The Instigator
Volkov
Pro (for)
Winning
19 Points
The Contender
GermanSoviet
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Some Business Interests Hurt NATO's Purpose in Afghanistan

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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...
Volkov
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/12/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,522 times Debate No: 8949
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (3)

 

Volkov

Pro

Hello everyone, and especially to my opponent, who I thank for taking this debate in advance.

The resolution revolves around the fact that some business interests in the country of Afghanistan are hurting NATO's purpose in the country.

I will provide some definitions first, and launch into my argument after.

Business: a person, partnership, or corporation engaged in commerce, manufacturing, or a service; profit-seeking enterprise or concern. [1]

Interest: to concern (a person, nation, etc.) in something; involve: [2]

Hurt: to affect adversely; harm [3]

NATO: The North Atlantic Treaty Organization [4]

Purpose: an intended or desired result; end; aim; goal. [5]

Afghanistan: The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan [6]

My opponent, by choosing to accept this debate, agrees to these definitions, and will not argue outside of them.
____________________________________________________________________

The country of Afghanistan has seen its fair share of turmoil over the past centuries.

To begin with, during some of its earliest years, Alexander the Great invaded the country in 330 BCE. After Alexander's demise, the former empire that he controlled split into warring kingdoms, fighting among each other. Then, Arabian armies invaded, bringing the religion of Islam to this inhospitable territory, destroying the Buddhist civilization that had grown there [7]. Fast forward to the 20th Century, when Afghanistan was overrun by Soviet forces, and insurgents carried out a bloody campaign to rid their country of them. [8]
The area has always known war - there is no doubt about this.

Today, Afghanistan is once again under the auspices of war. In 2001, the United States along with several other countries invaded Afghanistan in order to destroy the Taliban, an organization that was harbouring terrorist Osama Bin Laden, claimed author of the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center. In the interest of time, we'll just note that Bin Laden has yet to be captured.

In 2003, member countries of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) took over control of the International Security Assistance Force [9]. The stated purpose of NATO's mission in Afghanistan is to "... assist the Afghan Government in exercising and extending its authority and influence across the country, paving the way for reconstruction and effective governance." [9]

Since that time, NATO countries have worked to stabilize Afghanistan and keep the government of Hamid Karzai [10] afloat. Unfortunately, due to endemic corruption within the government of Afghanistan, business interests have a hard time investing through the government [11].

While corruption is a major problem within the government of Afghanistan, I will be arguing that in fact, businesses that choose not to go through the government channels and instead through NATO or ISAF channels to set up shop in the country, are in fact hurting the stated purpose of NATO in the country.

Point #1: Some businesses refuse to adhere to government programs for investment and development.

Some businesses in Afghanistan refuse to go through the proper channels in order to invest in Afghanistan. One of these proper channels is known as the National Solidarity Program (NSP), which is a government-run program that is run by local councils in over 28,000 villages across the country [12]. The NSP is actually known for its endemic*honesty*, as noted by the World Bank report [13]. Councils have been known to post budget reports on school boards [14].

The NSP has proved to be an effective program in Afghanistan, and is known for being one of the least corrupt and most effective development programs. [15]

Yet, despite this, some businesses have refused to go through the NSP and decided to set up projects themselves, without assistance or direction from the government. Mohammad Ehsan Zia, Minister of Rural Rehabilitation and Development, has said that many of the parallel projects "... have seriously diluted the effectiveness of development assistance and compromised the legitimacy of government" [14].

Point #2: Because of the lack of business participation with the government, NATO's cause and ultimate goal in the country is hurt.

Due to some businesses deciding not to go through government channels to invest and develop areas of Afghanistan, they are weakening the influence of government control over the rural areas.

Mohammad Ehsan Zia states that when "... people believe it's the international organization that provide services and infrastructure to their villages — not the central government — this only fuels the insurgency, as the population is frustrated that their democratically elected government is failing to respond to their needs."

Because of this problem, stated by a Minister of the Afghanistan government, NATO is feeling adverse affects. The less influence the government can exert over its rural areas, the more NATO's mission is set back.

I will remind the voters that NATO's stated mission is to "... assist the Afghan Government in exercising and extending its authority and influence across the country, paving the way for reconstruction and effective governance."

Any setback to that mission is a point that supports my argument. I have shown effectively, with sources from the government of Afghanistan itself, that this is the case with businesses that do not go through the government in order to invest and develop rural areas.

