The US should suspend all assistance to Pakistan

Case issues and then voter issues. He jumped around with his organization, so I'll just go over the first part of last round to start: 1, A: He just talked about advancing relations in the region in SPA. Quite the opposite. Let me draw your attention to a quote by the External Affairs Minister, SM Krishna: "It is not desirable that this region had to be heavily armed by the US, which will upset the equilibrium in the region itself." Since Pakistan consistently uses our money to proliferate, it just raises tensions in the country. Furthermore on this SP: We HELP them in the long run. I'll get to this in my pro versus con world comparison.But this will actually make relations with them better; our tactics to improve them thus far haven't been working. 1, B: All he did was cross apply even though it's different. He concedes that we put in BILLIONS of dollars for a short term effect of .14% of GDP (which is basically nothing.) And I don't know why he is talking about Iran here, but is it really okay for us to cooperate with Iran? Of course not. They are not our ally. By not aiding them, we don't fuel their nuclear proliferation. Same idea here. That isn't what we the US support. 1, C: He assumes, like many, that cutting off the aid is going to hurt their economy. At first, this sounds like a good argument. But let's look at long term effects. Specifically, let's look at the highly cited Malik (2008) study which took 6 countries with similar economic situations to Pakistan. It found that the long run effects for economic performance were found to be negative from foreign aid. The Department of Economics has also found that, "foreign aid seems to be an unimportant factor for economic growth..." Nearly every study agrees that the relationship is either negligible or negative in long run. He offered a completely blank claim that the govt will oppress the people with suspension. He can't give a warrant for this in the last round since I have no time to respond to it. Actually, the govt will have to be accountable. Framework: He completely ignores the opportunity cost of a more strategic relationship with India. We would get this better economic result due to the relationship of Pakistan and India. As The Express Tribune points out, India will be more willing to cooperate and they have already welcomed suspension efforts. My case (due to some redundancy of my opponent, I will just make a few points) The hands on approach he talks about has been tried for years in several permutations. Hasn't worked. This is no new idea. Sure, we consider other factors like opportunity cost, but since this is an economic policy, monetary is definitely considered and we can't waste millions or billions of dollars. He doesn't dispute this. Sub C is quite different. It has several impacts 1. Raises tensions in the region due to proliferation and military hedge against India 2. As the Council on Foreign Relations reports, this happens due to their militant support: "Besides providing militant groups in Pakistan with technical expertise and capabilities, al-Qaeda gets its creates strength today by promoting cooperation among a variety of militant groups." Even if they have made some efforts against terrorism, they have made steps backwards and we are not remedying this problem to our fullest potential at the very least. We won't tolerate this. On C2: Sure, they have moved money against terrorism. But what I'm looking for is a better solution. One, that won't fuel militancy groups. One, where we can remedy terrorism to a better potential with no black holes of funding. One, where if we say money is to go somewhere, it isn't spent in the millions of dollars for an alternative purpose. At the point where Al-Qaeda was found living comfortably in Pakistan, this should scare you. Clearly, the status quo isn't working. Either they cooperated with him or were completely inadequate. SpB:You worsen Middle Eastern relations. It's like funding Iran. Would that really make the region better? C3: Cross applications don't work here (especially for an entire contention!) He never shows how democracy is helped through aid. This contention holds in its entirety. I couldn't seem to find his RAND quote? Note my RAND quote instead. Voters: 1. He ignores India opportunity cost. 2. Billions of govt savings annually to invest better where we actually know where it goes 3. Sound foreign policy message 4. Self-sustainability for Pakistan and how every studies shows that foreign aid is negligible or negative for econ 5. my whole contention about the hindrance to democratic and developmental progress 6. Decrease MEast tensions, especially due to less nuclear proliferation 7. At least half his case is about oil, which Pakistan barely has 8. Deception support? No. 9. We have already tried reallocation, etc Simply handing out money to an undeserving, deceptive country does not advance the US's interest or decrease tensions at all. I thus urge pro