Resolved: The United States should suspend all assistance to Pakistan
Debate Rounds (4)
round one - acceptance
round two - arguments
round three - rebuttal
round four - closing (no new info)
My Opponent has stated that "all" assistance should be suspended and perhaps is under the impression that the only aid that the USA gives to Pakistan is military aid.
My Opponent will need to argue his reasons for why the US Government should cut aid to such Pakistani sectors as energy, economic growth, stabilization, education, agriculture, health and humanitarian assistance, along with military aid.
The United States should not cut all assistance to Pakistan!
Subpoint A - Corruption
During the 1990s, the World Bank and several donor partners provided a surge in external aid to support Pakistan's social sectors. Despite millions of dollars of outside aid to support antipoverty programs, poverty was higher in Pakistan in 2004 than it was a decade earlier when the program began according to the Center for Global Development. The GAO finds that over half of US assistance pledged for Pakistan is spent on administrative costs, including paying foreign experts, while only 10% has gone to development. Professors Flores and Smith of Political Science at NYU estimate of the $6.6 billion in military aid the United States gave Pakistan between 2002 and 2008, only $500 million ever made it to the military. The Belfer Center of International Affairs also estimates that 70 percent of the funds have been spent illegitimately in that timeframe. When the money becomes the property of Pakistani government, the United States has no say in where the money goes. The Government Accountability Office said that only $179.5 million of the first $1.5 billion of the five-year program established early in 2009 for Pakistani aid had been disbursed by last December, around 10%.
Subpoint B - Aid is poorly structured/organized
The Belfer Center finds our aid to Pakistan lacks concrete benchmarks, and is "too vague to be effective". The Center for American Progress, argues that "there is little coordination among the various agencies of the U.S. Government which disperse aid to Pakistan. [They] are each responsible for only one aspect of the total program in Pakistan and oversee fragmented pieces of the overall assistance picture." The mismanagement of assistance essentialy makes it worthless.
Contention 2 – Pakistan helps insurgents who attack our troops in Afghanistan and other areas
Documents, made available by WikiLeaks, suggest that Pakistan, an ostensible ally of the United States, allows representatives of its spy service to meet directly with the Taliban in secret strategy sessions to organize networks of militant groups that fight against American soldiers in Afghanistan, and even hatch plots to assassinate Afghan leaders. The Center for Strategic and International Studies says "Pakistan pursues its own agenda in Afghanistan in ways that provide the equivalent of cross border sanctuary for Taliban and Haqqani militants, and that prolong the fighting and cause serious US, ISAF, and Afghan casualties." However, the most alarming news is found in testimony by Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staffs Admiral Mike Mullen. Through surveillance and data collection, Mullen found that the Haqqani, an Al-Qaeda ally responsible for many attacks on U.S troops, "acts as a veritable arm of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency." This is the same agency receiving and giving out U.S aid. Mullen specifically tied the ISI to bombing on the U.S Embassy as well as an air strike on a NATO base. According to The Saban Center for Middle East Policy, Hafez Saed, mastermind of the Mumbai massacre, lives and preaches openly in Lahore. Fazul Rahman Khalil, head of the group which hijacked an Indian airliner in 1999, lives in an Islamabad suburb. Dawood Ibrahim who killed hundreds on Mumbai's metro in 1993 lives in Karachi.
Contention 3 - India
Pakistan is not using the money to counter terrorism, but instead to fight India, which is an extremely important country to the U.S. The Congressional Research Service finds that in late 2008 that Pakistan diverted much of the funds toward a military buildup focused on India. Instead of using our funding to invest in helicopter gunships and the other battle systems they need to combat terrorism in the Federally Administrated Tribal Areas. Pakistan uses our aid to invest in battle systems which are targeted at India—like fighter aircraft. If Pakistan continues to buy weaponry targeted at India with our funds there are two huge impacts; first, our relationship with India could be hurt if they feel we are funding Pakistani battle systems which threaten them. Second, we could help fuel an arms race between the rival nuclear powers. Neither scenario is in the U.S.'s national interest. We actually recently saw an example, when India's government rejected a Boeing bid to sell an older version of its F-16s to that fast-growing economy. It would have been the largest U.S. foreign jet sale in nearly two decades. "We weren't able to offer our most advanced fighters to India because of our relationship with Pakistan," says The National Security Network, a Washington-based think tank. "We told them we wouldn't sell them anything more advanced than what we sell the Pakistanis." Because of this assistance, we are inclined more to ally with Pakistan, although India is a far more valuable ally. Pakistan is an unstable, economically weak country, whereas India's economy is actually growing at a huge rate. India also has money, and deals like Boeing that fell through could be huge boosts to the weak economy.
