Novice Tournament R2: Military aid ought to be prioritized over development assistance in Africa.

ClarificationMy opponent commits a straw man here. I in no way conceded that development assistance is the correct thing for the Sahel region. I simply agreed that there is a crisis occurring. My opponent can continue to provide statistics about the number of people in poverty and the number of people dying of disease, but unless he proves that prioritizing development assistance is the correct response to these statistics, then he fails to negate the resolve.RebuttalsCorruptionFirst, my opponent attempts to underplay the issue of corruption in the Sahel region. He ignores my statistics that, in 2011 alone, $1 trillion was taken from Sahelian treasuries, more than 10 times the total official development assistance that went in. The fundamental problem with development assistance has not been refuted. Next, Josh makes the flawed argument that development assistance (somehow) reduces corruption. In support of this, he uses Senegal as an example, claiming that the United States has recently provided Senegal with development assistance. Well, as my opponent acknowledges, Senegal's problems with corruption are just as bad, if not worse, than ever before. A 2011 Transparency International Report indicated that 88% of Senegalese believed corruption has gone up in recent years, and the Global Integrity Report gave the country a “very weak” rating in government accountability, administration and civil services. [1]. Unfortunately, Senegal is not alone - almost all Sahelian governments, despite generous amounts of development assistance from the US, continue to have rampant corruption, and continue to have money sapped from treasuries. Thus, development assistance should not be prioritized, as development funds almost always go into the pockets of corrupt politicians instead of toward actual development projects.StabilityOnce again, my opponent commits a straw man here. I did not intend to use Afghanistan as an analogy for my entire argument. I simply stated, using a failed highway project in Afghanistan as an example, that development assistance is ineffective in unstable regions. The war in Afghanistan, which my opponent brings up, is trivial and entirely different from the military aid that is being discussed towards the Sahel region. While the war Afghanistan was a 10 year, multi-billion dollar project with hundreds of thousands of troops, proposed military aid to the Sahel is a much cheaper investment, generally consisting of only a few thousand troops over the course of a few weeks. [2]A better example, in my opinion, would be the recent French intervention in Mali. According to the Doha Institute, "2,900 French troops carried out a swift assault on Mali cities occupied by al-Qaeda-led rebels. France' s military intervention has succeeded in achieving its stated aims: ending the advance of Islamist extremist groups, where they could threaten the Malian capital of Bamako; and helping to create the first free Malian election in decades." [2]. Clearly, the development assistance that has been provided to Mali over the last few decades has been wholly ineffective. Only through controlled military aid was France able to drive out radical Islamic groups, ensuring democracy and stability for all Malians.Human Rights ViolationsI agree with my opponent's definition of human rights. Military Aid is instrumental in almost all of these areas. Firstly, rights to liberty and due process, as I explained in Round 2, are directly undermined by the status quo of an inadequate criminal justice system in the Sahel, which is subject to extreme abuse. Increased border security and policing forces, which can only come through military aid, will help to enforce the rule of law and due process. Next, freedoms of expression, religion, organization, and movement are also severely undermined by the status quo. Until recent intervention in Mali, radical Islamists had placed the nation under strict Sharia Law. Essentially, Shria Law is a set of fundamentalist Muslim moral codes that has been criticized for restricting democracy, freedom of speech, freedom to protest, and woman's rights, as well as imposing the death penalty for acts such as homosexuality. [3]. Obviously, jihadist influence in the Sahel region is a main prohibitor of basic human rights, and military aid is the best way to oust this influence - with Mali serving as a prime example.Furthermore, my opponent's claims that "If we prioritize military aid, the economic problems still remain," is simply false. As I showed in Round 3, military aid does, in fact, solve the fundamental problems of the Sahel. In ousting corrupt dictatorships and removing Jihadist influence, businesses will be more inclined to invest and grow in Sahelian nations, which will in turn improve regional economies and create widespread prosperity. But only if Sahelian people are safe from violence will this be a possibility, and safety will only come through military aid and protection.Finally, the claim that "poor development aid is the cause of the fighting..." is not rooted in any fact whatsoever. According to a recent study published by Cait Murphy, a policy analyst and assistant managing editor for Fortune, "We looked at the biographies of 285 suicide bombers as published in local journals, from 1987-2002. And this found that those who carried out suicide attacks were, on the whole, richer (fewer than 15 percent under the poverty line, compared to almost 35 percent for the population as a whole) and more educated (95 percent with high school or higher) than the rest of the population (almost half of whom went no further than middle school). There is simply no data linking poverty to terrorism—the link seems to actually work in the other direction." [4]. The evidence is very conclusive that trying to find abstract "root causes" of terrorism is impossible and ineffective. Only through military aid can we eliminate terrorism in the Sahel region, and that is the conclusion supported by reality.International LawMy opponent's argument that military aid to the Sahel is a violation of international law is based on a false interpretation of national responsibilities. The only reason the United Nations security council would refuse to endorse military aid in the Sahel is because it is often difficult to obtain the necessary votes from permanent members like Russia and China, which are generally opposed to these actions. For example, In the 1999 Kosovo crisis, NATO launched military strikes to stop Serbian ethnic cleansing, despite opposition from Russia, China and a few other members of the UNSC. Although many Western states regarded the action as morally legitimate, my opponent would probably have considered this action "against international law," as it wa techniquely done without UN approval. The fact is, there is a consensus that we have a responsibility to protect populations, such as the Sahel region, from violence, and that when a government fails in this responsibility towards its own people, international action is appropriate. ClosingIn conclusion, military aid absolutely must be prioritized over development assistance. Military aid, according to the vast majority of studies and empirical analyses, is the most effective means of ensuring long-term stability, in helping to drive out radical Islamic influence, ensuring criminal justice, and halting Sahelian drug trades. Development assistance, on the other hand, gives money to corrupt politicians and ignores the fundamental problems of instability. The resolve is affirmed.I would like to thank Josh for an excellent debate.Sources[1]http://back.globalintegrity.org...[2]http://english.dohainstitute.org...[3]http://news.bbc.co.uk...[4]http://money.cnn.com...,