The United States Should Suspend all Assistance to Pakistan

==Introduction==I agree with my opponent that suffering is required in order to achieve the greater good."Aid" hurts the recipientsBoth my opponent and I agree that to win this debate, one must show who will bring about the most possible suffering.Furthermore, all of the benefits of keeping aid (havingPakistan crumble) that I will state now will not be possible if we were to suspend assistance. My opponent hasn't provided any argumentation yet to as how exactly removing aid will harm Pakistan. H. Mahood, a PhD scholar and lecturer writes:"Foreign aid is bad for political process as natural resources become bad for natural resource-rich countries...Foreign aid and natural resources have the common features of exploitation by corrupt politicians." [1].He also writes:"Reinnika and Svensson studied the survey of primary schools in Uganda and found that only 13% foreign aid for education reached to the schools and rest was exploited. Knack documented the pattern of corruption with foreign aid, as aid dependence increased, accountability would decrease, domestic corruption to disburse the aid fund would increase and there would be weak institutions. Knack and Rahman found that the greater the foreign aid with respect to GDP the greater would be corruption levels and weak democratic and bureaucratic performance." [1]As more foreign aid flows in, corruption in the government will increase.Overall, foreign aid has little to no impacts on the countries. Lack of good coordination, high transaction costs, and failing government alignment has led to the undermining of the sustainability of national development plans, the distorting of priorities, and the diversion of scarce resources and/or establishing uncoordinated service delivery systems [2].Peter Heller, a Deputy Director of the IMF’s Fiscal Affairs Department, says:"Maureen Lewis on HIV/AIDS programs notes obvious dependency issues, including a reduced incentive for aid recipients to mobilize domestic resources; the potential for economic agents—whether in the government or the NGO sector—to tailor their priorities to the perceived interests of donors; a reduced pressure for governments to address inefficiencies in how public services are delivered; resistance by governments to a greater private sector role in delivering services; and the potential for increased corruption and rent seeking. Finally, countries relying heavily on aid inflows give up significant autonomy in decision making on budget priorities."Basically, foreign aid takes away from the responsibility of the government, inviting laziness, corruption, and bad decision making. Also, aid allows bad governments to stay in power. "In some circumstances external aid can fill so great a proportion of civilian needs for food, shelter, safety, and health services that significant local resources are thereby freed up for the pursuit of warr. This economic substitution effect of aid has a further political impact. When external aid agencies assume responsibility for civilian survival, warlords tend to define their responsibility and accountability only in terms of military control. Even if they started with a commitment to peacetime political leadership, as the international aid community takes over the tasks of feeding and providing health services and shelter for civilians these military-oriented leaders increasingly relinquish responsibility for civilian welfare. They focus on military ends and, over time, define their roles solely in terms of physical control (and the violent attainment and maintenance of that control). As this occurs, warriors struggling for victory over space and people lose all interest and competence in civilian affairs and become increasingly ill prepared to assume broad, responsible leadership in a post war period" [3]. Self-explainable - aid shifts the responsibility of leaders and allow them to wage war."...development aid can exacerbate social tensions, encourage bad policy making, make governments less accountable to voters, intensify competition for resources, and feed processes of structural violence in a country, ultimately empowering the very elites who benefit from exploiting marginalized segments of the country..." [4/5]. In Rwanda's situation, the aid that was sent directly resulted in a corrupt and genocidal government slaughtering an ethnicity. A study found that reliance on local resources is actually more beneficial then foreign aid [ Aid delivered bythe US Government will only increase rent-seeking and cripple economic development. In fact, aid leads to dependency and hinders the development of the economy. It is likely that Pakistan's condition will improve after we withdraw aid.Pakistan is also not an ally.There are many cases where Pakistan's actions have proved that they are not allies.An example would be the IPI pipeline. The general plan to build the IPI pipeline would strengthen Iran's importance in gas/energy markets in Asia [5]. Pakistan has tried to perhaps even accelerate the building of the IPI pipeline, while the US have demonstrated their obvious opposition to the pipelines [5].Pakistan is also becoming increasingly inhospitable to the US due to drone attacks. The general public has grown hostile towards US attacks, because of the many innocent lives lost [6].Pew Surveys found that 69% of the citizens of Pakistan view the USA as an enemy, and 73% see America as unfavorable. The US public image in Pakistan is obviously bad.Public support for the use of an army to combat extremists have also been steadily declining [7].However, it is not only Pakistan that has been 'unfaithful'. Pakistani leaders have grown angry at America's support of the quickly growing India [5]. Other accounts include the "sale of U.S. military hardware and provision of civilian nuclear technology assistance to India" [5] and Obama's endorsement of a permanent seat in the UN for New Delhi. India is seen as the greatest threat to Pakistan - a majority of 57% [7]. In the eyes of Pakistanis, the USA is teaming up with their greatest enemy. In the end, Pakistan is destined to be our enemy. By continuing to give them aid, we slowly destroy them without ever having to launch an attack.==Conclusion==1) Keeping aid will prolong human suffering (and taking away aid will reduce suffering)2) Pakistan is an enemy, meaning that we wouldn't be hurting an ally.Vote Con ;)Sources:[1] http://www.waset.org...[2] http://www.fightingmalaria.org... [3]Mary Anderson, President of the Collaborative for Development Action, Inc, DO NO HARM: HOW AID CAN SUPPORT PEACE OR WAR, 1999, p. 49-50[4]http://books.google.com...[5] http://www.ips-dc.org...[6] http://www.csmonitor.com...[7] http://www.pewglobal.org...