U.S. Aid to Pakistan should be continued

Good luck!C1: Foreign aid hurts the USFG.Throughout the past, aid workers have been kidnapped, killed, and disappeared while working in foreign lands. In just 2008 alone, 150 western aid workers were attacked [1].In fact, many humanitarian aid groups have found it increasingly hard to deliver aid due to the risks and rising security issues [1].Furthermore, we are spending billions of dollars every year. In 2008, the USFG spent 49.1 billion dollars in total on foreign aid, which eventually reduced to 44.9 billion dollars in 2009 [5]. For countries such as Pakistan, the USFG has sent nearly 30 billion dollars alone to, since 1948, when we began delivering aid [6]. Even with this aid Pakistan still in a horrible state after decades of aid.Since 1950, Western nations have sent around 2.3 trillion dollars, intending to help improve the situation and lives of people [7]. There have been no changes in living standards, in places in Africa, even though $600 billion dollars has been poured in [7].In places like Ghana, where the World Bank calls an aid success, half of the babies with diarrhea never receive re-hydration care.Theft, bribery and corruption in the health care industry worldwide deprive millions of people of proper care and especially undermine the global fight against HIV/AIDS [8].USAID has failed in countries like Afghanistan and Iraq [9].The NY times wrote"The foreign assistance arm of the U.S. government, the United States Agency for International Development, increasingly has been politicized, gutted of expertise and made subservient to short- term U.S. foreign policy interests."[10]They also suggest that the US government should instead focus on improving and solving issues at home, and let future leaders to work on the international level.USAID is horribly managed. The agency's monetary and personal resources are too thinly spread around the globe. Currently, it maintains a presence, with at least 1 permanent member, in 99 different countries, and in 26, there is no permanent staff [11]. Furthermore, their are too many layers of management between the Administrator and field programs, along with a lack of a strong and consistent leadership [11]. The design and implementation of plans within USAID is uncoordinated and confusing [11].USAID also has overwhelming high prices and needs transparency. The agency requires overhead costs of up to 35%, compared to 3% for Global Fund [12]. Furthermore, USAID doesn't force its programs to report in quantitative amounts, allowing workers to only report on some health factors, empowering workers to hide failing areas [12].C2: Pakistan is not an ally.There are many cases where Pakistan's actions have proved that they are not allies.An example would be the IPI pipeline. The general plan to build the IPI pipeline would strengthen Iran's importance in gas/energy markets in Asia [13]. Pakistan has tried to perhaps even accelerate the building of the IPI pipeline, while the US have demonstrated their obvious opposition to the pipelines [13].Pakistan is also becoming increasingly inhospitable to the US due to drone attacks. The general public has grown hostile towards US attacks, because of the many innocent lives lost [14]. Pew Surveys found that 69% of the citizens of Pakistan view the USA as an enemy, and 73% see America as unfavorable. The US public image in Pakistan is obviously bad.Public support for the use of an army to combat extremists have also been steadily declining [15]. However, it is not only Pakistan that has been 'unfaithful'. Pakistani leaders have grown angry at America's support of the quickly growing India. Other accounts include the "sale of U.S. military hardware and provision of civilian nuclear technology assistance to India" [13] and Obama's endorsement of a permanent seat in the UN for New Delhi. India is seen as the greatest threat to Pakistan - a majority of 57% [15]. ==My opponent's arguments==Past aid cuts have failedMy opponent gives examples such as how Pakistan still continued and carried out actions, even when we cut aid in response. I agree that cutting aid might be ineffective in changing the governments opinions, but the main reason to as why, is because the government does not see itself as an ally of the US. I'm not advocating for the motion to cut aid in order to change the government's opinion, but rather simply because there is no logical reason why aid should continue. Cutting aid isn't a response to any of Pakistan's actions but a response to its failure in helping out the people - aid has only so far helped the government that is our enemy gain power, not to mention further anger the people of Pakistan.Pro also claims that the current cost of aid is meager compared to current costs in war. This is outweighed by the fact that aid will in fact eventually lead to war. Aid can eventually fill up or appear to fill up so many of a the average civilian's needs such as food, shelter, medical resources, etc, that many local resources are then open for the government to use on war. Mary Anderson writes that "When external aid agencies assume responsibility for civilian survival, warlords tend to define their responsibility and accountability only in terms of military control." [16]Aid can also increase social hostility, lead to bad policies, reduce the accountability of the government to its people, and further prevents people from meeting their basic needs, and therefore gives power to corrupt leaders who exploit their people.[17] This means that continuing to give aid will increase the unstable, hostile government's control over its people and cause more disputes that can involve the United States.With little to no space left, I'll just give a brief reason to as why my opponent's second and third arguments are invalid.In Pro's second argument, he claims that several politicians and diplomats favor more aid. This doesn't amount to anything, since they will eventually be replaced.In his third argument, he explains how eliminating aid will create an enemy. However, Pakistan's government currently already probably sees the US as an enemy. Cutting aid can only lead to more instability in the current government, and hopefully eventually lead to a more stable situation where the US then can pursue its interests with the people.==Conclusion==Although currently Pakistan and the US may be enemies, the hostility can quickly be reduced through further decreasing the current government's power, transitioning the country probably into a more positive environment. Aid at this rate can only hurt both parties. Sources[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk...[2] http://fpc.state.gov...[3] http://www.waset.org...[4]http://www.fightingmalaria.org...[5]http://www.politifact.com...[6]http://www.fas.org...[7] http://www.econtalk.org...[8] http://www.thebody.com...[9] Laurence Jarvik, international relations professor, Johns Hopkins[10] http://www.nytimes.com...[11] http://findarticles.com...[12] http://www.aidspolicyproject.org...[13] http://www.ips-dc.org...[14] http://www.csmonitor.com...[15] http://www.pewglobal.org...[16] Mary Anderson, President of the Collaborative for Development Action, Inc, DO NO HARM: HOW AID CAN SUPPORT PEACE OR WAR, 1999, p. 49-50[17] http://reliefweb.int...