Political Conditionality and Humanitarian Aid

Again, thanks to Such for this debate! I will defend my case at this time. FRAMEWORK Con accuses me of presenting a strawman, which is a logical fallacy or debate tactic whereby one engages in "misrepresentation of an opponent's argument." [1] Since I this is my own argument, and not a rebuttal, I cannot have misrepresented Con's case here, and so it is not actually a strawman. Therefore, no logical fallacy was committed. What Con seems to mean is that I am making an assumption that conditionality does present a choice, and that I have ignored this fact. So long as there is a choice, Con seems to assert, people's autonomy is respected. I have three responses: 1. This argument is totally non-responsive to my actual framework. All my framework seeks to do is establish the importance of autonomy and human dignity in making moral judgment. Con has never rebutted this, and so we can extend it. It is DROPPED. 2. Not all of my contentions rely on the idea that conditionality does/doesn't present a choice. Even if it does present a choice, for example, it still attempts to use people as bartering chips. Thus, Con's arguments don't take out my first contention. 3. I am focusing on a MEANINGFUL choice. Consider that I point a gun at your family and give you the following choice: "empty your bank account and give me the money, or they die." You have a choice, but the choice is not a meaningful one because you have only one real option to take (from a moral POV). Thus, your autonomy is still disrespected. Additionally, Con says "conditions [are] set forth to ensure that humanitarian aid is effective, and isn't required long-term." Unfortunately, that is not true of all conditions. Some conditions may be exploitative or imperialistic, and Con must defend those too. Con cannot pick and choose what type of conditionality he will defend, since he is called upon to defend conditionality as a broad concept. CONTENTION ONE A political condition may attempt to improve the efficacy of aid, but that is not necessarily the case. Consider that the U.S. might insist that Nation X open it's economies to the free market more in exchange for aid. This has nothing to do with whether or not the aid is effective, because its concerned with far more "macro" economic policy. Consider also the potential for hegemonic influence. When President Yanucovich was in office in Ukraine, Russia offered him aid; in exchange for that aid, Ukraine had to scrap its deal with the EU. [1] While the aid in this case was not so much humanitarian, it does demonstrate how conditionality can be for a broad variety of purposes, all of which Con must defend. He cannot pick and choose what types of conditionality suit him to support. The idea that conditionality isn't forced is faulty. In a serious humanitarian disaster, a country often finds itself in pieces. It may be left with two options: take the aid, or collapse/watch millions of people die. Clearly, there is only one viable choice in this scenario. When placed under such strains, this "choice" really isn't a choice--a country must accept the conditions or fail to uphold its primary duty to its citizens: protect their rights. But even if you don't buy this logic, we can still support my contention one without the idea of the donor forcing the recipient into accepting conditions, because of the notion of bartering chips. Let's say Nation Q approaches Nation C. Nation C is suffering a MASSIVE humanitarian crises, and is in dire needs of assistance. Nation Q offers Nation C an aid package with some conditions that Nation C has long resisted. Nation Q is using the suffering of Nation C's citizens to gain additional leverage on Nation C, to try to get Nation C to accept conditions its rejected in the past. In this case, the suffering victims are being used as tools, as means to Nation Q's end. This is wrong. Insofar as conditions on emergency aid, by their very nature, include provisos that another nation must accept in order to receive that aid, conditions are exploiting the victims of the crisis in order to get what they want. This is a clear violation of the victims' human dignity. Sir Lanka was cherry-picked, and we fail to learn, from Con's quote, about whether or not the conditions worked. My quote about political conditionality was specifically referring to ex ante conditions. There are myriad types of conditions, including ex post. Each one comes with its own sets of problems. My specific argument here was that aid--I would personally assert aid with any form of conditions--is necessarily punitive. If aid can be denied or withdrawn, punitively when a country fails to comply with conditions, then conditions entail coercive tactics which violate the sovereign integrity of a nation and which, again, uses the suffering or potential suffering of people as a threat to achieve some goal. CONTENTION TWO Pro assumes that a country relinquishes its sovereignty in a humanitarian disaster. Frankly, this isn't so. A states has no obligation to be perfect, nor does it have to. When the U.S. was hit by Katrina--a humanitarian disaster--it's sovereignty did not suddenly evaporate. It was not the fault of the state that such an emergency occurred. Remember what humanitarian assistance is--it's EMERGENCY aid. Emergencies occur everywhere, and no nation can be expected to prepare for all emergencies. War is oftentimes an unexpected emergency. Look at the Tuareg rebels in Mali for example, or Boko Haram in Nigeria. Simply because those governments are not doing a good job at handling those rebellions does not mean those governments are illegitimate, because those governments are still trying to ensure and protect the rights of their citizens. Even the U.S. cannot protect its people against all terror attacks. I would submit that the vast majority of humanitarian crises arise not as a result of calculated and deliberate state abuse, but rather as a result of factors like rebel movements, natural disasters, or economic pressures that yield most humanitarian crises. Pro just makes this bare assertion fallacy that because nations have humanitarian crises they're illegitimate--this line of analysis would lead us to conclude that EVERY government EVERYWHERE was illegitimate. That's just not true. Next, Pro suggests that conditionality is not a means of seizing control of another country; perhaps not in the literal since that country X absolutely controls country Y, but conditions can be used to accrus undue influence in others nations, in a soft-power hegemony. Note, that Pro himself states "spheres of influence were managed through diplomacy," now he suggests that conditions should be used to manage spheres of influence to maintain peace. Certainly, this is an argument in favor of hegemony, and again the supreme authority of a state within its realm that sovereignty requires. Consider that through the U.S.'s massive aid donations to places like Egypt, Rwanda, Myanmar Equatorial Guinea, and Ukraine, we assure ourselves the allegiance (or improve cooperation with), to varying degrees, on the international stage, and acquire influence over how they act internally and externally. Russia does similar things. By giving aid to countries like Belarus, and China giving aid to Malaysia and North Korea, they assure the alignment of these nations. What Con's realism essential advocates is a cost-benefit analysis over rights. I've gone to great lengths to show that conditionality doesn't work, so even if you buy this framework, Con is still losing. However, the idea is faulty. We have rights for a reason--to act as trumps. My right to freedom of speech is meaningless if the government can violate it in the sake of some oft-nebulous "greater good." Think of how many atrocities have been justified by the idea that states are political first, moral second. The internment of the Japanese in WWII is an excellent example of this; so is apartheid or the Holocaust, or the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In each case, leaders believed they were considering "prudence--the weighing of the consequences of alternative political actions--to be the supreme virtue in politics." To prevent such atrocities, we must recognize the trump value of rights deonotologically...and, on the international stage, sovereignty is a right. My own evidence shows this. So, to prevent the atrocities that occurred through colonial oppression, we need to acknowledge sovereignty as a trump, esp. at it is anchored in human dignity. Con also dodges the point of my quote, with states that outside actors infringe this sovereignty, which he agrees, and that they lack ownership as a result. this clearly undermines the tenet of independence inherent to aid. OFF-CASE Whether it is the IMF or another organization, the LOGIC behind the analysis holds. And, since oftentimes humanitarian crises can unfold over several years. structural adjustment programs made be part and parcel of conditionality packages. (A) Pro cannot choose to only defend the "soft-approach" since he is defending a vary broad, umbrella concept. I've already addressed the power dynamic betwixt conditions and recipients. Finally, Con never seems to rebut the underlying argument about ownership and autocracy that I am making. Thanks. Over to Con...