The resolution is AFFIRMED.

Good luck to my opponent.
____________________________________________________________________
1. http://dictionary.reference.com...
2. http://dictionary.reference.com...
3. http://dictionary.reference.com...
4. http://en.wikipedia.org...
5. http://dictionary.reference.com...
6. http://en.wikipedia.org...
7. http://encarta.msn.com...
8. http://encarta.msn.com... - F
9. http://www.nato.int...
10. http://www.president.gov.af...
11. http://www.globalsecurity.org...
12. http://www.nspafghanistan.org...
13. http://web.worldbank.org...
14. http://www.cbc.ca...
15. http://www.tiri.org... - Page 26 "Conclusion"
GermanSoviet

Con

Greetings my learned opponent, I will be proving your aspect of the topic as fallacious and reprehensive.

I have have one major godly flaw within my opponent's case. My learned opponent has stated that "Because of the lack of business participation with the government, NATO's cause and ultimate goal in the country is hurt." This is blatantly wrong because not everyone has enough money that they can survive without their business. My argument is that Some business owners are careful of their money and therefore choose not to waste their money on a NATO program. My argument is correct because Afghanistan is not a wealthy country. The some independent business owners are poor, they cannot survive without their business. They cannot trust other people to look after their money. My opponent is trying to say that EVERYONE should put their money into the program NATO has arranged. But not EVERYONE is willing to. If you had 10 apples in your shop and you were asked by a stranger if they could have it and they said that you would receive something better in return, would you allow it? Most people wouldn't.

I will have two main arguments against my opponent within this debate.

Point #1: Not all business owners are abundant with money
and
Point #2: Most business owners would not trust a strange foreign funded program.

I will now elaborate on my first point.

Not all business owners are abundant with money. As you would know Afghanistan does not have its own Wall Street. It does not have the money for a nuclear weapons program of immense size. It does not have an ideal economy compared to the world super powers. The independent business owners of Afghanistan do not have shares in the stock market. They do not worry about the Financial Crisis. They do not have enough money to survive without their business, their business is their life.

My first point now leads onto my second point.

Most business owners would not trust a strange foreign funded program. NATO is a completely foreign organisation to the small independent business owners of Afghanistan. As my opponent stated Afghanistan throughout history Afghanistan was invaded by foreigners and was war-stricken. Why wouldn't the business owners of Afghanistan be skeptic about NATO? How can they trust NATO? The business owners of Afghanistan look after themselves. There is no proof of the trust for NATO. How can the business owners decide if NATO is just another sham of an invader like as my opponent pointed out, Alexander the Great or the Soviet Union?

Therefore I leave you with the question that inevitably proves my case.
How can the individual business owners of Afghanistan trust the foreigners, NATO?
Debate Round No. 1
Volkov

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

Unfortunately though, he seems to have misread the resolution and my argument. I would like to, once again, affirm that NATO's mission in Afghanistan is to "... assist the Afghan Government in exercising and extending its authority and influence across the country, paving the way for reconstruction and effective governance." [1]

The point of this debate was to discuss whether the lack of business participation in Afghanistan's governmental programs, specifically the National Solidarity Program, was harmful to NATO's stated mission in Afghanistan. My opponent has instead decided to argue about reasons why businesses wouldn't participate in those programs.

I will not address my opponent's arguments, as they do not pertain to the resolution. I will though correct one statement within my opponent's argument.

"Point #2: Most business owners would not trust a strange foreign funded program."

Had my opponent looked at my sources, would realize that the National Solidarity Program is not a NATO program - it is a program run by the Afghani government, and has oversight within the World Bank, neither of which are organizations within NATO. [2][3]

As well, this argument is not strictly related to Afghani businesses, but foreign investment and development companies as well. My opponent should take note of that, and reword his argument accordingly.

All of my arguments extend to the next round, in which I hope CON will address my arguments properly.

Vote PRO.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
1. http://www.nato.int...
2. http://web.worldbank.org...
3. http://www.nspafghanistan.org...
GermanSoviet

Con

GermanSoviet forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Volkov

Pro

All arguments extended.

Vote PRO.
GermanSoviet

Con

GermanSoviet forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Volkov 7 years ago
Volkov
Unless you have something constructive to say, I would appreciate it if you stopped posting on this debate.
Posted by Volkov 7 years ago
Volkov
There is no "real issue" to be discussed. The majority of your posts, your debates and even your profile is a smattering of ramblings that couldn't make sense to a five year old.

