Wealthy Nations have an Obligation to Provide Developmental Assistance

I apologize for starting off with rebuttals, but my opponent didn't specify that I couldn't do that! Contention 1: My opponent only pointed out situations where foreign aid failed to develop a countries economy, but disregarded other situations where it was successful. After world war two, much of Europe, Russia and Asia lay in ruin. Starvation and disease were major threats, and needed to be addressed quickly. The effort to redevelop these countries was just as big of a task as the war was itself. But out of the ruins of these decimated countries came two world powers (China, and Russia), three economic powerhouses, (Germany, Italy and Japan). If not for the efforts of the allied nations could Germany, Italy and Japan have been able to develop into the prosperous countries they are today? Fast foward more than thirty years to the war between Russia and Afghanistan. The United States invested alot of money to help the Muja hadine thwart the efforts of the Russians to seize control of the country, however after the success of the Afghan people, the United States did not help them redevelop their flattened country. Without the aid of the US, it was impossible for the people of Afghanistan to redevelop their economy on their own, and lawlessness and extremism reigned. The failure of the US to help redevelop Afghanistan caused a hostile Islamic tribe to seize control of the country and latter they embraced al-Qaeda and let them plan and carry out both attacks on the world trade center. Perhap, if the US had gone through with its obligation to redevelop the nation of Afghanistan we wouldn't have become enemies. I contend that not all foreign aid efforts are a failure, and I've pointed out one instance where lack of foreign aid was disastrous for the US. Contention 2: What are the motives of these "economists"? My opponent states that "Many economists were noticing that an influx of foreign aid did not seem to produce economic growth". Who were these economists, and what were their motives? Were they legitimate trusted economists, or were they radical right wing nuts who jump at any chance they can to undermine foreign aid policy? A little bit of clarification on the part of my opponent would be nice! Contention 3: If corruption can be eliminated, perhaps foreign aid could be more effective. My opponent pointed out many cases where corruption got in the way of effective developmental aid, but as I've pointed out, not all foreign aid efforts are failures. Perhaps if we have better oversite to help distribute aid without letting corruption get in the way of development, but not in a manner of intruding, we could find an effective balance that could lead to effective developmental aid. Contention 4: Some of the cases my opponent pointed out were NOT cases of developmental foreign aid, but humanitarian or political aid! I should point out that my opponent specified "DEVELOPMENTAL" aid, but in the case of Cambodia, the US and many other countries were sending food and medicine to refugee camps outside of Cambodia for humanitarian purposes, so the refugees of the Pol Pot regime wouldn't starve and die, that aid was not intended for developmental purposes. Also, the Reagan administration was sending military aid to the Khmer Rouge with the hope that they could drive the Vietnamese army out of Cambodia and maybe penetrate into Vietnam itself. That aid was most certainly not for the purpose of redevelopment. I think it's worth pointing out the difference between developmental aid and humanitarian or military aid! Admittedly, I'm not as familiar with any of the other cases my opponent pointed out, but I wouldn't be surprised if some of those cases were also humanitarian or military efforts and not developmental aid efforts. Contention 5: EbolaIn 2013 an outbreak of ebola in the countries of Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone caught the attention of the world health organization. Doctors without borders had been trying to tell the world that a horrific pandemic could be at hand if the world didn't help to better develop the medical infrastructure of these countries. The death rate was around 70% for the infected, and it had spread to neighboring countries and Spain, the UK and the US. If I were to say that the ebola virus could have killed off large portions of the global population, that would only be speculation, but if the virus had been allowed to spread freely, who knows what ebola could have done to our global community? This was an instance where foreign aid was critical not only for the affected countries, but for the whole world, because ebola could have affected every corner of the world!