On balance, it is benificial to place political conditions on humanitarian aid.

BOP I'm fine with leaving the BOP in the air, but I want voters to realize that just because in most debates you see on this site Pro has the BOP doesn't mean that Pro always has or should have the BOP. In a topic such as this one, it is perfectly reasonable to share the BOP. MY CASE POLITICAL CONDITIONS ENSURE THAT THE DISASTER WILL NOT BE REPEATED I would first like to point out that I included most natural disaster situations in my previous round by saying that if the natural disaster was amplified by the government in some way then that situation would fit under my argument. Con's argument that once humanitarian aid is no longer needed the government would revert back to corruption is untrue and far too simplistic. The point of political conditions is to enact real change, not superficial ones. Short-term humanitarian aid is usually followed up by developmental aid, so if the country wants to actually right its ship, it will have to follow conditions for the long term. My opponent has asked me multiple times to present countries that have benefited from humanitarian aid and political conditions. This is reasonable, however, the examples are too numerous too count. A majority of countries that receive aid from the U. S. are benefited. A few examples include the Philippines, Niger, and Yemen. These countries received U. S. with political conditions and have benefited from it greatly. The conditions changed and reformed governments and stopped future disasters from occurring. THEFT The point I was trying to prove with this article was that food aid theft was a serious problem. That point I proved beyond a doubt. Con has to solution to this problem, while I do. Political conditions could involve not sending aid to countries where aid theft could be a threat. To answer Con's question of:Is it really likely that countries with corrupt regimes that cause food aid to go to places it's not supposed to will accept and follow political conditions promoting good governance? No, it is definitely not likely. However, is it really a good idea to send food aid to countries where it is most likely to be stolen? The answer is again, definitely not. Con has not addressed this fact. Sending food aid to corrupt countries such as this will only prolong conflict, which is beneficial to absolutely no one and even has a negative effect. BOTH PARTIES MUST BENEFIT While I am glad that Con agrees with me on this, Con is completely wrong in her claim that I provide no reasons as to why political conditions help the donor. Go back and reread my argument. I clearly provide reasoning behind my claim. Think of it as a sort of global market. One country needs humanitarian aid. Another country has the means to provide that needed aid. In a debate over justice, the country with the means might be forced by the laws of justice and humanity to provide with no benefit back to themselves. However, that is not what this debate is. This debate is over benefit. So, in other words, the country with the means must receive something back from the country with the need. This can be many things. It can be trading agreements, changes in regime, or even changes in form of government. One of America's requirements before sending humanitarian aid is that the government or country that the aid is being sent to is not in control via a military coup. Therefore, if that country wanted to receive aid, it would need to restore the original government or institute a new, fair government. This is where Con's case falters. She shows no benefit to the sender of aid. Rather, she attempts to disprove my claims, which is, depending upon the interpretation of the BOP, not necessarily enough. Con's Case: Final Rebuttal INEFFECTIVE CONDITONS Con claims that political conditions, in this one case, failed because they made the regime feel threatened and lashed out at the U. S. because of this. This could be a result of two things. First, because Con didn't include any information as to what kind of political conditions were placed on North Korea's aid, the political conditions in this case may of been unreasonable and impossible to fulfill, causing the U. S. to lose credibility. The second, and probably more likely, reason the North Korea felt threatened is because they have a terribly corrupt government and are afraid of changing to a democratic system. Con's suggestion in this situation would be to send aid despite the corruptness of the government. However, I have shown the grand problems of doing this in my case. My suggestion would be to attempt to coax North Korea to better policies with political conditions. If North Korea's government is stubborn and corrupt, they will not accept the conditions. This is inevitable, but acceptable. At least in this case, humanitarian aid won't be stolen or prop-up the current government. Plus, if aid is sent that has no effect on the stability of the country or some other possible benefit, it would not fit the requirements of this debate. CONDITIONS THAT ARE NOT FOLLOWED I don't understand why what I said causes my "impacts about the promotion of good governance insuring that political disaster don't happen again" to fall. Con should explain that correlation in greater detail next round. Of course in an extremely corrupt regime, even reasonable conditions won't be followed, but this is better than sending aid to those same extremely corrupt regimes that will use it to prop-up their current government. Also, a person should definitely buy my criticisms of the source because they are entirely accurate. The article refers to developmental aid, not humanitarian aid. Unless my opponent claims that this whole debate could be cross-applied to developmental aid, the source is invalid. To address my opponents other examples, I would say this. Con's Africa example was mainly criticizing western aid that kept flowing to Africa despite conditions not being accepted. This is not a problem with political conditions, but with upholding them. Also, this source recommends a sort of trade agreement between the sending and receiving country, which sounds very similar to some of my points on mutual benefit. My opponents second example would fit right into the case I've been making this whole debate. Sending aid to unstable regions without political conditions only results in aid theft and increased conflict, which Con has not been able to disprove. WELL BEING OF THE DONOR Con claims that I said that political conditions that promote bad governance or benefit the donor aren't real political conditions. I do not think that I claimed this at all. I claimed the political conditions can cause harm or conflict if they are unreasonable. I don't think I ever called them unreal. The thing is, is the political conditions are flawed, of course the results are going to be flawed. Con needs to focus on finding examples of reasonable political conditions causing harm. In addition, I never, or at least never meant, to discount political conditions that benefit the donor. All political conditions should do this, at least in this debate over benefit. To address the rest of this argument, I will reiterate the following. While a perceived invasion of sovereignty can cause harm, aid theft and unbridled aid causes even more harm. I won't go into great detail on this again, but reread my previous arguments again if you are unclear. I have now provided several examples of standard political conditions on aid succeeding as well, so my opponent can no longer use the empirical argument against me. To address Con's NGO point, I will use pretty much the same reasoning. It can only be assumed that these NGOs are humanitarian in nature because they wouldn't exactly benefit from diplomatic benefits. However, if these organizations truly want to promote peace and stability in the world, they should also avoid sending aid to dangerous regions. It will only worsen conflict, as I have shown in previous arguments. QUALITY OF AID I see no real reason why political conditions have to decrease the value of aid, but even if they do, it is better than the alternative. Humanitarian aid without political conditions is subject to theft and can increase conflict. Unconditional aid is also greatly devalued by these factors. I have already addressed my opponents points on retaliation of the recipient of aid, so I will not do so again. I do believe the resolution has been affirmed. Really fun debate Liz, we should do it again sometime. Thanks to anyone who has followed this or is reading it now and please vote (Uchiha, this means you! ) I'm a novice debater and I may very well suck, so if anyone has any tips on how to improve my debating skill, please message me or comment. I could use as much input as I can get.