Extra aid is not a right to Pakistan, as they have done nothing to deserve the billions of dollars they are recieving. Which sector the funding is going makes no difference, because after the money goes to Pakistan, the U.S has no say in where it goes. As a result, 80% of the money is being funneled into the military, which is working a) against India and b) with the terrorists.
Therefore, we must suspend all assistance until Pakistan until Pakistan is able to at least meet the constraints of our agreement. All aid must be suspended, otherwise Pakistan will continue to put the remaining aid into the military.
My Opponent also fails to understand an important reality about the United States Government; it does not care about justice abroad. If the U.S. is giving aid to Pakistan it is because it is strategic to do so. America concerns itself with its own special interests, even if that means overlooking the mismanagement of funds given to a foreign State; Iraq being a classic example.
Pakistan is quickly becoming the 4th leading processor of nuclear arms in the world and hence it would be unwise for the USA to worsen relations with them by cutting all aid. America is already dealing with enough conflicts in the region and will soon find itself in further conflict with Iran.
India is no threat to the USA and India has no intentions of distancing itself from having good relations with America over the Pakistani issue. We must also bear in mind that India equally continues to buy weaponry with U.S. funds targeted at Pakistan. http://www.washingtontimes.com...
It is not in the United States' interest to cut all aid to Pakistan.
Clarifying my 80% point: The 500 million dollars per year is 80% of all money recieved by all sectors of Pakistan that actually remains after the huge corruption problems.
My opponent makes the claim that Pakistan is willing to start a nuclear war if we suspend our aid, ignoring the fact that the United States has the most nuclear weapons, and a nuclear war would be futile.
My third point does not try to say India is a threat. However, India is a potential boost to our economy which we are losing out on because we are pouring money into a weak, unstable Pakistan. Essentially, we would be benefiting more from Indian support than Pakistani support, which we can achieve through suspension of aid.
My opponent's final response was that it could worsen relations in the area. However, he only provided a very tenous link between cutting aid to Iran and bad relations with Iran.
Finally, what you must take into consideration in this round is that i must show why to suspend it, temporarily, not abolish it
For these reasons, i urge a strong pro ballot
The resolution was chosen by the Pro position and states clearly that “all” U.S. aid to Pakistan should be suspended. It seems reasonable that I would challenge this position by asking that “all” government aid be accounted for. My Opponent has attempted to glaze over all assistance by painting Pakistan as an unstable terrorism-supporting state. This is classic American style demonization of the enemy in order to convince the public of your argument; for example, Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and therefore we must attack them. Equally, my Opponent declares that Pakistan is supporting terrorism so we must suspend all aid.
My Opponent has clearly misinterpreted or misunderstood his own source: “of the $6.6 billion in military aid the United States gave Pakistan between 2002 and 2008, only $500 million ever made it to the military.” $6.6 billion is the total aid between 2002 and 2008 and $500 million is the total (not yearly amount) for the entire period.
I have made no such claim that Pakistan would start a nuclear war with the USA if it cuts all aid. This is a gross exaggeration of my statement. My point was clear: it would not be wise to take such a harsh position against a country that is a nuclear power within a region that the USA already has major conflicts with. Any nuclear power would be offended when being ordered to meet the demand of the USA.
My Opponent stated in the 1st Round that the United States “must suspend all assistance until Pakistan is able to at least meet the constraints of our agreement.” This “agreement” was not outlined and furthermore, when has the United States been able to convince another country to meet its demands by cutting all assistance? Cuba? Libya? Iran? This is not an effective strategy and especially against a nuclear power.
Pro claims that the United States “would be benefiting more from Indian support than Pakistani support.” I need to remind my Opponent that Pakistan has Afghanistan and Iran directly on its borders. Pakistan is a strategic position and neither the United States, nor India, can afford to have three territories to the northwest of India in conflict with the USA. India would not be able to help the USA with either Afghanistan or Iran because it has Pakistan directly facing these two nations. As for India’s strong economy, my Opponent must understand that this strong economy depends on America to buy its products.
narenraju forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
|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||7|
Reasons for voting decision: FF and better depth of argumentation. The strategic reasoning was a strong point for Con. Pro: essentialy, should be essentially* Con used the Washington times, whereas Pro used no sources
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.