U.S. Aid to Pakistan should be continued

C1: Generalities about foreign aid do not argue the specifics of Pakistan My opponent devotes much of his space to arguing that in general U.S. foreign aid is unsuccessful. Even if that argument is true, it doesn't say whether foreign aid to Pakistan is a net benefit or not. We would still need to resolve the specifics of the Pakistan situation. Even if the generality is true, Pakistan might be one of the exceptions, so the attempt o establish the generality is irrelevant to the debate.Not every foreign aid program is successful, but Con wrongly contends that aid is a failure in unless total success is achieve. For example, Con claims that despite aid to Ghana, infant mortality is still high. Sure, but it's unreasonable to demand that aid provide complete solutions. Aid is worthwhile if the incremental benefit is worth the cost. For example, the U.S. contributes to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. The fund has saved nearly 5 million lives have through it's programs. [13. http://www.voanews.com... One can argue that there are still health problems in the world, so in that sense it is not a success, but saving 5 million lives is nonetheless a benefit worth the expense. Con continues with boilerplate claims of inefficiencies in government aid programs. No doubt some of those criticisms are true, and there are good reasons for examining aid programs carefully. An in-depth study performed by Vanderbilt University and the University of Pittsburgh [14. http://pdf.usaid.gov...] found U.S. aid programs to have a positive effective. It found "the positive impact is such that $10 million of USAID DG funding would produce an increase of more than one-quarter of a point (.29 units) on the 13-point Freedom House democracy index in a given year— or about a five-fold increase in the amount of democratic change that the average country would be expected to achieve, ceteris paribus, in any given year." Aid was found to be most effective in poor countries like Pakistan. Con makes no claim about net benefit to the United States from aid to Pakistan. The specifics must be considered, and I gave expert opinion from professional diplomats as widely diverse as Josh Bolton and Hillary Clinton that the net benefit is positive.Aid is a year-by-year matter to consider as an element of foreign policy. In WWII the U.S. gave massive aid to Stalin, because defeating Hitler was a higher priority than replacing Stalin's totalitarian regime. The Soviet Union emerged as a Cold War adversary, but that doesn't mean the aid was a mistake. Starting in 1979, as part of the Egypt-Israel peace treaty, the U.S. has provided significant aid to Egypt. That has worked for 30 years to help preserve peace in the Middle East. [15. http://en.wikipedia.org... ] It may be that now the tide has turned and a radical pro-terrorist regime may take over in Egypt. If so, that doesn't mean that the aid was a failure. It worked for 30 years, and that justifies the cost. Aid is one element of foreign policy that works in broader policies.C2: Pakistan is a schizophrenic allyMy opponent argues that Pakistan is not a U.S. ally. I think he implies that nothing is to be potentially lost by further alienating them, but that's not true. Pakistan is reluctantly permitting drone strikes launched from within Pakistan, they are not fighting on the side of enemy forces, and they are not allowing nuclear weapons to go to terrorists. In the past, Pakistan permitted supplies to be transported across their borders to Afghanistan. Pakistan suspended use of their supply routes to Afghanistan in retaliation for the Bin Laden strike, thereby forcing the U.S. to use longer, more expensive, northern routes through central Asia. There are now signs that the Pakistan routes will resume. “Analysts believe Islamabad has no choice but to reopen the border when US back-payments for fighting Taliban in the northwest are needed to help boost state coffers ahead of the next budget.” [16. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...] Even if Pakistan is not an ally, they are willing to cooperate in return for aid.The Pakistani intelligence service (the ISI) is an asset in the war on terror, despite their having a pro-Taliban faction. The Pentagon acknowledged the factional split, but defended ISI role overall. [17. http://www.infowars.com...]Pakistani troops fight the Taliban in the northwest. About 35,000 Pakistanis have died in the fight against terrorism. The situation for the U.S. would be much worse if the Pakistan military instead fought against the U.S. It's the norm that allies do not provide 100% support of U.S. policy, and it's not unusual for an ally to have deep divergences from U.S. policy. The alliance with Stalin is the classic example, but in recent times there have been uneasy alliances with countries like Saudi Arabia and Turkey. It's the job of diplomats to do the best they can in complex situations.Con cites polls showing rising support for terrorism and increasing anti-American sentiment. The primary purpose of current aid is to stabilize the government so that a pro-terrorist regime does not take control. It would be nice if public opinion was for an enthusiastic alliance, but that's not going to happen in the short term. The purpose of foreign policy is to realize the interests of the United States, and aid is one aspect of foreign policy. A stable democracy will be far better for Pakistan in the long run than a terrorist regime. Cons reference reiterates that total foreign aid is about 1% of the Federal budget, but what is at issue in this debate is only about $1 billion for Pakistan. That's 0.028% of Federal spending. It's a good investment. Past aid cuts to Pakistan have failedCons agrees cutting aid will not make Pakistani policies more favorable. Con claims "aid has only so far helped the government that is our enemy gain power." If Pakistan were an enemy they would not have provided the assistance to the U.S. that I have sited. The government of Pakistan has been more in accord with U.S. policies than the general population. What our aid accomplishes is lowering the chances of a terrorist takeover of the country.Con argues that if aid provides for basic human needs, it frees government resources "for use on war." To support that, Con needs to provide evidence that al Qaeda and the Taliban puts human needs at that higher value, or that the government of Pakistan has been redirecting resources to fighting the U.S. There is no such evidence. I argued that past aid cuts produced stronger ties with China and resulted in nuclear secrets going to North Korea. Con didn't dispute either claim.Cons sourcesC1 says aid workers are facing increased threat from terrorists. That means that terrorists believe aid is contrary to their interests. C2, C3. and C4 were not referenced. C5 and C6 verifies my aid numbers. C7 links to a page of links, apparently mostly random opinion opposed to foreign aid. C8 says some money intended to fight AIDS was siphoned off; that's a reason to tighten controls, not end aid. C9 names a an academic that says ai is failure, without a quotation or any supporting analysis. C10 is an opinion that aid policy should in general be more broadly focused on development. that doesn't support ending aid anywhere. C11, written in 1994, suggests shifts in aid post Cold War. Yeah, for sure. C13 recommends the Global Fund be increased and that more technical assistance be included. Yup. C14 says Pakistan wants more money in return for their cooperation. That shows aid can be useful. C15 is Pakistani opinion poll. I have no copy of C16. C17 suggests aid to Afghanistan be better coordinated. Okay.