The United States should suspend all assistance to Pakistan.

We negate.I agree to my opponent's definition, that assistance is any material or gesture that would help Pakistan. Note that, as the resolution states all assistance, pro must argue for a complete suspension of such materials or gestures. However, as the resolution also states "suspend," pro must only argue for aid to be stopped temporarily.Contention one: Suspending assistance would destabilize Pakistan. Subpoint A: Humanitarian Aid: The New York Times explains how the three year old civilian government is deeply unpopular, having failed to provide a better life for Pakistanis. The economy is failing, while education, health care, and other services from the government are almost nonexistent. (http://www.nytimes.com...) The general populace now relies heavily on U.S. humanitarian aid. Notable successes of such aid include the addition of 700 megawatts of power to Pakistan’s fragile grid, the annual delivery of 32 million polio vaccinations, and flood response programs which supported over 600,000 families. Without this vital aid, millions of citizens would no longer have power, access to health care and education, or food, water, and sanitation services. Suspending assistance would only exacerbate the problems faced by the Pakistani citizens.Subpoint B: Economic Assistance: Pakistan’s extremely fragile economy, which nearly collapsed in 2008, is currently supported by USAID. In addition to the money the government receives, local communities greatly benefit from agricultural programs, which raised farmer’s wheat yields 60% above the national average after the 2010 floods. (http://transition.usaid.gov...) Vocational training is also given to women entrepreneurs, health care providers, and education administrators. (http://transition.usaid.gov... under health, education, and economic growth) Individual industries also benefit greatly, with the facilitation of mango exports through three additional processing centers and the farming industry receiving drought-resistant crops and livestock supplies. (http://transition.usaid.gov...) With IMF repayments coming due soon, U.S. economic assistance is more vital than ever.In a nuclear armed nation of 180 million, whose citizens are already discontent with the government, and which borders Afghanistan, stability is the U.S.’ number one goal. The risk of nuclear proliferation and the amount of anti-Americanism will greatly increase in the context of an unstable Pakistan. (http://www.heritage.org...) Contention two: Pakistan is a benefit in the war on terror.Subpoint A: Supply Routes. Pakistan contains the main supply route to Afghanistan. Alternate supply routes, such as the Northern Distribution network, cost the U.S. roughly 2.1 billion dollars over the span of 8 months (http://www.usatoday.com...). Such routes are also far more dangerous, going through the extremely unstable country of Uzbekistan, which is best known for the fact that they still boil people alive. Combined with the additional cost of airlifting supplies which cannot be sent through alternate routes, suspending assistance to Pakistan will cost the U.S. billions of dollars per year, saving little to no money and jeopardizing our efforts in Afghanistan.Subpoint B: Drone strikes. Aerial drone strikes from bases within Pakistan have killed thousands of terrorists since the program has been introduced. Not only does Pakistan allow such strikes, but on numerous occasions it has requested them. For example, a leaked state department cable revealed that Pakistan’s top army general has been privately pleading for an increase of drone strikes in the North Waziristan area, aimed at the residing Haqqani network (http://abcnews.go.com...). Subsequent strikes led to the killing of the 3rd highest ranking member of the Haqqani clan, in addition to hundreds of other low-ranking militants. Subpoint C: Intelligence: The information the U.S. gains through Pakistani relations has led to the death or capture of numerous high ranking Al Qaeda members, such as Khalid Mohammed, the mastermind behind 9/11 (http://www.relooney.info...). The CFR notes that “through bilateral cooperation, more al-Qaeda leaders have been captured or killed in Pakistan than in any other country.” (http://www.cfr.org...) The U.S. also relies on Pakistan for intelligence to identify targets for drone strikes and to help control the Federally Administered Tribal Areas. Pakistan also allows U.S. officials to remain within select military bases, gathering their own counterterrorism intelligence. Contention three: Suspending assistance would shift Pakistan’s allegiances.Subpoint A: Terrorist networks: The CFR explains the impact of past aid cuts: As relations with the US deteriorated, Pakistan pursued ties with the Taliban... It also continued an aggressive nuclear program, complete with disastrous global proliferation. (http://www.cfr.org...) Shortly after these aid cuts, anti-Americanism shot through the roof. By 2001, U.S. approval ratings were at only 10%. (http://www.familysecuritymatters.org...). Another aid cut, confirming the suspicions of the Pakistani citizens that the U.S. is just a fair-weather friend, as well as giving the sense of another American betrayal, will only repeat the mistakes of the past. With Pakistan expressing interest in maintaining influence in a post-America Afghanistan, alliances with the Taliban and the Haqqani network, which were previously broken off, are sure to reappear. Subpoint B: Iran: Since 2005, Islamabad has increasingly turned to Tehran to supply Pakistan’s growing energy needs. Bilateral trade between the two countries has greatly increased as the U.S.-Pakistani relationship weakens (http://www.irantracker.org...). A suspension of the desperately needed economic aid and the power that comes with it will lead to a far stronger Pakistani-Iranian bond. Such an alliance between two anti-American countries will have devastating effects on U.S. global interests. From the Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism: Powerful stakeholders within Iran and Pakistan want an unstable Afghanistan. These actors, the Pakistani ISI and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, see an unstable Afghanistan as the way to undermine U.S. South Asian foreign policy goals. In addition, an intimate Iran-Pakistan relationship is a major concern for Washington, as better relations may lead Pakistan to share its nuclear technology with Iran. (http://commentary-analysis.insct.org...)