U.S. Aid to Pakistan should be continued

In World War II, the U.S. provided enormous amounts of aid to Stalin. Few thought we were promoting democracy or promoting economic development or curing disease or that Stalin as our friend. It was a wartime deal aimed at defeating an enemy. Pakistan has pro-terrorist and anti-terrorist factions. We have provided aid to the Pakistani government, and in return we have gotten military intelligence, Pakistani troops sometimes fighting the Taliban, a shorter land supply route to Afghanistan, and bases for drone strikes. The Pakistanis have not allowed their nuclear weapons to fall into terrorist hands, and they have not fought Americans on the side of the terrorists. In the past hen the US suspended aid, Pakistan moved to closer ties with China and provided nuclear technology to North Korea. The amount of Pakistan aid is small, 0.028% of spending. I don't think my opponent has denied any of this.How much aid we supply in the future and how it is supplied is debatable, but taking aid off the table with a flat prohibition is an unwise choice. It would remove an important tool in managing the relationship with Pakistan. It's perfectly fair to pay for things that we want Pakistan to do that helps us and costs money. Foreign policy experts as diverse as President Obama's Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former President Bush's Ambassador to the U.N. Josh Bolton agree that aid should be continued so that we have that leverage. The resolution is therefore affirmed.1. Generalities about foreign aid do not argue the specifics of Pakistan My opponent began with a broad attack on foreign aid. It turns out his sources generally recommended only changes in policy, with virtually no support for discontinuing all foreign aid. His application of the broad claim of "no foreign aid" to the case of Pakistan only made sense if each application of foreign aid was a failure, and that was clearly not the case. We therefore must determine if aid to Pakistan is worthwhile on it's merits, not as a consequence of all foreign aid being a mistake.In any case, not all foreign aid is pointless or detrimental.Con did not respond to the example of aid to Stalin in World War II.Con cites the Pittsburgh Study that showed aid to be successful overall, but statistically least successful in improving democracy when the military aid component was much larger than the non-military component. The study was confined to increasing democracy within a country, not with getting wartime support, our objective in Pakistan. The statistics on democracy improvement reflect that a great deal of U.S. military aid goes to allies that are already democratic. We don't expect Israel and South Korea to become more democratic as a consequence of U.S. military aid because they are already democracies. Consequently, it's not surprising that the statistics don't show it.Con cites a paper [C6] from an uncredentialed source who claims his review of the literature shows development aid to be unsuccessful as a whole, so he recommends other types of aid. The purpose of US aid to Pakistan is not development, it is to stabilize the government to resist terrorist takeover and to obtain government support in fighting terrorism. It succeeds in what it is supposed to accomplish.Con argues that the Global Fund success comes from having civilian administration. That's the method of delivering the aid. Much of US aid is delivered through non-governmental organizations (NGOs). That's no reason to end all aid, it's a reason to favor NGOs for administration of it.Con accepts that aid to Egypt succeeded in maintaining peace with Israel, but says that's only because, both sides wanted it. Was there ever a popular poll in Egypt that showed the public wanted peace with Israel? Con didn't cite one, but claimed that a poll showing public support for terrorists should determine U.S. policy. No, we gave aid to the undemocratic government of Egypt in order to promote he U.S. interest in maintaining peace in the region. Popular support in Egypt resulted in bringing the Muslim Brotherhood to power. It remains to be seen what will follow from that, but whatever it is, it doesn't validate complying with popular opinion at every turn. U.S. foreign policy is to oppose terrorism, and that's the purpose of subordinate instruments of policy like aid.2. Diplomats favor continuing aidThere are multiple purposes for the aid, various ways of administering it, and multiple forms of aid. That's why expert opinion on the likely effects of cuts is critical. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is the foremost diplomat in the current Administration and as such an expert on the subject. Former UN Ambassador Josh Bolton under the Bush Administration is well-known as an expert and as a hardliner with a different perspective. When both agree, as they do, that aid should not be cut, we should weigh it heavily. Con makes the claim, "I don't think this argument is as important as the rest, since diplomats opinions are not as valuable as solid expert opinions." If a Secretary of State and a UN Ambassador are not experts on foreign policy, who does Con claim to be an expert? Con cited general critiques that aid policies could be improved. I saw no expert opinion that said aid to Pakistan ought to be eliminated. It's possible to find a college professor or writer who advocates ending aid, although I don't see that Con has found one, but apparently impossible to find anyone with actual experience in foreign policy or military affairs.3. Con's "efficiency" argumentCon says "The issue is that government inefficiencies reduce any benefit that our aid can have on the people of Pakistan, getting rid of the benefit the average citizen would get." That seems to be supposing that the purpose of the aid to is improve the health or living standards of the population of Pakistan, and that is the government of Pakistan is given aid they will then provide less efficient services. The purpose of U.S. aid is to support the war against terrorism and to stabilize the Pakistani government as part of that effort. Stabilize means to keep the government from being overthrown by terrorists. Fighting terrorism is of benefit in the long run, because fanatical governments do not preserve human rights, but efficiency is not forced by lack of resources. For example, North Korea is a terrible inefficient government; but lack of success has not given them any reason to become more efficient. I challenged Con to provide examples, and he did not.SourcesI challenged the quality of Con's sources in the last round, and he did not defend them. Con provided opinions of the general effectiveness of foreign aid as tools to promote democracy and economic development. None claimed that all foreign aid should be stopped, and none claimed aid in support of a war effort was ineffective. None said that aid to Pakistan should cease. con devoted sources to proving that Pakistan had factions supporting terrorism, but that was pointless because I had already granted such is the case.In this round C3 says, "Pakistan has provided critical support to NATO troops in the Afghan war – drones are launched from here, NATO supplies are sent through this country, and Pakistani troops have helped recapture terrorist strongholds along the volatile Afghan border. ..." but distrust of the U.S. is growing, in large part for killing Bin Laden inside Pakistan. that was taken as "interfering with internal affairs." Like other sources Con cites, it identifies a problem, but it doesn't suggest that cutting off aid is the solution. In fact, C4 claims "Analysts call the cuts the strongest indicator yet of the deteriorating nature of the relationship between the two countries and say it could cause the Pakistani military to retreat to a more hostile anti-US position." The resolution is affirmed. --------- Thanks to Con for a good debate. It explored an important subject in depth.