Some Business Interests Hurt NATO's Purpose in Afghanistan

Hello everyone, and especially to my opponent, who I thank for taking this debate in advance. The resolution revolves around the fact that some business interests in the country of Afghanistan are hurting NATO's purpose in the country. I will provide some definitions first, and launch into my argument after. Business: a person, partnership, or corporation engaged in commerce, manufacturing, or a service; profit-seeking enterprise or concern. [1] Interest: to concern (a person, nation, etc.) in something; involve: [2] Hurt: to affect adversely; harm [3] NATO: The North Atlantic Treaty Organization [4] Purpose: an intended or desired result; end; aim; goal. [5] Afghanistan: The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan [6] My opponent, by choosing to accept this debate, agrees to these definitions, and will not argue outside of them. ____________________________________________________________________ The country of Afghanistan has seen its fair share of turmoil over the past centuries. To begin with, during some of its earliest years, Alexander the Great invaded the country in 330 BCE. After Alexander's demise, the former empire that he controlled split into warring kingdoms, fighting among each other. Then, Arabian armies invaded, bringing the religion of Islam to this inhospitable territory, destroying the Buddhist civilization that had grown there [7]. Fast forward to the 20th Century, when Afghanistan was overrun by Soviet forces, and insurgents carried out a bloody campaign to rid their country of them. [8] The area has always known war - there is no doubt about this. Today, Afghanistan is once again under the auspices of war. In 2001, the United States along with several other countries invaded Afghanistan in order to destroy the Taliban, an organization that was harbouring terrorist Osama Bin Laden, claimed author of the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center. In the interest of time, we'll just note that Bin Laden has yet to be captured. In 2003, member countries of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) took over control of the International Security Assistance Force [9]. The stated purpose of NATO's mission in Afghanistan is to "... assist the Afghan Government in exercising and extending its authority and influence across the country, paving the way for reconstruction and effective governance." [9] Since that time, NATO countries have worked to stabilize Afghanistan and keep the government of Hamid Karzai [10] afloat. Unfortunately, due to endemic corruption within the government of Afghanistan, business interests have a hard time investing through the government [11]. While corruption is a major problem within the government of Afghanistan, I will be arguing that in fact, businesses that choose not to go through the government channels and instead through NATO or ISAF channels to set up shop in the country, are in fact hurting the stated purpose of NATO in the country. Point #1: Some businesses refuse to adhere to government programs for investment and development. Some businesses in Afghanistan refuse to go through the proper channels in order to invest in Afghanistan. One of these proper channels is known as the National Solidarity Program (NSP), which is a government-run program that is run by local councils in over 28,000 villages across the country [12]. The NSP is actually known for its endemic*honesty*, as noted by the World Bank report [13]. Councils have been known to post budget reports on school boards [14]. The NSP has proved to be an effective program in Afghanistan, and is known for being one of the least corrupt and most effective development programs. [15] Yet, despite this, some businesses have refused to go through the NSP and decided to set up projects themselves, without assistance or direction from the government. Mohammad Ehsan Zia, Minister of Rural Rehabilitation and Development, has said that many of the parallel projects "... have seriously diluted the effectiveness of development assistance and compromised the legitimacy of government" [14]. Point #2: Because of the lack of business participation with the government, NATO's cause and ultimate goal in the country is hurt. Due to some businesses deciding not to go through government channels to invest and develop areas of Afghanistan, they are weakening the influence of government control over the rural areas. Mohammad Ehsan Zia states that when "... people believe it's the international organization that provide services and infrastructure to their villages — not the central government — this only fuels the insurgency, as the population is frustrated that their democratically elected government is failing to respond to their needs." Because of this problem, stated by a Minister of the Afghanistan government, NATO is feeling adverse affects. The less influence the government can exert over its rural areas, the more NATO's mission is set back. I will remind the voters that NATO's stated mission is to "... assist the Afghan Government in exercising and extending its authority and influence across the country, paving the way for reconstruction and effective governance." Any setback to that mission is a point that supports my argument. I have shown effectively, with sources from the government of Afghanistan itself, that this is the case with businesses that do not go through the government in order to invest and develop rural areas. The resolution is AFFIRMED. Good luck to my opponent. ____________________________________________________________________ 1. http://dictionary.reference.com... 2. http://dictionary.reference.com... 3. http://dictionary.reference.com... 4. http://en.wikipedia.org... 5. http://dictionary.reference.com... 6. http://en.wikipedia.org... 7. http://encarta.msn.com... 8. http://encarta.msn.com... - F 9. http://www.nato.int... 10. http://www.president.gov.af... 11. http://www.globalsecurity.org... 12. http://www.nspafghanistan.org... 13. http://web.worldbank.org... 14. http://www.cbc.ca... 15. http://www.tiri.org... - Page 26 "Conclusion"