
Since my opponent has no attack whatsoever on my 2nd and 3rd points I must assume he agrees with them. As I Quote Martin Luther King Jr. "Silence is Compliance"
If my opponent agrees with the majority of my case I must assume with my side of the debate.
I now see no reason to vote con in today's debate if my opponent agrees with the pro, so I must encourage a pro ballot in this debate.
If my opponent had read through my case, he would have seen that it makes no difference whether or not Pakistan is in desperate need of out help. However, we cannot even consider this because all he has shown is that a guy said he didnt need aid...AFTER he knew he wasnt getting any. Pakistan, entrenched in poverty, obviously needs the aid, and at the very least wants the aid. Therefore Pakistan will go to China and Saudi Arabia, as well as possibly extremist groups, and this massive threat to national security must be weighed on the con side. Rerouting after 9/11 doesnt matter to this debate, because as I've shown, the vast majority still goes through Pakistan. My second point still stands. My opponent failed to give anything resembling an adequate argument to my 3rd, 4th and 5th points. He has failed to show why we should be abolishing every single form of assistance in all sectors, as he has focused his entire case on the military. He is essentialy trying to win this debate on the ridiculous claim that Pakistan, one of the poorest countris in the world, filled with terrorist groups, doesnt want or need assistance.
Now let's move to my opponents case.
I've already shown why his first point falls. (60% live on under two dollars a day (wikipedia))
The rest of his points are about why we need to stop military funding to Pakistan.
Two huge problems with this.
First, my opponent fails to take into account the huge risks associated with suspending military aid, whether it is an extremist takeover of government, or the early withdrawral from Afghanistan and loss of many crucial trade routes
Second, my opponent is forgetting that he must defend ALL assistance, not just military assistance. He has failed to defend the suspensions of military assistance, and he never justifies suspending educational, agricultural, medical, developmental and other forms of assistance that ewe currently give to Pakistan.
There are also specific problems with his second and third points.
His second point is that Pakistan is giving the Taliban U.S weapons, making the war on terror. He avoids the fact that should we suspend assistance, those very terrorists could takeover government, and that since many are in Pakistan, we could not win the War on Terror without cooperation from the Pakistani government.
His third point is about the secret plans being released. The problems from above (response to second point) stand. Also, he has failed to impact this. So what if China has low-flying planes?? Why should this outweigh the nuclear harms and national security risks of suspension.
For having no standing impacts on my opponents side, no legitamate responses to my impacts, and (most importantly) for my opponent only defending a small portion of the resolution, you must vote con
Freeze44 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.