The United States should suspend all assistance to Pakistan.

Thank you for the fast response. To start off, in the first round, my opponent claimed that Pakistan actively supports terrorist networks. And they already lead to destabilization of Afghanistan and terrorist attacks in India. I have three problems with the argument. 1. The premise 2. The reason that can be overturned 3. The sentiment behind the statement. 1. No evidence: First, we need to differentiate between the state and the non- state actors of Pakistan. Experts have suspected parts of Pakistani government to have had ties to militants for years now, but have never provided the Pakistani government with any concrete evidence whenever they have requested the same. That America would start expressing its frustrations with Pakistan now is rather telling, and ironic. 2. No clear objectives: US claims that Pakistan is conducting a proxy war through the haqqanis in Afghanistan, a point brought up by Pro. This, they say, supports terrorism. At the same time, US supported Afghan militias, military that the US supports, funds, trains- were accused by the Human Rights watch of “serious abuses, such as killings, rape, arbitrary detention, abductions, forcible land grabs, and illegal raids.” When Pakistan does it, it’s terrorism; when US does it- it supposedly becomes counter-terrorism. What America needs to do is set clear objectives, clear actions it wants Pakistan to enact using the aid given to it. Till 2009, America has given Pakistan the funds without attempting to set particular outcomes against terrorism which it expects. It cannot dish out a bad plan, and withdraw it when it doesn’t work. It won’t work if implemented without accountability, without the major retooling it needs. The assistance was extended keeping a few objectives in mind, withdrawing the assistance would serve anty purpose. In fact, it would serve a negative impact, a disastrous impact on the region. As the February 2011 GAO report suggests, what America needs to do now is improve accountability, planning, monitoring, documentation, basically a better oversight of implementation. I will discuss it in length a little later. http://www.gao.gov... http://www.gao.gov... 3. Abandoning Pakistan would let anti-American-anti-Indian sentiments rum wild: Assistance is influence. America would lose this influence as soon as it discontinues aid. There is a common conception in Pakistan that capturing terrorists, clamping down militant attacks is America’s objectives. It’s America’s interest, and Pakistan is working against its own interests to ‘help’ America. Nearly 6 in 10 Pakistanis consider America as an enemy. Much of the Pakistani media toes the pro- military anti- India line. There were 189 deaths from terrorism-related violence in Pakistan in 2003; this number rose to 3,599 in 2007, and has grown even higher since. Pakistan’s prime minister recently stated that as many as 35,000 Pakistanis had been killed since 2001, and other officials have argued that more Pakistani soldiers have died fighting militants than the number of U.S. troops killed in Afghanistan. Pakistani government estimates suggest that Pakistan’s economy has suffered a loss of $68 billion since 2002 on account of the war. Given the exorbitantly anti- American sentiment in Pakistan, the only reason Pakistan cooperates with America is because of the aid it provides. Suspension of aid would not solve the problem. http://edition.cnn.com... Secondly, my opponent claims that the aid given breeds anti American policies. That is inaccurate, because it is not the aid, but as he states afterwards- the civilians killed in drone strikes. That is entirely understandable. What is not understandable, however, is US receding the aid because of the civilians it has killed in drone strikes. US cannot legitimately kill the citizens of a country, and then reclaim the aid it gives because of the ánti-american sentiments’ that rise due to it. Whjat it should do is improve the targeting of drones, systemize the information system, eliminate the civilian deaths. Eliminating the aid because it kills civilians is not a logically coherent reaction. Lastly, the third contention and the subpoint B of the second contention focuses on poor management of the aid. I discussed the point briefly in the C2 of the first point. The problem here is not solved by discontinuing aid. The problem is solved by managing it, by streamlining the aid. 1. Pakistan needs the aid. And as the KLB concluded in its report, If delivered, the $7.5 billion of U.S. development aid to Pakistan over five years promised by the Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009 would return non-military U.S. assistance to Pakistan, for the first time, to the real levels of the early 1960s, at the height of U.S.-Pakistani engagement. Subpoint B: Economic aid: Rather than improve the image of the US, recent focus on economic and development aid has damaged it. 2. An unstable Pakistan is detrimental to the global world. And to the US. US cannot pretend it has not exaggerated the instability in Pakistan, suspending the aid would be even morally reprehensible- if we take morals into consideration. But focusing only on global politics, it would be a bad step. I would have defended the contentions put forward by me in the previous round, however, the character limit restricts my ability to do so. I would defend them in the next round. Thank you.