The united states should suspend all assistance to pakistan

Hello everyone! I hope this debate will be fun, exciting, and entertaining! I negate (The United States should not suspend all assistance to Pakistan). For the purposes of this debate, I offer the following definitions and guidelines: 1. I define "assistance" as any aid that goes to Pakistan's country, government, and citizens, "suspend" as temporarily halt in the near future, and "all" as without exception. 2. The purpose of assistance is both development and furthering of U.S. interests. 3. Because this resolution is for suspending ALL aid to Pakistan, the Con side wins if I can prove there are one or more areas that assistance should be maintained or abolished. Contention 1: Suspending aid would cripple the United States' ability to pursue terrorist groups within Pakistan's borders. According to the Brookings Institution, Pakistan houses "more terrorist groups than any other country." Only through cooperation has the United States been able to capture or kill more Al-Qaeda leaders in Pakistan than in any other country. In light of Osama Bin Laden's death, the pursuit of terrorist groups has grown more aggressive; the U.S. must remain in Pakistan to guarantee its completion. According to the Council for Foreign Relations, "another abrupt cut in U.S. aid [to Pakistan] will only endanger security cooperation that has been effective, if insufficient, in making America safer." Suspending aid could result in the expulsion of U.S. intelligence officers and a lack of involvement in the area, counterproductive to U.S. aims. In fact, as recently as March 20th, the White House press secretary said, "The United States has critical national security priorities that we continue to pursue, including counter-terrorism efforts aimed at Al Qaeda, strengthening Afghan security and supporting Afghan-led reconciliation, all areas where we believe we have common goals in Pakistan." In fact, if the U.S. suspends aid, Pakistan has stated that they will remove 175,000 troops on the Afghan border fighting terrorist groups and other militants. The negative impacts of suspension are tremendous, as the U.S.'s ability to pursue counter-terrorism is essential to both domestic and international safety. Contention 2: Subpoint A: Suspending assistance to Pakistan would hurt Pakistani citizens and United States foreign interests. Education assistance is vital for Pakistani growth and countering extremism. The Heritage Foundation found that, "A strong and effective education system in Pakistan will help ensure that the country steers toward a path of stability, moderation, and prosperity in the years to come," and concluded "U.S. efforts to encourage education reform and development in Pakistan should be consistent, sustained, and multi-pronged." In 2005, U.S. assistance to primary education and literacy stood at $66 million, almost double the amount of spending the previous year. This increase, according to a 9/11 Commission report, occurred because of the importance of "educational opportunity...to uprooting terrorist ideology and increased congressional oversight to U.S. aid programs to Pakistan." As of 2005, the United States Agency for International Development had trained over 16,000 teachers and benefited 367,000 children. According to the American Institute for Research, assistance will benefit 1,000,000 students in the next five years. The negative effects of suspending assistance are twofold: it would incite instability and violence at the cost of educating Pakistani children, while hindering U.S. anti-terrorist and developmental goals in the region. Subpoint B: Recent natural disasters have created a current need for direct assistance within Pakistan. Reuters remarked on February 28th, 2012, that "over five million people in Pakistan still need basic aid such as shelter, clean water, and healthcare six months after floods inundated thousands of villages in the south" after monsoons last August interrupted the lives of 9 million Pakistanis. In the aftermath, there was significant loss in agricultural potential--as 92% of the area's cotton and 81% of the area's sugar cane was destroyed. Furthermore, floods from July of 2010 "disrupted the lives of 18 million people" as well as major industries within the country. Within the same month of the initial flood, U.S. aircraft rescued "3,500 people and transported more than 412,000 pounds of emergency supplies." Prime Minister Yousuf Gilani exclaimed that, "if anyone has practically given us maximum help, it is America." Currently, the U.S. government has given more than $700 million worth of assistance to individuals affected by the floods of 2010 and 2011. However, Pakistan's High Commissioner has said, "It will take at least five years...and more than $10 to $15 billion" to rebuild the country's roads, food supplies, and damaged markets. Suspending relief aid would leave the Pakistani people affected temporarily homeless and without transportation routes, and would stifle textile and food exports from within Pakistan. U.S. assistance is necessary in creating lasting stability and reopening global markets, one of our main goals. Contention 3: Suspending aid to Pakistan would cripple United States diplomacy and geopolitical influence. Subpoint A:If we were to suspend all assistance to Pakistan, the United States would be treating Pakistani nationals differently than we treat nationals of any other country around the world, including individuals from North Korea and Cuba," an inherently unfair system. According to the Pakistani passport, the president of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan directly requests that Pakistani citizens be given "such assistance and protection as may be necessaryï¿½." Suspending all assistance to Pakistan would also stop this aid. The negative impacts of this are twofold: this strains diplomatic relations between the United States and the Pakistani nation, which is strategically located near Afghanistan and Iran. Additionally, Pakistani citizens within the United States and the Pakistani embassy would become alienated, subject to extreme prejudice. Subpoint B: If we were to suspend aid, the United States would lose geopolitical influence in a region key to our interests. Currently, the United States is a major contributor of Pakistani aid. Consequently, if we were to suspend aid to Pakistan, China will move in, and gain political influence in Pakistan. In fact, according to the Wall Street Journal, "Pakistan was lobbying Afghanistan's president against building a long-term strategic partnership with the United States, urging him instead to look to Pakistan and China for help." Considering the fact that China has been a longstanding ally of Pakistan, and is planning to build two nuclear reactors in Pakistan, the United States cannot afford to lose our influence in Pakistan. The impacts of suspending aid are obvious: if we were to suspend aid, the U.S. will lose influence in Pakistan while China, our top competitor, will move in. But these are not the only impacts of suspending aid. In the past, the United States has acted as a mediator between the Pakistan-Indian conflict. However, if we were to suspend aid, because of our loss of geopolitical influence in the region, we will no longer be able to serve as a mediator between Pakistan and India, which will lead to increased conflict between India and Pakistan, decreasing the stability of the region. For these reasons, I urge a negative ballot. Thank you!