The United States should suspend all assistance to Pakistan.

To begin, my opponent stated that my proposal to maintain a stable relationship after suspension is impractical. She did not object to the use of such an argument. This means that the argument is not over whether or not it can be used in the context of the resolution, but on whether or not it is likely to happen. Such an approach is entirely practical. Note a the quote from my second contention: "Some aid agencies have found it counterproductive to reveal that the development programs are funded by the US. ” Clearly, Pakistan wants benefits. What is even more clear, however, is that they do not want U. S. aid. Pakistani officials have, on numerous occasions, told the U. S. government that their country would prefer the abolishment of unfair tariffs over aid. Pakistan's prime minister (. http://www.nation.com.pk...), ambassador to the U. S. (. http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk...), and finance minister (. http://dawn.com...) have all voiced their government's desire for "trade not aid. "Thus, the United States can still remain on good terms with Pakistan while suspending all assistance. Given Pakistan's possibly volatile situation, and President Obama's support for ROZ zones, it is obvious that such a plan will follow suspension of aid. Let's now look at my opponents first major argument, on the security of nuclear weapons. My opponent appears to be claiming that terrorists will gain access to nukes when the government willingly gives them to militant groups. Note, however, that Pakistan is not allies with militant groups in the common sense. Pakistan does not cooperate with terrorists, Pakistan controls the terrorists. From the Nato Report: State of the Taliban:"ISI has exerted particularly tight control over the Haqqani family, likely as a result of the Haqqani Network leaders’ reportedly deep resentment of the Government of Pakistan… Most acknowledge that there is currently no choice but to accept at least a certain degree of ISI control. ""Pakistan's manipulation of the Taliban senior leadership continues unabatedly. "And, quoted from a senior Al-Qaeda detainee: "Pakistan knows everything. They control everything. "Clearly, Pakistan would not give terrorist groups a nuclear weapon unless they wanted to strike a target while remaining anonymous. Considering the fact that both the United States and India, the two prime targets, are aware of Pakistan's control over terrorist groups, and see through the anonymity as a result, it seems unlikely that Pakistan would wish to attack. Also note that both the United States and India have both first and second strike capabilities. Pakistan is well aware of this, and most definitely does not want to get destroyed in a global nuclear war. Overall, Pakistan is extremely unlikely to give nuclear weapons to a militant group. While Pakistan does exert a certain amount of control over these groups, some have, on occassion, attacked the government of Pakistan. For their own safety, Pakistan will not give nuclear weapons to a possible enemy, nor will they wish to start a global nuclear war. Let's then look at my opponents second major argument, that Pakistani stability affects Afghanistan. The simple issue with this is that Pakistan is already trying to destabalize Afghanistan. Nothing that the United States can do will change that. Therefore, suspending assistance will not make this any worse. Pakistan also has, besides supply routes, absolutely no importance to our efforts in Afghanistan. A volatile Pakistan would be no worse than a volatile Uzbekistan, Tajikistan or Iran. However, these three countries are already unstable, yet have very little influence on Afghanistan. Lastly, as I will discuss in my rebuttal against economic assistance, suspension of aid will not harm the stability of Pakistan. Onto my opponents third major argument, that Pakistani stability affects the region. Again, note that Pakistan is unlikely to attack India, especially with the threat of U. S. intervention. My opponent then mentions the possibility of Pakistan allying closer with China and/or Iran. There are two possible ways that this could happen.1) Seeing the U. S. as a "mutual enemy. " However, this does not require the United States to suspend assistance. Current assistance is not stopping Pakistan from allying with Iran or China. In fact, they have already began to do so with China. Iran, however, has shown no inclination to ally with Pakistan. (My opponent may have meant Iran and Pakistan would start a nuclear war, but the two countries have also shown no inclination to fight)Furthermore, Pakistan allying with China wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. The U. S. -China relationship is far better than the U. S. -Pakistan relationship. With China as the more powerful country, the possibility of Pakistan influencing their opinion on the United States is very small.2) China or Iran steps in to give Pakistan assistance. This, too, is unlikely. "China doesn't make a practice of providing the scale or type of assistance that the United States has provided; China isn't in a position to provide some of the higher technology that the United States has provided. It therefore is only a partial means to fill that gap that the United States would leave behind. Iran is even more inadequate, incapable of helping Pakistan in some very important ways. " (. http://www.cfr.org...)Furthermore, China has little reason to ally with Pakistan after the United States has suspended aid. China's current interest in Pakistan rests mostly on the possibility of gaining an advantage against the U. S. They stepped in after the Osama Bin Laden raid to investigate the wreckage from our downed stealth helicopter. (. http://www.fas.org...) Since then, they have shown no further inclination to assist Pakistan. With U. S. aid suspended, China's interest in Pakistan quickly wanes. On then, to my opponents fourth and final major argument: Humanitarian and Economic Assistance. First, note the entirety of my third contention, on corruption. With the KLB bill which my opponent mentions, only $179.5 million of the first $1.5 billion has been dispursed, although it has been delivered. That's an 88% waste. The 12% of money that was disbursed was either immediately spent on advanced weapons systems, or used to build schools or other facilities that were never even used. Then, take note of a quote from the Center for Strategic and International Studies:(. http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu...) "The process of building schools and opening health clinics is unlikely to produce development in any broad sense…Although a few residents may benefit from the assistance, the money may not alleviate poverty in the tribal areas in any meaningful way. "Then, a quote from the Belfer Center (same source): "Pakistan’s economy has not benefited from the budget support; only an IMF loan in late 2008 prevented it from collapsing. "Furthermore, why give humanitarian aid to Pakistan? The civilians have constantly shown that they don't want it, nor is it really benefitting them. Finally, note that an abolishment on tariffs against Pakistan would benefit the economy far more than aid currently is. The plan is also nearly immune to corruption, meaning money won't feed into the corrupt military complex, as it is now. Overall, humanitarian and economic assistance subject to far too much corruption, and effectively being thrown down the drain. The assistance that we give never even makes it to the civilians, nor does it actually benefit the economy. Add this to the fact that it is currently increasing anti-American sentiment, and you've got plenty of reasons affirm the resolution.