The US should suspend all assistance to Pakistan

At a time when US foreign and fiscal policy are heavily scrutinized, we affirm Resolved: The United States should suspend all assistance to Pakistan. Before we begin, we would like to set a framework for the round. Merriam Webster defines "suspend" as to stop temporarily. This definition does not imply permanency, so the United States would have the option in a later time period to resume assistance if necessary. Moreover, in order to prove if military and humanitarian assistance should be suspended, this round will be best evaluated on a cost-benefit analysis, [taking into account all factors, not strictly monetary.] Therefore, we affirm for three contentions: Contention One: The current assistance to Pakistan is an inefficient, ineffective allocation of resources. Subpoint A: Pakistan diverts the aid away from intended objectives. The New York Times reports that only 12% of the first $1.5 billion of a five-year aid program, targeted towards the Pakistani civilian government, had been dispersed. Pakistan has misappropriated more than double the amount which it has actually distributed to civilians. Citing the BBC, this is also true in the military where over five billion dollars in US aid to Pakistan didn't reach the intended military units and was instead diverted. (Musharaff himself confirmed this) Overall, humanitarian aid seldom reaches the Tribal Areas, which needs the aid the most, due to geographical barriers and an oppressive military. Subpoint B: Neither Pakistan nor the United States benefits economically. Studies from the Woodrow Wilson International Center show that Pakistan's GDP would be affected by only 0.14% by suspending aid. Meanwhile, the US puts in $19 billion for no fair financial return. Despite the billions of dollars invested, US aid doesn't even come close to compensating for Pakistan's losses or our own. Subpoint C: Pakistani authorities have continuously misused aid for their own purposes, undermining U.S. security interests. According to a 2009 report conducted by the Harvard Belfer Center, "The Pakistani military did not use most of the funds for the agreed objective of fighting terror." The BBC reports that when the US gave $10 billion for fighting terrorism, nearly $5 billion was used against India instead. (Musharraf himself confirmed that they diverted it) Over half of the total funds were spent on fighter aircraft and weapons, and 10% on advanced weapons systems, including an 200 million dollar air defense radar system, despite the fact that the terrorists in the FATA have no air attack capability. . . "Pakistan's military and security services have for many years been a black hole for U.S. funds. They have enriched individuals at the expense of the proper functioning of Pakistani institutions and the country's ability to fight its extremist enemies, providing further incentives for corruption." Thus, Pakistan is not a valuable counterinsurgency asset, making this assistance superfluous. Affirming this resolution sets our foreign policy as efficient and one that will not reward bad behavior. Furthermore, the US will have over $4.5 billion in government savings annually to be better invested elsewhere. Contention 2: The suspension of this unnecessary aid would be in line with U.S. Policy objectives. Subpoint A: Lowering the Sponsoring of Terrorism Ironically enough, Pakistan's government has provided weapons and training for numerous terrorist groups over the years. According to the Council on Foreign Relations, most analysts believe that the Pakistani military and ISI [even though the Pakistani army and the ISI [Inter-Services Intelligence] are now more willing to go after militant groups, they] continue an alliance with groups they want to use as a strategic hedge against India and Afghanistan. According to the New York Times, "Senior lawmakers say they have no doubt that Pakistan is aiding insurgent groups." Aid only fuels this objective and perpetuates this problem. According to The Telegraph [on February 27th], "Osama bin Laden was in routine contact with several senior figures from Pakistan's military intelligence agency while in hiding in the country..." Thus, by arming Pakistan we are transitively aiding terrorists. Subpoint B: Investment Opportunities. Pakistan would no longer stand in the way of relations and investment opportunities with India, a more strategic U.S.-alliance according to the Congressional Research Service. At the same time, the United States can still lower tariffs and increase trade between Pakistan. These will assist the flailing economy without the fear of military relations escalating. Contention 3:Aid hinders the United States and Pakistan from moving towards a better future Subpoint A: Military aid to Pakistan discourages democracy. According to previously cited Harvard Belfer Center, "The army has become one of the richest and largest industrial, banking, and landowning bodies in Pakistan despite having repeatedly disrupted the country's political process. As a result of this, both the ISI and the military are dangerously independent from civilian governance." In this decade, U.S. funding for the Pakistani military has bolstered this undemocratic status quo, by directing two-thirds of its budgetary funding to the military [since 2002]. Subpoint B: Foreign aid diminishes government accountability. Foreign aid lessens the requirement for a government to forge a bond with its citizens by raising revenue and redistributing those funds as services. Such a social contract is fundamental to Pakistan's emergence as a robust democracy that provides for its people. According to the RAND Corporation: of 180 million Pakistanis, fewer than 1.5 million pay taxes. This lack of governance induces a reliance on the US instead of self-sustainability. For all these reasons, we respectfully urge a pro ballot. Thank You