I am not launching into an argument about WHY we are there, do you not understand that?
Posted by thisoneguy 7 years ago
thisoneguy
Sorry I disagree on all points, they need the Oil and gas pipe lines running through Afghanistan, as the crow flies,
The average NATO soldier has no idea why they are putting their lives at risk, they can only deal with the information presented to them, and in this case, they are being treated like mushrooms, kept in the dark, and fed a load of rubbish.
When I say "oil greedy" I'm referring to the spoils of the product, because they won't allow pipelines running through their country without there being a carrot

The US government have a long well known history in their relationship with God, GOLD,OIL,DRUGS, and things haven't changed.
So I find your debate misleading, insofar: you're evading the real issue. the undercurrent, hidden agenda. etc.
why do you think there's a statue of the Greek Goddess (Persephone) of the underworld standing proudly on top of the White House ?
We'll just agree to disagree on this one.
Posted by Volkov 7 years ago
Volkov
First of all thisoneguy, there is no major oil fields in Afghanistan.

Second of all, you didn't read my debate. If you had, you would noticed that I said that NSP and other organizations have proven to be reliable and honest - some of the least corrupt programs created.

Third of all, this is about business and the purpose of the NATO mission there - which is to extend government influence across the country. To say "Oil greedy Afghanistan government is hindering NATO" makes a complete contradiction of my debate, and of your little rant there.
Posted by thisoneguy 7 years ago
thisoneguy
"Some business interests in the country of Afghanistan are hurting NATO's purpose in the country".
Hmmmmmm,,
Oil, NATO's business is all down to oil, but they operate under the illusion that they're there to provide peace and order.
The Russians tried to run a pipeline through the country in the 70s, but failed to overthrow the Afghan's so left with their pipelines between their legs.
Does anyone think the US has the financial clout to sustain a war ?, the US government couldn't afford a bandage let alone a bullet, so who's paying for the death of all these soldiers ? how about the bankers ?
They gain control of the country, package it up, hand it over to the corrupt government, and in return they run the pipelines through into Europe, then split the spoils under the table, sit back thinking "who's next" ?. whilst the bankers are quids in, because not only do the spoils go directly to them, they profit from the sale of arms and ammo to NATO also, just like they did in WW11 when they financed both sides
It's called control, control of the worlds natural resource's, all courtesy of a false flag shock and awe operation on 9/11 2001,
control of the masses, shock them into giving up their rights in exchange for safety, safety from terrorists, when the truth in reality is quite simple, the people offering safety are the the terrorists.

Pro states: " corruption is a major problem within the government of Afghanistan" ,, yet he heads the debate with. "Some Business Interests Hurt NATO's Purpose in Afghanistan",, is it possible these companies have no trust in their corrupt government officials ?, Thus in effect, the problem stems from the governing body ?.

Is any surprise that the US are aiding the corrupt government and not the business man trying to make an honest living ? the saying "birds of a feather flock together" spring to mind.

Maybe the debate heading should read, "The oil greedy Afghan government are hindering their own objectives" .
Posted by Volkov 7 years ago
Volkov
"Sounds like a good thing for business interests to be doing if that's what Afghanistan's government is up to :)."

I actually have some valid concerns about the program as well. It is good for the current situation, but I don't see the government giving up control/direction even after there is some semblance of stability.

But, that would be another debate. This debate is about whether or not those conflicting interests are hurting NATO's mission in Afghanistan.
Posted by Volkov 7 years ago
Volkov
"Good luck finding an opponent, Volkov."

Someone is bound to accept. I hope, anyways. If my first instigated debate goes unaccepted, I'm unsure what that says about me.

"Grrr no semantics."

I didn't leave room for error, Rezzealeaux. I'm not allowing someone a cheap win on my expense.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
"At a guess it relates to the 'Do you like this debate? No/Yes' '

Yep.

Good luck finding an opponent, Volkov.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 7 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Sounds like a good thing for business interests to be doing if that's what Afghanistan's government is up to :).
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
Puck
"What's a +1?"

At a guess it relates to the 'Do you like this debate? No/Yes'
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Johnicle 7 years ago
Johnicle
VolkovGermanSovietTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
VolkovGermanSovietTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by Volkov 7 years ago
Volkov
VolkovGermanSovietTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60