"Resolved: The United States should suspend all assistance to Pakistan"

Resolved: The U.S. should suspend all assistance to Pakistan definitions suspend-To interrupt; to cause to cease for a time; to stay, delay, or hinder; to discontinue temporarily, but with an expectation or purpose of resumption. To forbid a public officer, attorney, or ecclesiastical person from performing his duties or exercising his functions for a more or less definite interval of time. state: a government or politically organized society having a particular character. -Merriam-Webster's Dictionary 1) US assistance to Pakistan has totaled over 20 billion dollars in the past 10 years and it has not been allocated properly. 2) The US should suspend assistance to Pakistan until they become more economically self-sufficient. 3) Stopping assistance will allow us to observe Pakistan to see if the system is working. Framework) You the judge needs to vote this round in favor of the con if we can prove through reasoning that Pakistan is not using the assistance the US gives them effectively. 1) US assistance to Pakistan has totaled over 20 billion dollars in the past 10 years and it has not been allocated properly. The US has provided $20.7 billion to Pakistan since 2002. A little more than two-thirds of that went to military use, the remainder to civilian. The biggest ticket item, at $8.9 billion, is something called "Coalition Support Funds." These are reimbursements for Pakistan's military assistance in the war on terror. The second largest chunk, $4.8 billion, falls under "Economic Support Funds." Most of this has gone to shore up the government's budget, either as revenue or to pay off debt to the US. Much less is spent on seemingly major US priorities: The Frontier Corps, the Pakistani force doing most of the fighting, has received $100 million. Antiterrorism and nuclear nonproliferation efforts: $90 million. "One of the things we should be doing is training the police, but we're not doing it…. Pakistanis are not letting us. They want the Army to do everything," says C. Christine Fair, assistant professor at Georgetown University in Washington.# 2) The US should suspend assistance to Pakistan until they become more economically self-sufficient. U.S. assistance is not a Pakistani entitlement; and Pakistan, which has one of the lowest tax rates in the world, should do much more to generate revenue. American aid should augment, not replace, Pakistani funding. To this end, we should require Pakistani investment in most KLB aid projects, which will ensure that our priorities are aligned. We should accelerate our efforts to help build Pakistan's small-business sector, which will provide most new jobs, and must resist the temptation to believe that trade can replace aid; both are crucial for Pakistan's development. We must also enhance the U.S. government's ability to deliver aid quickly and effectively by recruiting more seasoned technical experts, extending the Pakistan tours of U.S. aid officials and bringing local civil-society organizations and prospective beneficiaries more fully into the design, implementation and evaluation of aid projects. 3) Stopping assistance will allow the U.S. to observe Pakistan to see if the system is working. The resolution never states when or at what time we need to do this. It just states that we should suspend assistance. We cannot keep dumping money into a Pakistan forever. Eventually we need to leave Pakistan alone and let them function on their own. We have been heavily involved with Pakistan for over ten years now and we need to slowly allow Pakistan to run on its own money and its own economy so that we can tell if the last decade has been a waste or not. If Pakistan is not able to function properly without our assistance then and only then will we need to go back into Pakistan and further our assistance to them. For these reasons we urge a pro ballot.